Pros and Cons of Selective - Production Underwriter (AMS) Selective Insurance Employee Review

3.0
19 Sept 2017
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

Selective has very good products, knowledgeable people, a good agency plant and many long-term employees. The bonus plans make total compensation rewarding, but the goals are very difficult to meet. Without the bonus, if you are in a production role, the financial reward for the hours/effort that must be expended is not in balance with the requirements of the position. Flexible working environment (ability to work remotely) is a major plus, but can also be a deterrent from feeling connected to others in the company and to knowing what is going on in the company in general.

Cons

Selective has extremely high work loads and goals for production with a large amount of home office oversight/personnel, report writing and little technical support and administrative help. The amount of data is overwhelming, difficult to find and to interpret. Communication from home office to field is poor at times. Many managers have been with company for many years (and with Selective only) and are not open to thinking that there may be a alternate and/or better ways to do things and they are not very inclusive to outsiders who are not long-term Selective employees.

Explore other reviews about Selective Insurance

5.0
17 Apr 2026
Anonymous employee
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

Strong but difficult leadership during transformation.

Cons

Relocation causing some some concern

2
1.0
26 May 2026
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

Decent benefits and decent coworkers

Cons

Working at Selective was a toxic work environment shaped by favoritism, excessive workload expectations, and poor boundaries around employee availability. Management often applied expectations unevenly, which created a lack of fairness and accountability. High performance did not always seem to be the primary factor in decision-making, which undermined trust in leadership. There was also a strong “big fish, small pond” dynamic, where internal status and informal influence often carried more weight than actual performance or collaboration. This contributed to a highly political environment where trust between colleagues was limited and information did not always feel safe to share openly. Employees were expected to be available far beyond normal working hours, creating an unsustainable “always on” culture with no real work-life balance. The workload was consistently too high for the compensation provided. Internal politics further interfered with day-to-day work and made collaboration more difficult than it needed to be. In practice, this environment often encouraged self-preservation over teamwork, which made it difficult to build trust or rely on others consistently. Overall, the environment was not structured in a way that supported long-term employee wellbeing or retention. This is not a workplace that supports a healthy work-life balance. For me, the experience felt unsustainable, and over time it became clear that the environment was not conducive to long-term growth or wellbeing.

2
See reviews by: Helpful|Rating|Date|All