Employers need to re-evaluate their relationship with the military and the profound disconnect that exists between the lip service of “Thank you for your service” and the tangible, material benefits we give to our armed forces and veterans. The reception and perception that veterans often receive by the civilian population is in need of a total overhaul. A Veteran’s Perspective: The Frustrations of Being Valued by Civilian Workforce Hearing gratitude for one’s service does make an impact and has been special to me personally, but I would have much more preferred the chance to show what I could do with my skills in the workplace. I remember when I first separated, I spent most of my days job searching and tailoring my resumes to fit each job description precisely. I had received a few calls back but nothing that led to an interview or job offer. After about three to four months of the same routine, I found myself questioning our decision to separate from the military. My experience helped me land a job, but I found it frustrating that my training in the Air Force was considered null at my new place of employment. Veterans with just four or five years of service are almost guaranteed to have some sort of management/supervisory role when they stay in the military, so starting out at entry level all over again in a civilian job is also somewhat difficult. Some employers do not want to hire veterans for fear they might have PTSD or other performance-limiting conditions. This remarkable stigma exists and is actually a form of discrimination. The prejudice persists even though service members are expertly trained and capable of remarkable problem-solving, teamwork and leadership. Part of the difficulty veterans face is that the civilian work culture is often far different than the one in which they thrived, and often the level of discipline and performance is below their expectations. Whether it’s the Marines, Navy, Army, Air Force or the Coast Guard, veterans count themselves as being part of something bigger than themselves. Assimilating to a new standard becomes all the more difficult when moving into a new field. One veteran shared, “My co-worker showed up 20 minutes late with no consequence. If we were in the service, we would have beat his ass.” Veterans are accustomed to being pushed to excellence, to the boundaries of their abilities to serve an important calling. In the right motivating environment, veterans will bring this level of performance to the workplace. From the initial training and throughout their career, our service members are repeatedly tested to:

• Work together as a team to complete a mission
• Implement efficient procedures
• Quickly overcome obstacles
• Have one another’s back

These skills and many more and the mindset of service for the greater good can benefit an employer in countless ways. Switching From One Battlefield to Another When our warriors move out of military life, those who deployed are sometimes moving from one battlefield to another – that being the battlefield of the mind. For those who return with images and experiences of war, their minds may ruminate on these experiences as they try to process what they experienced. Post-traumatic stress is an understandable reaction to these extreme conditions, though civilians may not have knowledge or awareness of symptoms, and may unfortunately exercise bias against the veteran unknowingly. For others, the battlefield of the mind comes from feeling isolated and misunderstood at home. One minute they are spending 24-7 in a tightly knit unit, the next minute they are surrounded by family and friends who now feel like strangers. Many don’t feel comfortable talking about their military experiences with civilians for fear of being judged. While veterans were well-trained for one battlefield, the military does not adequately train them to battle the demons of depression, anxiety, addiction and trauma. From a mental health perspective, transition inoculation is critical to thwarting the potential negative outcomes of this life change. See also: How to Help Veterans on Mental Health   We provide the greatest military training to our armed services; they are the undisputed elite military fighting force in the world. But what kind of training do we provide for re-entry into to civilian life? The preparation and training they receive is in no way comparable to the pre-deployment preparation, especially in terms of mental health. . A Veteran’s Perspective: Honoring the Warrior in Transition The loss of identity is a big deal in transition, along with camaraderie and cohesion. We think about “Who I was, who I am now, who I am going to be.” We have all these warriors coming back, and we need to find ways to honor them because they are always going to be warriors. The Transition Assistance Program does tremendously important work, and provides critical resources and access to post-service opportunities. However, many veterans have described the process as a one-size-fits-all, death-by-Powerpoint experience. They liken the process of moving out of service as something akin to being released from prison. We can do better. One veteran shared that when he received his benefits manual, it was hundreds of pages thick. He became so frustrated in trying to read through it that he literally burned it. A Veteran’s Perspective: Help Us Translate Our Warrior Skills to the Workforce What would be most helpful would be if organizations on the outside could assist veterans with translating the job skills and experience learned in the service to a language more consistent with that of the civilian workforce. One positive development is Google’s new “Jobs for Veterans” search capability where services members are able to enter their military job codes to identify civilian positions that matched their skills and abilities. This is a step in the right direction. There are many pathways veterans can lead post-service; let’s create the means and conditions where their futures follow the pathway very best for them. Often what is most helpful to veterans in transition is a peer who’s been there. Peers who’ve moved successfully in to new careers can help others behind them find their path. The continuing connection of these peers can offer troubleshooting and moral support when the job prospects are not forthcoming. Veterans can guide one another to employers who are veteran-friendly to help make sure the best and brightest job candidates are well taken care of. A Veteran’s Perspective: Employee Support Group for Veterans It would be so helpful to offer an employee veterans support group. Veterans isolate themselves because they feel others they work with do not understand their experience. Allowing veterans to meet at work will provide a safe environment for them to share current struggles in adapting as well as frustrations with communicating with their fellow civilian coworkers. Imagine being a new employee coming straight out of the military and being able to connect with other veterans at the workplace that have shared similar experiences in serving as well as the difficulties of moving into a new civilian job. Preparing Employers for What to Expect When veterans return home, some reintegrate quickly, putting their training and discipline toward becoming successful entrepreneurs or seamlessly moving to a parallel career path. Others need more help with converting their unique strengths into job opportunities best-suited for them. Often employers need coaching on what a veteran employee can do. Here’s a brief narrative: A good friend of mine, Charlie Shelby, a retired Army captain, shared his experience of trying to find post-service employment with a well-known technology company: Talent rep: “So, Mr. Selby, what did you do while in the military?” Charlie: “I worked in artillery.” Talent rep: “What does one do when they work in artillery?” Charlie: “Well, you blow stuff up.” Talent rep: “Well, we here at [well-known technology company] don’t blow things up. Thank you for your service. Have a nice day.” Charlie did not get the job. Sadly, this experience is not uncommon. A colleague from a job-sourcing company shared that “recruiters see a veteran’s resume and say ‘Oh, you have experience using a firearm; your job opportunities are a security guard or a police officer.’” This limited thinking needs to be turned on its head. How are we going to sustain enrollment in the armed forces, if returning veterans are not treated properly? How are they going to justify encouraging their children to join if they themselves are not receiving the benefits, entitlements and compassion they deserve? We grow accustomed and take for granted the benefits their continued sacrifice provides. All of us move through our day-to-day lives with relative ease and safety due to the efforts of armed service members. They protect our freedoms by facing threats to our safety abroad, and, yet, they face tremendous threats to their safety at home. Work Is Good for Veterans Meaningful work gives veterans a new mission to focus on. While the exact purpose may shift from protecting our country to something new, the discipline and teamwork needed to reach audacious goals is familiar. Veterans’ sense of duty to a larger cause can help them live through the challenges they may experience like post-traumatic stress or other mental health conditions. Veterans need to be needed. The structure of needing to get moving each day can also help veterans’ well-being. A routine in the day of exercising brain and body helps ward off emotional and physical pain. This ebb and flow of work and rest is the rhythm that humans are meant to exist within. Too much idleness is not good for the soul. When work challenges veterans in a good way, they experience “eustress” — the positive side of the stress continuum that helps us continue to grow and learn. See also: New Approach to Mental Health  Finally, working helps veterans establish a sense of community and can offer social support. Belonging is central to mental resilience. When veterans find workmates who help them evolve into their best selves, they thrive. A sense of camaraderie is formed that transcends the immediate task at hand. Building a new part of an identity post military service that extends the self into new self-descriptors beyond “former military” is a critical step in transition success. Together this enhanced self-concept combined with new, supportive tribe increases self-esteem and builds a safety net around veterans, so when times get tough, they have something to keep them standing strong. What to Do if You Are Worried about a Veteran Employee Treat them like any other employees. Don’t assume that because they served in the military they have PTSD, as many are not deployed and many do not see combat. Do assume that they come with a high level of resilience and self-reliance, so they may not readily disclose if they are experiencing hardship. You may need to ask, reassure, refer and follow up. 1. Ask: All employees should have regular mental health check-ups. Workplaces can participate in national screening days for depression, anxiety and alcohol abuse. If a supervisor or other employee is concerned they should ask directly, “Hey, you don’t seem like yourself lately. Are you okay?” 2. Reassure: Employers can create a culture of caring for all employees by reassuring them that “they have their back” if they ever are facing a mental health challenge. 3. Refer: Employers seeking to support veterans should be aware of both veteran and non-veteran mental health services, including:

• Veteran Crisis Line — 24/7 crisis counseling for military, veterans and families.
• Make the Connection — Make the Connection is a free resource with veterans, military families and clinicians who can connect veterans with care for fulfilling, healthy lives.
• Real Warriors — The Real Warriors Campaign is a multimedia public education campaign designed to promote service members' engagement with psychological health treatment. The campaign website offers access to 24/7 live chat, message boards and more.
• Vets4Warriors 855-838-8255 is a 24/7 confidential peer support network for veteran and military communities.
• Treatment Works for Vets — A new website that offers evidence-based treatment for sleep and mood issues that veterans often face.
• Give an Hour — Give an Hour is dedicated to meeting the mental health needs of military personnel, veterans, their families and communities affected by the post-9/11 conflicts through counseling and public education.

Non-veteran mental health resources (like most employee assistance programs) are not usually familiar with military-specific stressers like moral injury, traumatic brain injury, military sexual trauma and parenting/relationships challenges during deployment. Employers might brief non-veteran-specific providers with information on these challenges to help ensure that veterans’ experiences are better understood. 4. Follow up: Once support has been offered, following up is advised. Sometimes referrals don’t work out. Sometimes it’s just nice to know that someone cares. You can say, “I am not sure what is happening for you right now. I just wanted to let you know that I hope I can be that person you feel like you can talk to when things get overwhelming. I know you’d do the same for me.” While it can be challenging to look at issues of distress and despair among our veterans head-on, it is thrilling to consider a future world where our society recognizes and demonstrates our appreciation for their service in a meaningful and material way. A job and career tailored for veterans and their individual skills and abilities allows them every chance for a thriving post-military life. This article was written by Sally Spencer-Thomas, David Maron and Jason Field.

Recently, Insurance Thought Leadership.com ran an article by editor Paul Carroll called “The Future of Mobility Takes a Surprise Turn.” It’s about the emergence in urban, particularly downtown, areas of “micromobility,” aka “scooter sharing.” Some vendors are making electric scooters available, one being a startup called Bird, which reportedly has raised capital at a valuation of $2 BILLION. Another, Lime, has a valuation in excess of $1 billion. Both Uber and Lyft are experimenting with scooters. I live in the Nashville, TN, area, and the (mis)use of these scooters has been a high-profile news story. Visiting my son yesterday, I was amazed by the number of scooters flying by on sidewalks and streets; they created the appearance of a moving obstacle course. Paul’s article cites a Washington Post article about the number of people who are ending up in hospital emergency rooms as a result of scooter accidents, both operators and victims. That is almost certainly going to increase, creating an emergency and significant risk that must be managed. One way to manage risk is insurance. So, what are the insurance implications? First of all, I have no idea what liability insurance these vendors provide, if any, for themselves or operators. In this article, I’m addressing the operators’ and victims' own P&C insurance policies. Because I can’t cite the precise language of every P&C policy in the marketplace, my observations will necessarily be generalized and, I hope, spur inquiries by readers into what liability coverage, if any, is provided by the policies they sell. See also: Will Technology Kill Auto Insurance?   Personal Auto Policies Few, if any, PAPs would provide liability coverage for vehicles not specifically designed for use on public roads. Many policies expressly limit coverage to motor vehicles of the private passenger, pickup or van variety. Medical payments, uninsured/underinsured motorists and no-fault coverages MIGHT apply to someone struck by a vehicle designed for use on public roads, but that depends on the UM/UIM and no-fault statutes or case law in each state. Homeowners Policies Homeowners policies vary significantly in how they treat motor vehicles, but it is probably safe to generalize that most of them will not provide coverage for vehicles that do not service a residence, are not designed to assist the handicapped or otherwise are used off an insured location. In addition, most HO policies have fairly stringent business use exclusions, and it appears that these scooters are sometimes used for business travel. Business Auto Policies While the eligibility requirements of most BAPs are not as restrictive as PAPs, an unlicensed motorized scooter that is not subject to motor vehicle laws could conceivably meet the definition of “mobile equipment,” something that sends us a CGL policy…. Commercial General Liability Policies Motor vehicles not subject to MV laws that are “designed for use principally off public roads” may qualify as “mobile equipment” and may, therefore, be covered under CGL policies. The $64,000 question is whether these vehicles are designed for use off public roads, regardless of how they are operated. See also: The Need to Educate on General Liability Needless to say, we have more questions than answers. Do the policies you sell cover these exposures? Are your customers asking about this?

To get a sense of which companies are innovating well, and which aren't, ITL conducted a major study with our friends at The Institutes, and ITL Chief Innovation Officer Guy Fraker lays out the findings in the second part of his three-part series on innovation. He reports that a growing number of insurers, especially the larger ones, have cleared the first hurdle: They see the need for innovation and have made it a priority. But he also spots problems, based on the survey, based on his extensive consulting work and based on the more than 1,000 hours of interviews that we conducted with executives.

The problems lie on the people side. Too few companies have appointed the sort of small, centralized team that needs to drive innovation. Vanishingly few seem to have figured out how to draw on the resources available to them across the breadth of their operations and may have put themselves in a vicious circle. Companies don't expect their people to be innovative and don't offer rewards for innovation, so people don't offer innovative ideas, which leads their bosses not to trust their ability, which....

As usual, Guy also busts some myths about innovation. Two struck me as especially important:

• The key to innovation isn't, in fact, to think outside the box. It's to think inside the right box, based on your customers, your employers, your capabilities. In fact, constraints inspire innovation and help ensure that ideas will be the kind you can take to market at scale.
• The key to innovation also isn't technology. Yes, AI, blockchain et al. are impossibly cool, and, yes, they will be involved in some breakthroughs, but technology has to serve the innovative idea, not lead the thinking.

I encourage you to read the whole piece. I think you'll get a lot out of it.

Have a great week.

Paul Carroll
Editor-in-Chief

Earthquakes are among the most devastating and economically destructive natural disasters, with the 1994 Northridge earthquake still ranking as the fifth-costliest disaster in U.S. history. Yet unlike other common perils such as floods, fires and windstorms, the overwhelming majority of earthquake risk in the U.S. is completely uninsured. Even in California, the most earthquake-exposed state in the union, only about 13% of residences maintain coverage for earthquake damage, according to the most recent survey completed by the state insurance department. The primary cause of this low percentage is that, unlike those other risks, earthquake coverage is not required to secure the collateral of mortgages owned or guaranteed by the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) known as Fannie Mae (the Federal National Mortgage Association), which accounts for 21% of the $14.99 trillion U.S. mortgage debt outstanding. and Freddie Mac (the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation), which accounts for 12%. This exposure should be of concern to policymakers. Ten years ago this month, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac both were taken into conservatorship by their regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), and were granted a $187 billion capital injection from the U.S. Treasury Department. While each of the GSEs has subsequently repaid its debt to the government, including a 10% return on investment, the Treasury continues to provide financial support through senior preferred stock purchase agreements. Currently, the Treasury owns $200 billion of the GSEs’ senior preferred stock. See also: Spreading Damage From Wildfires   Should a major earthquake strike in the U.S.—as is inevitable—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac both would see the destruction of potentially billions of dollars in structures that serve as collateral for their mortgage portfolios and mortgage guarantees. In addition to requiring direct Treasury outlays to the GSEs, the low takeup rate of earthquake insurance also means that taxpayers almost certainly would be asked to shoulder a disproportionate amount of disaster recovery costs through state and federal disaster aid. The FHFA acknowledges that it does not currently track the GSEs’ exposure to uninsured earthquake risk. This paper seeks to quantify the size of that uninsured liability and to propose a means to transfer these implicit taxpayer guarantees to the private sector. Our data analysis comprises three components:

• Using seismic maps published by the U.S. Geological Survey, we identify 249 counties across 21 states that are substantially exposed to the largest earthquake risks.
• Using property-level databases published by the FHFA, we find that, as of 2016, the GSEs held $355.71 billion of unpaid principal for mortgages in those 249 counties, including $210.1 billion held by Fannie Mae and $145.61 billion held by Freddie Mac.
• Making certain base assumptions about the proportion of principal that is attributable to structural value and regional surveys of earthquake insurance takeup, we estimate the total value of uninsured earthquake-exposed collateral held by the GSEs, as of 2016, is $204.68 billion.

Finally, we propose that Congress move immediately to require a report on risk transfer by the GSEs. Building on their recent credit risk transfer programs, we believe Fannie and Freddie should be required by the FHFA to transfer at least a portion of their earthquake exposure to the private market through a combination of traditional reinsurance transactions and catastrophe bond securitizations. See also: 5 Tips for Avoiding Personal Injury Claims   To finance such transactions, the GSEs should require mortgage originators to assess an appropriate credit charge to take on mortgages in earthquake-prone regions. To provide incentives for property owners, that charge could be waived for properties that demonstrate continuous earthquake coverage or significant investment in seismic retrofitting mitigation. You can find the full paper here.

One noticeable change in the insurance industry over the past 20 years has been the requirement for providers to deal with foreign-language documents in both claims handling and marketing. It makes good business sense to communicate effectively with customers and potential customers whose native language might not be a mainstream one, and it is a feature of the beginning of the 21st century that few nations are now uniformly monolingual. Insurance translation services – the options Most insurance providers opt for a professional translation agency that specializes in insurance. The translation is expected to replicate the accuracy and thoroughness of the original communication. Insurance translators have often worked within the insurance industry themselves or have a good grounding in insurance terminology or a certain field of it, such as medical or legal documents. Insurance providers can basically choose between working with individual translators, translation agencies with human project managers or automated translation job portals. Automated portals have been immensely popular for a few years now. In recent years, however, we have experienced a regression, with abandonment of such automated providers. Here’s why: Translating communication materials Insurance providers have learned that there is good business to be had in adapting their insurance products and the way they communicate information about their products with a new cohort of customers. But insurance, whether it is household insurance, automotive insurance, life insurance or any other insurance service, is a highly specialized industry, and communicating with clients requires specific and precise terminology. It can be hard enough for those whose native language is the same as that of the insurance provider to understand the language of insurance, but the translation must let a customer choose the right plan, understand the terms and conditions of that plan (including the all-important “small print”) and make a claim if they need to do so. See also: 3 Keys to Success for Automation  Working with an individual translator is often not feasible due to the scope of the work, and automated portals are tricky because providers cannot request a specific translator, which creates serious issues with consistency and continuity. The ideal middle way is the human-centered translation agency that can organize a panel of quality translators who collaborate and ensure consistency over time. Even one or two translators leaving does not jeopardize quality and turnaround times, as the translators can easily be replaced within the team. Translating claims-related documents Translation portals often offer no human-to-human interaction. Questions about a translation job either cannot be asked or are subject to a substantial time lag. Smaller translation providers, on the other hand, offer “old-fashioned” email-based customer service, which is often more desirable for insurance provider employees as they have a designated human contact point who can update them on the progress of a project if needed. Time-critical situations that involve the transport of injured clients or even the urgent repatriation of a dead body are common in this field. Support staff are often under a lot of pressure, and direct communication with a translation project manager can help them a lot. A realistic estimation of the turnaround time of a translation is, after all, a lot more helpful than an automatically calculated one that may or may not be realistic. Using an individual sole-operator translator for claims materials is not feasible, as providers ideally want 24/7 or at least 20/7 availability, something easily achieved by a well-managed mid-sized agency but not by an individual. The billing issue Insurance providers often have very specific billing requirements. This can include something as simple as the provision of a case or policy number on an invoice, or the supplier’s ability to upload invoices to a designated supplier portal. Such specific workflows are not supported by large translation portals, where users may be able to download invoices but there’s no guarantee that they comply with legislative requirements or special workflows. Smaller providers, on the other hand, can adjust their invoicing procedures with relative ease. See also: Here Comes Robotic Process Automation   A word about machine translation Although fully automated translation technology is still years or decades away from being used without the need for human input, the use of what is called “semi-automated technology” is certainly now standard. This technology helps to automate and speed up parcels of text that are routine and repetitious. It can build and incorporate glossaries and style guides that streamline translation and provide consistency from one project to another and between translators who may be working as a team on the same project. Good insurance translators and insurance translation agencies, however, always professionally edit and proofread all their translation output before submitting it back to their insurance provider client. Outlook The industry has learned to answer the growing needs of customers who may speak a variety of languages by dealing with claims-related documents in foreign languages. This has resulted in the requirement for an efficient and accurate industry-specific translation service. It also makes the choice of professional insurance translators an important one. It’s either a sole practitioner, a human agency or an automated portal. At least for the time being, humans seem to have won the race.

Beware of those who seek to revise history by erasing or rewriting it altogether. This rule applies to the study of history, as well as the history of a subject such as consumer or construction safety. Indeed, for all the safety features that are now standard features in automobiles, from airbags and anti-lock brakes to seatbelts and side impact beams: If we look at how much safer it is drive, it is even more shocking to learn the history of resistance by car manufacturers to the most basic forms of safety. The same is true within the construction industry, not because of opposition by workers, but because of challenges by insurers; which is to say that, just because a new type of technology increases safety—just because cameras allow a crane operator to see an entire job site—does not mean insurers want to champion the power of sight. This is not an indictment against insurers, but a reminder that change is a matter of small steps rather than a series of giant leaps. It is a matter of education and engagement by the advocates of change, of attendance at seminars large and small, of speaking to convention-goers and going to conferences of regional influence and national importance, of listening, always, and never failing to answer questions. See also: Bridging Health and Productivity at Work   Take Chris Machut of Netarus, whose company develops innovative solutions for overhead cranes, tugboats and construction sites. I mention his name, and commend him for having made a name for himself regarding safety, because too many otherwise avoidable crane accidents happen—like the one on the 17th anniversary of 9/11, at the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center in New York City—in which the inability to see what is necessary puts workers and pedestrians at an unnecessarily high degree of risk. While that accident was not deadly, it was nonetheless responsible for traffic delays and gridlock along the West Side Highway. It was also a reminder that a few degrees separate the safe installation of a steel beam and its collapse against a crane, costing lives and the livelihoods of workers. How, then, can insurers get behind a movement, whose members want to avert danger and stay ahead of possible threats? In so many words: Pay attention. Pay attention, not to perceived problems but to certified opportunities to improve safety. Pay attention to technology that expands visibility and enhances accountability. Pay attention to the agents of change, be they vendors or those who want to better protect a venue, so you can lower costs and boost confidence with current and prospective clients. See also: Agents Must Become ‘Discussion Partners’   Above all, do not mistake an asset for a liability. Not when the technology that ensures safety deserves support from insurers. Not when we can save lives by acting together. Not when the consequence of inaction is a burden we cannot bear and a hardship we cannot meet, based on a pledge we cannot keep. Let us open our eyes to safety.

The following is an excerpt from, "How Customers Buy, & Why They Don't: Mapping & Managing the Buying Journey DNA." I can assure you that this is not another sales process book. It is rather a book of uncovering and decoding an enigma that plagues too many commercial organizations. It introduces a concept I have developed and named Outside-In Revenue Generation. This concept posits that instead of focusing on their own internal view of how to position and sell their offerings, companies must look to the external reality of how their customers actually buy. It is important to realize, and what is in fact the underlying foundation of this book, how Outside-In Revenue Generation differs from the much-used (to the point of clichéd) notion of “customer-centric” marketing techniques. For decades, it has been touted that commercial enterprises can gain the world by being customer-oriented. This probably started with the wise idea that customer satisfaction differentiates one provider from another. From that starting point, few functions of organizations have been left untouched by the movement to consider the customer. From R&D to after-sales service, organizations have adopted more customer-oriented approaches and processes, and no doubt this represents sound thinking. And I’m not suggesting that business initiatives that put a priority on the customer don’t yield results. They should, and they do, but they could be doing so much more. I must say that more recently I have heard people starting to talk about the buying process and buying journey. However, when I dig a little deeper, what I really see and hear are the selling organizations’ thoughts (and hopes and prayers) about what the customer is doing or, more precisely, what the seller would like the customer to be doing. A vendor-centric buying process, if you will. In some cases, I have even seen organizations take their own sales processes and graft on what they imagine or wish their customers would do at each step. Although somewhat laudable, these attempts to define the customer buying journey from the selling point of view have proven to be myopic. They look no further into the customer’s world than laying out the hoped-for reactions that result from their own sales and marketing actions. I call this an inside-out approach because it centers internally on the selling company, its offerings and its own sales and marketing initiatives. This all seemed okay to me until we talked to hundreds of customers about how they buy. It was only by going behind the scenes of the buying process that I found the truth. The Outside-In approach has nothing to do with imagining what customers should do when you sell to them; it defines precisely what customers will do when they are engaged in a buying journey. Our research has proven again and again that a clear and perilous dichotomy exists between these two ways of thinking about how customers actually buy. The basis of Outside-in Revenue Generation is founded on decoding the “DNA” of the target market’s buying process, which then allows us to ultimately map the entire customer buying journey. It lays out exactly how the supplier can apply that DNA mapping to understand how customers will buy a specific offering and what may cause them to hesitate or stop in their overall buying journey. Perhaps for the first time, we fully reveal and discuss how and why customers don’t buy in the manner sales organizations would like them to. Because they certainly don’t follow a buying journey that echoes any sales process I have ever seen. Traditional ways in which to look at the equation of creating customers have simply been too superficial. They may have worked in the past, but in today’s world where customers have unprecedented access to information, where customers are faced with an endless spectrum of offerings, where decisions are no longer made by a single decision maker but by a dynamic network of decision influencers, traditional approaches fall very short of the mark. Arthur “Red” Motley famously said, “Nothing happens until somebody sells something.” Many, including me, have embraced this as a business mantra. But I suggest that we tip this on its head and change it to “Nothing happens until somebody buys something.” Perhaps that sounds a bit chicken-and-egg-ish, but I would maintain that the implications of this mirror inversion of thinking are far from simple and do merit attention. Organization after organization believes the path to sales excellence is to design, implement and manage a great sales process. However, I now realize that no one buys anything because of a sales process. Customers only buy because of their own buying journey. I must make one thing very clear. In flipping Motley’s comment, I do not for one moment want to leave any impression that sales and marketing and indeed salespeople themselves have any less of a role. In any situation other than selling truly commoditized offerings, the salesperson plays as important a role as ever. What I am suggesting though is that, by understanding the customer buying journey, companies can then develop an overall market engagement strategy. This results in an approach that is exponentially more logical and focused than simply turning a sales force loose armed with little more than product information, value propositions and “a smile and a shoeshine.” One of the most enlightening results that our research turned up was finding that buyers within a target market for a specific offering will behave in remarkably similar ways. This meant that we could decode the DNA of that specific journey and then map the complete customer buying journey for that target market. By mapping the buying journey DNA and discovering what is really going on behind the scenes of the buying process, we could see how many organizations were woefully unprepared to engage in creating and keeping a customer. It is also maddeningly ironic to see so many organizations diligently operating and investing in all their other business functions. The vast majority of businesses invariably show constant and careful attention in their manufacturing, operations, finance, distribution and research activities. But when it comes to creating a customer—that is, sales and marketing—they are anything but deliberate and mindful. Perhaps it is because sales functions are often viewed more as an art—often a black art, by non-sales folks—than a science. The underlying malaise, however, is the mistaken logic that the customer will buy the offering based on the seller’s belief in its inherent value while paying scant attention to the buyer’s wants, needs and the real world in which they exist. Throughout the course of this book, I will show how faulty this logic is and consequently how incomplete and wasteful most sales and marketing investments have become. As you will see, the secret to understanding business success in any market lies in closely mapping the target market’s end-to-end customer buying journey. Anyone charged with conducting business must fully understand what it takes to create and keep a customer, and, in today’s world, that means far more than providing a superior offering. "How Customers Buy, & Why They Don’t" is based on many years of research and analysis into how customers really buy. I wrote it to help those concerned with revenue generation and to uncover what they need to move a customer into a buying journey through all the steps to the acquisition and successful adoption of a particular offering. With this book, organizations, probably for the first time, can have a navigation system by which to design and implement truly effective sales and marketing endeavors that will lead to a predictable, scalable and consistent approach to creating and keeping customers. You can purchase the whole book here.

The insurance industry is going through a revolution, and too many carriers, brokers, agents and team members are failing to keep up with the rapid pace of change. Customers have grown accustomed to convenience, a plethora of information and unending choices in whatever they buy, and this applies to the purchase of insurance products and services, too. People expect it to be easy, efficient and understandable. The insurance industry as a whole is miles behind in the race to deliver unrivaled service to customers. To keep up with the radical transformation, insurance professionals must earn the trust of existing clients and new prospects and become their gateway to everything related to insurance and financial services. The path to this transformation is for the insurance agent or representative to become a “discussion partner” — a trusted advisor who guides customers toward optimum financial decisions by offering them every possible insurance and financial services product while disclosing exactly how his or her superior advice works. See also: Important Perspective for Insurance Agents The goal is to convert everyone into discussion partner clients who do not want to be sold or told; rather, they want a consultant who will advise them on the best products, protection and asset-accumulation guidance they need for their families. Looking closely at the not-too-distant future, here are just a few ways the insurance industry will evolve:

• There will be total transparency about coverages and pricing. Customers will know all the details when they purchase property and casualty products, financial services products, life insurance products and more, in much the same way financial services and securities are sold today.
• There will be a convergence of distribution models. Local storefronts will welcome the use of the omnichannel experience, such as digital, after-hours 800-number call centers; claims service; and 24-hour customer self-service through technology or telephony.
• Technology will streamline processes. The local storefront housing brokers/agents and their teams will still provide service and sales at the point of personal interaction, but they will also leverage the power of digital technology and call centers.
• Collaboration will become commonplace. Open architecture — a financial institution’s ability to offer clients both proprietary and external products and services — in both technology and service will force the insurance industry not only to adapt but also to move quickly toward radical transformation.

The key to agents’ survival is that they must provide unrivaled service at the highest level. Nothing else will be acceptable if the local insurance provider is going to be a part of the consumer’s purchasing and reliance on service in the new world. See also: Use Insurtech to Help, not Replace, Agents   So how can carriers, brokers, agents and team members evolve to the “discussion partner” model of unrivaled service? Here are eight strategies for making the transition:

1. Focus everything you do on the customer. The customer is at the apex and the center of every decision, every system and process. Agents must be hyper-focused on meeting our customers’ needs — everything they desire and have every right to expect. This begins with providing unrivaled service as a discussion partner.
2. Create a team of experts. This is usually referred to as specialization, teaming or collaboration of experts. Agents must build a larger and stronger local team through hiring, mergers and acquisitions and strategic relationships.
3. Collaborate with expertise partners. Not every broker or exclusive agent is going to have access to every market today. In the future, with open architecture, everyone will have a view into the competition’s coverages and rates. Until then, creating collaborative arrangements is important. If clients do need and want specialized products and services, referring them to someone else will not be prudent any more. Agents must have relationships with experts in many areas. Agents must be quarterback, sitting in on the coverage presentation and purchase. This means getting to know experts in various fields and working with them, although agents might not always make a commission. Build partnerships before you need them.
4. Embrace and retool all technology. Agents need to assess current capabilities in the area of technology. Everything is moving at light speed due to artificial intelligence. The things once innovative are now commonplace. Agents need to embrace new technologies and use them to create a seamless experience for customers in the front room. Open architecture will introduce new technologies that discussion partner agencies must embrace as they move forward.
5. Control every step of customer service and the purchasing process. This is the foundation for a successful business model in the future. Insurance professionals need to assume the role of the gateway to everything related to insurance and financial services and guide clients through every step of the process. Agents need to remind clients what they do for them and assure them that they are worrying about the details so the clients don’t have to.
6. Help clients declutter. Insurance agents must be the only financial adviser their clients will ever need. Professionals don’t just refer clients over to other experts any more; they make everything easier. An agent’s job is to declutter clients’ paperwork, declutter how many people they are working with and make their lives easier. Life is complicated enough.
7. Be open to change. The tsunami of change happening in the insurance industry is affecting everyone, from the carrier to the broker/agent to the local team member providing service to clients who have never needed it more.
8. Agents should embrace change, not fear it. Yes, they will lose some clients to technology, such as robo-advisers. But we didn’t lose the entire banking industry because of the ATM. The typical client still wants someone to hold his or her hand through the maze of madness in this world.

The auto insurance industry has been experimenting with technology and tools that are completely changing the way we think about cars. Self-driving vehicles, ride-sharing and vehicles that include their own insurance in the sticker price are all recent innovations — innovations whose long-term effects are not yet known. With the rise of autonomous vehicles and ride-sharing came questions about liability and its related coverage: Who will insure self-driving cars? Who is liable in a ride-sharing accident scenario? As vehicle fleets replace individual ownership, who should carry the coverage necessary to pay medical bills, repair costs and other losses in case of a crash? The changes on the horizon have prompted some commentators, like Deutsche Bank’s Joshua Shanker, to predict that today’s auto insurance industry simply won’t exist in 20 years. Is the demise of auto insurance imminent? Is it likely? Here, we explore the pressures on traditional auto insurance and the ways the field may shift in the next one to two decades. Self-Driving Cars: Who Will Insure Them? Self-driving cars are predicted to change the driving habits of entire nations — and to significantly reduce the cost of auto insurance. A 2015 study by Metromile and Ferenstein Wire estimated that self-driving vehicles would save their owners nearly $1,000 a year on insurance premiums on average, according to Gregory Ferenstein. The study was based in part on data showing that, as of 2015, none of Google’s self-driving vehicles had been in an accident caused by the technology, only by human error, reported Adrienne LaFrance at The Atlantic. Since then, there have been notable instances of tech errors leading to accidents, including the March 2018 death of a pedestrian. More on that in a minute. Still, many commentators have drawn the same conclusion from the data: Prevented accidents mean prevented claims, which will reduce premiums. Even big name investors like Warren Buffett have made such predictions with regard to self-driving vehicles, CNBC’s Elizabeth Gurdus reports. See also: Industry 4.0: What It Means for Insurance   The Reality on the Ground Yet the reality may not be so easy to achieve. For one thing, self-driving cars have yet to be tested in the same wide range of conditions human drivers face daily, says Peter Hancock, a professor of psychology and engineering at the University of Central Florida. Seeing how these cars handle bad roads, inclement weather and similar challenges is essential to understanding whether they’ll really replace human drivers — and how to insure them if they do. In 2015, Volvo CEO Håkan Samuelsson said that Volvo would accept “full liability” for any losses occurring when a Volvo vehicle was in full autonomous mode, indicating a future in which liability coverage for self-driving vehicles is a question of product liability, not driver behavior. Yet, to date, other automakers haven’t rushed to join Volvo in making a similar promise. While Google and Mercedes have self-insured, as a rule “auto manufacturers are not that keen on taking on the insurance risk,” says Rick Huckstep at the Digital Insurer. Automakers have spent billions of dollars on developing automated technologies, and “they didn’t do this to then have to carry 100% liability for whatever happens on the road.” Revising Timelines Even if self-driving cars adopt a commercial liability or product liability approach to coverage, thus eliminating the need for individual drivers’ coverage, a 10- to 15-year timeline may still be ambitious, says Simon Walker, group chief executive at First Central Group. The technology, while ever more widely tested, is not yet commonplace. Determining regulatory, licensing and liability questions will likewise take years; attempts to start that process now have met with uncertainties because the tech isn’t in common use. Customers will need to gain confidence in autonomous vehicles, and their driver-required cars will have to age their way onto the scrap heap. All this is unlikely to happen in just 10 years, or even in 20. And with 10 to 20 years, auto insurers have time to adapt. Some have already begun, in fact. Julia Kollewe at the Guardian cites Adrian Flux, a U.K. insurer, which in 2016 announced what it called the first-ever auto insurance policy for driverless vehicles. The policy covers not only the conventional situations other policies address, but also autonomous-vehicle-specific topics like software updates, satellite or navigation system failure and loss or damage from hacking. If this U.K. company can do it, says Julia Eddington at the Zebra, so can U.S. companies, although they may face more complexity due to the overlapping world of state and federal regulations. As of mid-2018, however, 29 states had enacted driverless vehicle liability laws, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, which could pave the way for faster adaptation by existing auto insurers. Improved Safety Features: Are Crash-Proof Cars Possible? Self-driving cars aren’t the only way that technology may end the need for auto accident coverage. Safety technology is improving, as well, and Volvo’s promise to cover liability for its cars while in autonomous mode isn’t the only goal the automaker has set to change the vehicle liability landscape. In 2008, Volvo announced an ambitious plan: to create a crash-proof vehicle that would result in zero injuries or deaths, and to do it by 2020. In 2013, according to Viknesh Vijayenthiran at Motor Authority, and again in 2016, Volvo announced its intention to stay on track to create its injury- and death-free vehicles by 2020. Volvo still has a little more than a year to reach this goal, and its statistics indicate the company is on the right track. Volvo won a 2018 Which? Award in the U.K. for “the company’s solid safety record that put it ahead of other short-listed candidates.” Awards and strong statistics are evidence that Volvo is moving in the right direction when it comes to safety, but until this technology is perfected, insurance coverage remains a necessity — and completely autonomous driving technology still has a long way to go. A Car and Its Coverage: A Package Deal? Tesla is also betting on the safety of its technological advances, and in a way that presents an additional challenge to traditional insurance companies: by including auto insurance coverage in the sticker price of their vehicles. Tesla is experimenting with selling “insurance and maintenance included” vehicles in Asia, according to Business Insider’s Danielle Muoio. The price for insurance and maintenance incorporates Tesla’s data about the car’s safety features, including its autopilot system. By including the insurance price in the car, Tesla says, the company believes it offers a better deal to consumers, because many auto insurance companies don’t account for the autopilot system in the same way Tesla does. Tesla may have a point. “If you’re hoping to shave down your premiums, buying an automated vehicle might not be the right move,” Shift Insurance head of business development Raphael Locsin tells Entrepreneur. However, some companies do consider certain other driver assistance features, like electronic stability, when calculating discounts. Insurance companies’ hesitation may be prudent at the moment. A March 2018 Tesla crash with the autopilot turned on proved fatal for the driver, according to Jack Stewart at Wired. Selling vehicles, autonomous or otherwise, with the insurance included in the sales price offers a hybrid approach between purchasing coverage from traditional auto insurers and placing the burden on automakers to cover their vehicles as consumer products. While Tesla has gambled on the approach, it remains the only automaker to do so; even the products-liability model has had more buy-in from the makers of self-driving vehicles and their technology. “Insurance included” models seem the least likely of the self-driving insurance options to threaten the traditional auto insurance industry in the next two decades. Yet they indicate a willingness of companies to take risks to try new models, which are worth noticing. What to Expect in the Near Future Self-driving vehicles piloted by technology that prevents accidents is a powerful vision of the future. It provides a sense of excitement and hope. It also provides challenges to traditional auto insurance companies, many of which are already struggling with auto insurance premiums in a world where many people have eliminated vehicles from their lifestyles. For a $220 billion industry that supports more than a quarter million jobs, the threat is significant, says Patrick Lin at Forbes. Yet technology’s death knell for auto insurance may not be as close as it appears. Driver involvement in vehicle operation is likely to be a necessity for many more years, and drivers will need insurance as long as they must take the wheel. Human error will continue to be a factor in accidents. And demand for insurance against theft, acts of nature and technological glitches will persist even in a world where cars do their own driving.

Technology is changing at an exponential pace, and so are consumers' expectations of having products and services that come with a digital experience. Perfect example: Our Benekiva team recently rented office space and were shocked by the request of our future landlord to mail two signed copies of the contract. As we were discussing this crazy request and wondering why technology wasn't used to solve this simple problem, another startup complained to me about the same issue. Did we get the space? Yes. Did we have a bad taste in our mouth about the process?  Yes. One of the most memorable projects that I led earlier in my career was when I automated cash processing. Previously, a team of 15 took turns printing mainframe screens. Afterward, they had a searchable database with the data at their fingertips. Before I started digging into this issue, I was advised: “You are working with legacy technology; data is not accessible.” and, “The mainframe replacement project is almost approved. Wait another year.” (Yeah, right. ?) If I hadn’t rolled up my sleeves to dig into available data feeds, this problem would have continued until the mainframe replacement project was finished, which actually occurred 3 1/2 years later. This project yielded immediate benefits of one full-time employee, not including the money and trees we saved by not printing paper every morning. Years later, when I came across the Center for Creative Leadership’s direction, alignment, commitment (DAC) model, the reasons for the project's success became clear. See also: 3 Ways to an Easier Digital Transformation Here is a synopsis of the organization I was working for at the time:

• Innovation was encouraged at the very top of the organization, and it didn’t stay at the senior level. Employees across all salary grades were invited to participate.
• There was a culture of celebration. If employees found a better way of work, they won awards and were recognized.
• Technologists were embedded throughout the business. I was one of the first hires of this kind, and we paved the way for others. My role was to learn the business and find ways to improve processes and automation.
• Data drove decisions. Tasks, people, managers, etc. were measured, which allowed bottlenecks to be seen quickly and a course of action determined.
• Most importantly, there was a strong sense of DAC. Direction was articulated and communicated to ALL levels of the organization by the senior-most person. This individual would make his mission to get out of his office and walk the floors – get to know people and share the vision. There was clear alignment of goals and initiatives. If something didn’t meet our key objectives or targets, it wasn’t a priority. No sneaking in projects. Finally, there was a strong sense of commitment at all levels of the organization.

Here is how the DAC approach turned into success at that organization:

• Relationships. You don’t have to be best friends or go out for drinks, but having a good working relationship can make or break initiatives. I was new in the organization but already had started to form a peer group. I was also involved at all levels of the organization – from the cash processor to leadership. After discussing the manual processing with my IT peers, I was introduced to a mainframe analyst who started looking through data feeds that were already being created. She eventually found one that I could use to build a tool that made the data accessible to the cash processing team. Whether you are a startup working with an organization or an employee, learning the organization and the key players (not every key player is a C-Suite executive) is critical to your success. Don’t get fooled into thinking that, if you have upper-level buy-in, you get the golden ticket. Success is involving essential stakeholders at all levels of the organization.
• Culture. This organization took risks, tried new things and explored possibilities. Technology is often the easy part. Where most failures occur is on the “soft” side of project management. Is your team equipped with the right people to navigate beyond the tech? Digital transformation initiatives are hard. If you are a tech startup working with organizations on their digital transformation initiatives, ensure you have people on the team who can handle the change management side of the house.
• Questions. When you hear a no, take the attitude that the “yes” is around the corner. Ask questions various ways to collect data and information. Don’t be afraid to poke around – what is the worst that can happen? I’ve never seen anyone get fired for asking questions. If you have, then you were working for the wrong organization.
• Collaboration. I involved various teams and departments to solve the cash problem. Soup to nuts, we implemented this solution in less than two months – from discovery to implementation. We had so much buy-in and excitement that we won a teamwork award for this project. It was fun to get to know others, and collaboration allowed other problems to surface that some of this team solved quickly.

See also: Innovation Imperatives in the Digital Age If you are an employee of an organization managing digital transformation initiatives or a startup going in as a vendor, don’t ignore the culture side of your projects. Go in with an open and collaborative mind. As Covey states, “seek first to understand, then to be understood.” Keep building relationships and asking questions. Finally, seek to build DAC. Without direction, alignment and commitment, no matter how much money or resources you throw at the problem, your car is stuck in mud. The wheels are turning, but you aren't going forward.