AIG reviews

AIG has closed their shared services center in Vilnius.

It must be understood that AIG underwent a period of layoffs during Q1-Q2 of 2015 (following laying-off 1,800+ staff over the course of 2014). This affected offices in the Northeastern US, Texas, and Georgia, with 150-200 managerial and staff positions being off-shored to the Philippines and India. The layoffs took virtually everyone by surprise, and no apparent effort was made by AIG to provide “2 week’s notice” or to arrange for an internal company transfer for affected staff/managers. Over time, this has resulted in the following “Cons:” 1. The sudden departure caused by the layoffs resulted in a serious disruption for multiple teams. Negligible effort was made to ensure cross-training of team members on essential tasks and duties performed by the laid-off staff members. Subject Matter Experts, Team Leads, Project Managers, and Information Officers had no time to ensure that their functions could be carried out in the event of their untimely departure. Once that staff was gone, that knowledge base was gone for good. 2. The manner in which the layoffs were carried out has amplified feelings of anxiety and distrust amongst staff and lower-level management. There is a growing suspicion that “they will be next” once the Philippines and India is ready to take on more responsibility. This makes it harder for management to effectively focus the teams on “long-term objectives,” especially when the “short-term” has been thrown into so much doubt. 3. Talent retention has also become a serious issue for many managers. In the wake of the layoffs, managers have reported that their direct reports are making numerous connections with Recruiters and Hiring Managers on sites like Linkedin. When asked, the direct reports merely say that they, “are keeping all options open.” This makes it harder to develop current talent when that same talent is driven to “jump ship” due solely to Corporate-driven initiatives. 4. The Performance Evaluation System (“Relative Performance Review”) has also again been called into question. The layoffs resulted in many with “average” and “below-average” ratings being immediately let go. Now, those who remain who received higher ratings face the real certainty of receiving those same lower ratings. That certainty will only further amplify issues with talent retention and driving longer-term team focus. 5. Achieving the same or similar Performance Evaluation will only become harder, especially with more work and staff being offshored to the Philippines and India. That dynamic will further sap the motivation and drive of the remaining staff, and in fact continue the vicious cycle. 6. The layoffs have lastly resulted in employees reevaluating promises made and broken by management. Prior promises of raises, position title changes, and pay grade increases are being brought to management’s attention, and are being handled in the most denial-riddled ways imaginable (i.e. “I don’t remember that” or “I never said or meant that”).