I was contacted by an executive recruiter at The Cigna Group and encouraged to apply for an expat role because of my previous international experience. The recruiter said my background closely matched the role’s needs, and our initial conversation left both of us feeling very positive about my fit.
It took a little over two weeks to schedule the first conversation due to business travel conflicts on both sides. The discussion was with someone who would be a peer in the expat assignment. I would describe it more as an introductory conversation than a true interview: I was asked to walk through my resume, explain my interest in the role, and share an example of a recent data‑driven decision. These are reasonable questions, but the conversation never really got into the depth of my experience or specific capabilities.
I came prepared with detailed questions about the role and project, based on guidance from the recruiter, who had suggested I raise those topics with the business interviewers. When I did, the interviewer advised me to wait and ask a more senior leader in a later conversation. I also tried to clarify the hiring process, since Cigna’s own interview prep materials say that any interviewer should be able to help answer process questions. The response I received was essentially that she didn’t know and that I should ask recruiting, which came across as dismissive.
After the interview, I sent a thank‑you email to the interviewer and received a warm, positive reply. However, there was no proactive follow‑up from recruiting. After about a week, I reached out to the recruiter and didn’t get a response. Two weeks later, I followed up again to reiterate my continued interest. At that point I was told they were prioritizing hiring a Managing Director for the expat assignment first, and that this person would help with the hiring for my role. That explanation made sense, and I was comfortable waiting, but my request for any rough timelines went unanswered.
Roughly three more weeks passed with no updates. I finally reached back out to the interviewer and was then informed that they would not be moving forward. The message stated that there was nothing negative in the feedback, but that they had decided to proceed with candidates whose experience more closely aligned with what they were seeking.
I found this outcome confusing for several reasons. I had originally been approached because my experience supposedly aligned well with the role. I was never given an opportunity to speak with the hiring manager or any senior leader; my only conversation was a brief, surface‑level discussion with a peer that took over 5 weeks before I got any real feedback on where I stood in the process. The overall process felt opaque and inconsistent with how the opportunity had been framed at the start.
As a candidate, the lack of transparency and communication, combined with generic rejection language, left me with a negative impression of The Cigna Group as an employer. I am now unsure whether I would consider pursuing roles there in the future.
A note to recruiters: The job market is highly competitive, and candidates invest significant time and energy into these processes. Being clear and honest about the role, the interview steps, and realistic timelines helps candidates prepare and shows respect for their time. Ending what began as a positive interaction with a generic, boilerplate rejection message undermines the candidate experience and reflects poorly on the company. When recruiters treat candidates as humans rather than as numbers or requisitions, people tend to walk away with a positive view of the company—even when they are not selected.
