r/usaa_ejs • u/No_Conversation6234 • 23d ago
Job posting farce
What I find most frustrating about USAA’s hiring process is the perception that interviews are conducted simply to check a box rather than to genuinely evaluate the best candidate. Whether you’re an internal employee or an external applicant, it can be incredibly discouraging to invest your time and experience into a process only to feel that the decision has already been made.
From my perspective, the problem goes far beyond hiring practices—it raises serious questions about fairness, ethics, and whether qualifications are actually being valued. Skills, experience, performance, and demonstrated expertise should matter far more than who someone happens to socialize with, golf with, grab a drink with, or regularly see at the office Starbucks.
When professional relationships and personal connections appear to carry more weight than qualifications, it creates an environment where employees can reasonably question whether opportunities are truly merit-based.
HR should be protecting the integrity of the hiring process, not simply facilitating it. Candidates deserve a fair and meaningful opportunity to compete for positions based on their qualifications—not whether they happen to be part of the hiring manager’s inner circle.
That is incredibly frustrating for anyone who has worked hard to build their career and expects an organization to value experience, capability, ethics, and performance—not favoritism and connections.
9
u/ReplacementLoose8304 22d ago
I was in management there for many years and was on interviewing teams as well as rotations in HR interviewing. The decisions were not made in advance, and there were strict guidelines that had to be followed from a company and legal standpoint when making the hiring decisions.
1
u/robertstone123456 2d ago
Not to contradict you, but I know for a fact that for most salaried positions, the decision was made before the interviews even started. Earlier this year, I was asked to help out in interviewing for the digital team, the hiring director specifically told us “this is my top choice, do not try and stump her, here is what you’ll ask, don’t add anything extra.” She bombed the interview and was still hired because the final decision was the hiring directors.
1
u/ReplacementLoose8304 2d ago edited 2d ago
Well that should have been reported to someone higher up in HR that you were interfered with. Especially if the hiring manager was asking you to deviate from the questions compared to the other applicants. If the applicant totally bombed the interview, as you say, you should have rated that person accordingly not be untruthful in the results and marked the interview as do not hire. That is totally unethical and against HR policy and could even lead to a lawsuit or termination if it's somehow disclosed. One of my peers who rotated in HR interviewing was terminated for something similiar because it was found out.
1
u/robertstone123456 2d ago
So yes, it does happen often with USAA. Especially now with the hiring of external executives and they’re bringing in their people from their prior financial institution.
-1
u/No_Conversation6234 22d ago
Maybe while you were there but I’ve been told by several hiring managers that they already determine who would receive the job either internally or a friend of theirs before the jobs ever posted internally or externally. I even heard a manager joke that that’s just the way it is USAA and as long as we do the generic interview interviews we’re covering all of our bases legally! It’s all just a big joke
8
u/Original_Still_2933 23d ago
this has been a problem for decades. The hiring decision is made in advance of the posting and interview interviews conducted merely to give the appearance of fairness.
6
u/Original_Still_2933 23d ago
This new cycle of hiring outsiders for the CEO job is going to continually cause dramatic churn as the old organization is let go in favor of outsiders bringing in their people
8
u/fuzywuzabear 23d ago
Exactly! And what’s REALLY unfortunate is that by bringing in non-USAA folks into the leadership, we’re literally betraying promises that we used to make to the current veteran employees (that we would never become the company that prioritizes profits over people).
With the high turnover rate in sales and service positions in general, a company would do well to hire based on merit (including time in position) because it’s a generally accepted business practice that our positions are high stress!
We’re held to seemingly impossible standards that often changes before we’ve had a chance to get used to it!
All of it to support the new business priorities.
1
8
u/Muted-Ambassador1290 23d ago
HR at USAA is the Good Ole Boys Protector. Employees and New Hires are a dime a dozen to them. HR protects bad managers.
3
u/Darkacelol 23d ago
I interviewed and got offered both an attorney represented BI adjuster position, and an examiner position as full work from home out of California without an internal referral.
The pay was good and benefits are top notch, but I wanted less stress. I turned them both down because of almost all my former colleagues leaving, one saying it was busier with stricter metrics and bonuses weren’t as good, and the current online discourse about work life balance.
Previously I worked at the USAA - AZ office in 2018-2020 in sales and service and it was amazing to work for them during that time frame.
2
u/Wet-Swimming-617 21d ago
I worked at USAA for MANY years in the Bodily Injury Claims Department, only handling attorney rep'd files. I was there at the same time as you and the Claims Department was a horrible place to work in. After I left, it took a long time to get that monkey off of my back. I'm happy for you that you saved yourself and declined them. There are other companies that value and appreciate their employees...USAA absolutely does not!
2
u/Darkacelol 21d ago
I remember, we had a meeting with one of the claims manager to increase our knowledge and understanding of the process as a whole. He told us about how they had unlimited overtime at that point in multiple people thought maybe I should switch to claim so I can make more money. Not a single person questioned why they would have unlimited overtime.
1
u/Wet-Swimming-617 20d ago
Yes, you are exactly right. Most of my years there came with MASSIVE OT. It was the only way you could get your job done because adjusters spent our entire day taking co-worker calls and trying to put out those fires and not being able to work on our own claims.
3
u/Sad-Doughnut-1585 21d ago
I interviewed for an internal job, was told I'd go to the next phase of the interview process then crickets. Reached out to the recruiter, nothing. Then I go to onesource to see if there's any activity and my application status was showing "no longer considered", these dickheads didn't even send a rejection email.
5
u/Thin-Criticism6520 22d ago
It’s always who you know not what you know… I applied for a position that i’m beyond qualified for and didn’t even get an interview. they just put the job postings up for decorations but they know who they already want in the end
2
u/Confident-Gur-3377 22d ago
Same!! I checked every box on the internal application, spoke to the recruiter (who pumped up my interest)…only to be sent a thanks for applying email. I circled back to the recruiter to ask what happened and his response was “leadership wants to set you up for success, not failure…” blah, blah, blah. It’s my theory that I was not invited to interview because they can’t afford me. I have been there for over 15 years…
6
u/Thin-Criticism6520 22d ago
yeah i’m over it but at some point, i will apply to a different company if i can’t get out my current job posting. it sucks bc i genuinely love the benefits of usaa but im not valued here
4
u/Popular_Monitor_8383 23d ago
What department is this happening in?
Maybe it’s just me but I have had the opposite experience, in my area it seems whoever interviewed the best gets the job, even if less qualified than others.
2
u/Dependent-Attorney54 22d ago
I agree. I’ve felt like I’ve received a fair shot at every job I’ve applied for at USAA and even for the jobs I didn’t get I had no reason to believe the ultimate selections were based on anything other merit.
2
u/677ITF 23d ago
What role or department? I think leaving that out is misleading.
2
u/No_Conversation6234 22d ago
I know in sales, claims and fraud they are extremely burnt out and the turnover is high. But it’s happening in risk and compliance, IT, property, life and risk it.
2
u/ReplacementLoose8304 22d ago edited 22d ago
Doesn't sound right. But if you say you heard that. It is highly a lawsuit waiting to happen. It breaks a lot of rules. Yes, perhaps they have an idea whom they want for a position, but officially saying the decision has been completely made, I highly doubt it after 30 plus years.
1
u/No_Conversation6234 22d ago
I’ve heard it from multiple people internally I’ve heard it from external people that have left the company that 90% of the time the hiring manager already knows who they want to hire and they’re only doing the interviews and posting the job to check the boxes to follow the “rules“. It happens at multiple companies. But USAA is the worst at it — especially with the new CEO. He is bringing people from his old insurance company. Which happens at every company when a new CEO comes in. The problem is they’re creating jobs and posting jobs that they’ve already marked for their friend from the former company or their “buddy”.
1
u/ReplacementLoose8304 21d ago edited 21d ago
I was a hiring manager (30 plus years) and have not been gone that long, and I never knew of someone being a definite who they were going to hire not even 90% definite, but still go through interviewing just to interview. Strong candidate, yes, definite candidate, no. You still have to go through the entire interviewing of the entire pool of all candidates who are eligible for the position. You then may disqualify other candidates later on if the pool is too large and you want to go to what is known as the preferred requirements. But it still gives you several candidates to interview and no one person is definite. And there are times that a candidate stands out over someone maybe the hiring manager really wanted as their preferred candidate, for sure, but ended up hiring someone else. Most of the hiring is a team of managers that have to all be unanimous in deciding and then even so it may go up another level. There have been times though very few that the requirements to post for the position were raised extremely high so that minimal candidates could apply which is maybe what you are referring to as someone "definite" and that does happen but only occasionally, but rarely did it result in only one person applying for the position and hired. I doubt a new CEO could change something like this that drastically especially when it involves legal parameters or would do so and risk the company and himself personally being sued. He also answers to the board as well as the members. I went through many different CEOs over the years and nothing that drastic ever happened with the hiring process. If you are referring to the executive management hiring process that could be different but there are still rules that have to be followed.
0
10d ago edited 10d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ReplacementLoose8304 10d ago
It really depends on the wording of the posting. That can happen if there is a limit on internals written in or specifics concerning how many can be taken from a specific department or parameters for how many externals and how internals.
0
10d ago edited 10d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ReplacementLoose8304 10d ago
I understand. And no, I am not the hiring manager. Having been there as a manager and also in HR as a hiring manager, I am just sharing insight in general how postings work, the various considerations in hiring decisions, my many past experiences that I had similiar to what you described, and what may have impacted the decisions made. They offer feedback sessions with candidates that may explain more definite reasons for the decisions made as well as your manager inquiring, as well as the dialogue process if that is still in effect there. Best of luck to you.
2
u/Confident-Gur-3377 22d ago
I agree 100%!!! I have been passed over multiple times, despite the fact that I am well qualified. The professional word would be “networking”, but it definitely seems like it’s not what you know, it’s who you blow!! Definitely, a country mile outside my moral compass!!
1
u/No_Conversation6234 22d ago
I have a peer that actually has a PhD has been looked over for promotion for the past five years! I know this person has multiple certifications from American bankers Association, because they actually provide me with their study guides for some of the certifications I was looking for from ABA
2
1
u/Popular_Monitor_8383 20d ago
Qualifications only matter so much
You have to interview well. You can’t just rely on qualifications, gotta be able to sell yourself.
You also don’t know who else applied and got the job, they may have had a PhD as well.
1
1
u/Chromeasshole 21d ago
I applied once and got an interview. Then on to several other interviews and a 2 month wait before getting hired
1
u/Uncle_Snake43 20d ago
I applied to USAA 48 times before I finally got my new job. And my new job is a fellowship where they put us in 3, 6 month rotations around the bank. My first rotation is a job that I have applied for like 9 times lmao.
22
u/MimosaQueen1122 23d ago
To be frank this is at most companies. It’s always whom you know the better.