CSAV Reviews

Pros

Small company affords opportunity to learn and perform in many aspects of the business.

Cons

Low pay and average benefits. Managers don't manage, they work the day-to-day with no time for strategic thought. Poor hiring practices - put bodies in to fill slots. Little if any positive feedback, but you will know when you've not performed or made an error in judgement. Small "cultural" company with little opportunity to advance. "Owned" agency is poor excuse to keep staff small to maximize profits from Region & Liner side of business.

Advice to Senior Management

Bring quality employees on-board, maximize training, standardize procedures, implement best-practices.

Pros

Good place to get your feet wet when venturing into a job from school

Cons

Poor vision by management, lack of leadership and poor pay masters.

Advice to Senior Management

To learn to trust subordinates and not indulge in pett politics

Pros

CSAV is good for people who did not want to see a lot of changes in the way they do business. Also CSAV is good for those who have strong connections with the company, such as friends or family members working on the senior level of the company. CSAV is best suitable for Chilean staying in the U.S. because the company tends to trust Chilean (their fellow country men) a lot more than any other citizens so that they always have a better access to information and promotions, regardless of the seniority they have within the company

Cons

Not well managed, slow or no growth, limited career advancement opportunity

Advice to Senior Management

Learn outside of the shipping industry

Pros

Organizational Climate is great and there are big opportunities to work abroad

Cons

Compensation is horrible, and upper management denies it with biased industry benchmark studies, as if the information wasn't available online...its a joke.

Advice to Senior Management

You should put closer attention to the people that has key roles in the organization in terms of the rewards and challenges. Most studies prove that replacement is twice as expensive as keeping current staff and it's not a matter of over paying, but a matter of covering minimum necessities that help to focus on the job and not into job market websites.