Pros
Flexible work schedule and support for telecommuting. Some positive moves towards modernization and cost reduction which, if carried out correctly, could remove much of the dead wood, making way for more energetic employees.
Cons
Very poor approach to software development. Lack of methodology in software development, antiquated systems, lack of communication on the part of business analysts and management. Talented developers had a way of turning invisible to middle managers and were thus, forced to look elsewhere for professional and personal development. My middle manager was wholly unresponsive when it came to fulfilling administrative duties. I was treated pretty badly after giving notice. Not so much as a "thanks" and "good job" on delivering a stable set of code that was liked by end users. I don't take personally anymore; it's the way of the big company. But sadly, weak middle managers never seem to learn that they way they treat departing team members is observed by those who remain behind. In short: their behavior demoralizes. Good leadership requires empathy and not just treating colleagues like throw-away disposable wrappers peeled off candy bars. There is very little incentive for anyone to make a long term commitment to an organization that views them as "useful" for short periods of time only. In fairness to AIZ, I think the attitude predominates in any Fortune 500 company, hence the turnover rates in corporate IT departments. The old days of IBM and HP are gone. While at the company, I noticed that some middle managers were able to acquire hangers-on in an effort to bolster their "management" umph. "I have X number of people reporting to me... " Entire teams of people surfing the 'net all day, but some of that is going away with the restructuring/off-shoring/in-sourcing strategy. The company does have talented developers, but middle managers with no development experience hire people often times in order make themselves more important on paper. In fact, improvements in methodology and more forensic work at the beginning of projects would go a long way towards keeping staffing costs down while improving the quality and delivery of software. The software development methodology was rather unique at Assurant. Build the software with weak requirements and specifications, turn it over to the business unit and then spend many months letting them go back in and do a gap analysis/new round of requirements gathering. I have never seen anything like it. One senior middle manager was fairly abusive towards employees and was shameless enough to belittle people in front of others. Women in corporate America tend to get away with so much and it's unfortunate that toxic personalities like hers are allowed to poison the waters. Quite a few people would be happy working at AIZ. It's large and not very agile, so people looking for that kind of steady, slow work life would do well here. New college grads could find mentors among the talented developers (and there are several around). There are however quite a few stresses related to the lack of structure in the software development life cycle. I had one teammate who complained non-stop about having to work until the wee hours of the morning for months on end. These situations should never be allowed to develop since all they do is demoralize teams, further weaken inexperienced middle managers and drive people out the door.