Zurich Services Malaysia Sdn. Bhd. Employee Reviews & Ratings

The salaries are below market

- Is almost impossible to grow past senior - they change the internal rules every year

not a lot of room to grow, lots of people in the same spot for 10-15-20 years

Low salary, there is no equality.

Not easy to become internal. Lack of positions. Narrow range of positions.

Increasing rotation Decreasing loyalty Experts already retired

- Pay not great for work level required - Overtime usually required just to keep on track - Bad progression

Horrible top-down culture For older people with families and mortgages Young or dynamic people should avoid staying longer than 2 years Forced to dress professionally but not seeing customers Not being asked, just told what to do (see point 1)

Low salary and no growth

Really low fix salary, lower than at other insurance companies in Switzerland

as soon as you are close to middle management they make sure you will not get any step further and use all tricks to do so. In general, the company consists of way too many managers, most of them micro-managing their employees

The workload can be a bit redundant and very high especially for smaller branches

The company senior management has an attitude of if you don’t like it leave. Bonus payouts for cost of living isn’t for all staff and a large number are excluded. HR team often make mistakes. Paternity increased, maternity remains the same. Skewed In that as many mothers are primary caregivers, both should have been increased. Large caseloads, extra hours for salaried staff is expected with no overtime option

poor business systems, dreadful in fact.

It platform is undergoing transformation

Financial reporting and reconciliation mostly

It depends on your team’s culture. Can be a hit or a miss for you when you first join.

Low salary compared to the market

Should allow for more work from home

Constant upper management changes Constant transformation changes

Not fully remote, hours, nothing else

High level of internal politics Uncoordinated change Benefits seem to be reducing against market

Slow progress Not very agile in innovation Can be frustrating

Load of work and amount of controls

Not really any Cons at the moment

Long internal processes making it difficult to get things done in a timely manner.

I don’t have any con to be sincere

Can feel pressured to progress in areas with no specific business need

The area that requires additional improvements is the management of claims caseload. There's a strict requirement on immediate follow-up and contact. This would be a more attainable rule if the caseloads were reasonably given to associates. It can create a heavy load on associates and demands a lot of an individual to meet regulations and guidelines on a representative. This can create a negative atmosphere for associates attempting to keep up with communication with insureds and claimants and manage open claim files that require attention.

Pay isn’t as much as other insurers

Time-consuming implementation baselines, slight variety in lunches

No cons to speak of

Average salary Difficult to progress in role Strategy is sometimes very convoluted

Remuneration package is above average, but pales in comparison to what the banking industry offers.

wages and bonuses are not that attractive/lucrative

Large corporation, slow moving at times

Progression for graduates is difficult due to lack of roles Approval for anything takes ages

- older IT systems - high staff turnover

Terrible management, terrible career path, terrible office politics

Long hours within the financial industry

Employee benefits Comnınication Imperative Work and life balance

extended working hours when launching new products

Management sucks and will spit you out as soon as you make one mistake. Chief officers know nothing, not trained. Changes for sake of changes. Too political and looking after themselves rather then the staff and clients

The size of the organisation and relatively conservative outlook means that innovation and taking risks are uncommon. However, this differs significantly by department.

The salary in this particular position is rather low.

The data science team has a chronic lack of experience, and is lead by people without technical expertise. The result is that projects are haphazardly slapped together without any real thought given to use-case, meaning projects drag on for years and often lead to marginal or no impact on the business. Even worse, the lack of technical expertise means that no thought is given to appropriate solution architecture (e.g. projects are "productionised" through shared folders and Excel documents, low-code RPA processes are used instead of actual software), so the often pointless projects also come saddled with a mountain of technical debt, with little appetite from management to fix it, or invest in the people and skills needed to do things properly choosing instead to endlessly rotate graduates and apprentices through the team). There was no code review process, the team had not adopted minimum engineering standards such as appropriate testing or correct use of version control. Appropriate tools are not used for development, because management dictate the solution design, despite lacking appropriate experience. ML engineers are expected to be code monkeys implementing management's poorly-conceived ideas; it is not a good place to learn new skills or develop meaningful experience as an engineer, because there are no experienced people to learn from or work with, and the projects rarely add meaningful value.

- - - - -

Not any come to mind

As many big companies. Change is slow

terrible salary. horrendous higher management driven by their own success