Great benefits overshadowed by poor management and drama - Auto Damage Appraiser GM Financial Employee Review

1.0
May 16, 2026
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

Benefits were better than most companies

Cons

Micromanagement. Lots of drama. Poor Management in the newly formed Damage in Transit team. Inconsistent communications, Processes changed based on what dealer was complaining the most. Ok to pay one dealer and not another with the same claim variables. Manager would work after hours and call us on our personal cells during non- working hours. From what I saw, I would never buy a new GM car until I asked for all the in transit documentation. Don't be fooled by the "GM" in the name. This group is not what you may think they are. Stay away.

Explore other reviews about GM Financial

5.0
May 11, 2026
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

- great culture - good work life balance

Cons

- can be slow at times - lots of regulation

1.0
Jun 2, 2026
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

Competitive compensation and benefits. Exposure to the automotive finance industry. Opportunity to meet and work alongside some talented and hardworking colleagues. Strong brand recognition that can help open doors elsewhere.

Cons

The Strategic Account Manager training program felt disconnected from the realities of the actual role. Much of the curriculum consisted of role plays and exercises that provided little practical value once placed in the field. Market assignments appeared to be made with minimal consideration for individual backgrounds, strengths, career goals, or geographic fit. Employees were often expected to relocate and adapt regardless of whether the market was a logical match. Leadership was consistently reactive rather than proactive. Clear guidance, support, and communication were often lacking until issues had already developed. The culture frequently prioritized appearances over results. Too much emphasis was placed on checking boxes and completing exercises rather than developing meaningful skills. A significant amount of busy work was assigned that added little value and did not contribute to professional growth or market readiness. New hires were expected to "figure it out" once entering their assigned market, despite spending months in a program supposedly designed to prepare them for that transition. The position was marketed as a strategic, developmental opportunity, but the actual experience often felt more like an extended training exercise than a professional role. The program created an environment where enduring unnecessary challenges was often mistaken for development, resulting in a culture that could feel more like corporate hazing than effective employee training. There was a substantial gap between how the role was presented during recruitment and how it functioned in practice.

See reviews by: Helpful|Rating|Date|All