There is a saying: "Where there is no vision, the people perish." What vision do you have for your future? Is it clear? Is it in writing? Does it have a deadline?
 
My favorite book says, "Write the vision and make it plain on tablets, that he may run who reads it. For the vision is yet for an appointed time; but at the end it will speak, and it will not lie. Though it tarries, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will not tarry."

Let's break this statement down, because it holds the key to preparation.

First, we can begin by writing out our vision and making it plain on paper. If we don't, there is no direction. As George Harrison (among others) has said, "If you don't know where you are going, any road will take you there."
 
Be as clear as possible with your vision. Paint yourself a picture, imagine the possibilities and write them down as clearly and thoroughly as possible.
 
You can really see this with athletes. The winter Olympics just ended, and I’ve noticed over the years that the coverage has grown to include a lot of the pre-competition preparation the athletes perform. 
 
Watching the skiers take the moguls, twists, turns and jumps in their mind over and over again before the start is almost like watching them race before the race. The skaters do it, too. They mentally enter jumps, spins, and leaps before they even begin. 
 
These athletes have prepared their approach, scripted their performance and planned out how they will perform. It is almost as if they have written in their very being and are simply re-reading before they head down the hill or take the ice. They have a crystal-clear vision prepared.
 
Second: “whoever reads it runs with it.” It sounds like once we are clear about our direction we have a reason, and that reason motivates us to take action.
 
These Olympians didn’t just write out that they wanted to make the team, or perform a personal best or win a medal. They took action on their dream by practicing. They worked until their vision was committed to memory and was a part of every decision they made, day in and day out, on the road to these games. They ran with it.
 
Third: The vision waits for an appointed time. How many times do we set a goal with no deadline or timeline on when we want to accomplish it. It happens all the time. If there is no deadline, there is no urgency. No urgency, no action.
 
An athlete can prepare, but if she misses the pre-qualification for the games, or isn't prepared for an event at the right time, she doesn't reach her goals. When you set your timeline, make it realistic and attainable. Set yourself up for success, but don’t be afraid to push yourself at the same time.
 
Fourth: "Though it tarries, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will not tarry." "Tarry" means to remain, stay or to wait. How often to we become impatient for something to happen? I think impatience is one of the great destroyers of success. It's easy to become impatient when nothing is happening.
 
These athletes work up to their level of success, and they don’t give up. They know they can’t just create the vision, rehearse it and work hard for a little while. Hockey players know they have to build up stamina to play an entire game. Ice dancers and freestyle skiers learn to spin before they attempt double, triple, then eventually quadruple jumps. It is a process of improvement, and nothing is left to chance. 
 
A farmer goes out in the springtime and plants. How crazy would it be for that farmer to go out two weeks after he planted and begin to curse the ground because it hasn't produced? It takes time to grow a crop.
 
Also, when does the farmer prepare and plant? He prepares and plants in the spring. Fall is way too late.
 
But salespeople often wait too long to plant, and there is no crop to harvest in the fall. Remember, we reap exactly what we sow. Sales is really simple. Don’t wait around until the last minute and expect to get what you truly want. Prepare. Don’t wait around hoping someone will do that prep work for you and leave you all the benefits. Prepare and persevere for yourself.
 
There is a great movie called Temple Grandin. It is a must-see. Temple Grandin was born Aug. 29, 1947. She was diagnosed with autism in 1950. She didn’t talk until the age of four. Her mother refused to accept or believe what the doctors said about her limitations and about how she should be institutionalized.
 
Temple was constantly mocked--but she went on to become a doctor of animal science, a consultant to the livestock industry and a professor at Colorado State University. She is a best-selling author known for her work on autism advocacy and in 2010 made Time magazine's list of the 100 most influential people in the world; she was listed in the "Heroes" category.

Temple’s mother refused to accept her daughter’s limitations and the labels she was given by society. She continued to push her daughter out of her comfort zone and paint the pictures of opportunity that were available to her. Even though Temple was terrified of change, she continued to walk through what she describes as “doors of opportunity.” Each time Temple walked through a door, a new opportunity would present itself.
 
What door are you afraid to walk through because you are not sure of what is on the other side? So often in life, we are paralyzed by the fear of the unknown. This fear holds us back from achieving our full potential. You see, Temple never wanted to go to high school or college because of the constant teasing and ridicule. She was comfortable staying home with her mother, where it was safe. Yet her mother continued to lead Temple out of her comfort zone. She worked to prepare her daughter for an amazing future.
 
There are more than enough opportunities in the world today.
 
What if your mother doesn’t show up to push you?
 
Are you ready to step up and take the responsibility for preparing yourself for success and caring for yourself?
 
Here it is in a nutshell: Be prepared. 
 
·      Write your vision down on paper.
·      Give it a deadline.
·      Take action.
·      Be patient.  
 
I believe that opportunities come to those who are prepared to receive those opportunities. What can you change today to be more prepared for your own success?

On March 25, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two highly anticipated cases involving the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and competing claims of religious freedom and the access to contraception.

The ACA (also known as Obamacare) requires employers that provide health insurance to employees to cover several types of contraception. Two for-profit employers, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties, object to four of the 20 forms of required contraception, which company owners believe cause abortions.

The penalty for failure to provide coverage for these additional forms of contraception could cost Hobby Lobby upwards of $475 million a year for its 13,000 employees, or almost $37,000 a year in fines per employee.

The key issue is whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), passed by Congress in 1993 to protect the exercise of religion in all but extreme cases, applies to for-profit secular businesses and whether the religious beliefs of the owners can “pass through” the corporate veil and define corporate religious values that may violate a provision of federal law.

The Supreme Court must determine whether Hobby Lobby’s religious practice is “substantially burdened” by the contraception requirement. If so, the government needs to show that there is a “compelling state interest” and that it is using the “least restrictive means” to achieve the goal.

The federal government argues that the ACA is generally applicable to all companies and does not specifically discriminate against companies owned by individuals who object to the ACA on moral grounds. The government also argues that corporations do not have the same rights as individuals to exercise religious beliefs.

Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood are arguing that, because the Supreme Court found in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) that corporations have free speech rights and can spend money in federal elections, then corporations also have religious rights under the First Amendment.

During the oral argument, Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor suggested that the companies could avoid the controversy altogether if they stopped providing health insurance and simply paid the $2,000 per-employee annual tax for not buying health insurance. For Hobby Lobby, that would amount to $26 million a year, far less than the cost of insurance itself.

In response, Chief Justice John Roberts said, “I thought that part of the religious commitment of the owners was to provide healthcare for its employees.”

The Supreme Court is unlikely to come to a consensus on this case, and a split decision is anticipated in June. The court may rule narrowly that corporations can seek an exemption from certain forms of contraception and that further issues along these lines need to be handled on a case-by-case basis. While the Hobby Lobby case may have an impact on the future of corporate law and how broadly free exercise of religion is defined, the decision will not likely have a significant effect on the ACA, which the court previously found constitutional. There will also likely be little impact on how the insurance industry will interpret and apply the law.

I was intrigued if not slightly jealous about the results of a survey of the 3,000 new millionaires from the UK Lottery, and how they spent their money. Among other things, they spent £463 million ($740 million) on new cars, which equates to £155,000  ($249,000) a person. That’s a lot of new metal. I do hope they bought insurance, as well.

Receiving unexpected money can be a pleasurable challenge, and a similar question was asked of UK marketing professionals. According to a recent survey into marketing confidence, conducted by the Chartered Institute of Marketing in the UK, most marketers would use additional funding like this:

• 19% -- Run a new campaign or idea
• 18% -- Invest in brand building 
• 17% -- Increase headcount
• 13% -- Investment in research and insight
• 12% -- Invest in analytics
• 10% -- Develop skills
• 10% -- Top up existing campaigns
• 1% -- Other stuff

I wondered if the questionnaire could have been worded differently. Had it provided the option to "invest in your technology and people, so you have a deeper insight into your customers," the results (from the same data, just regrouping three of the categories) might have been:

• 35% -- Invest in your technology and people to gain deeper customer insight
• 19% -- Run a new campaign
• 18% -- Invest in brand building
• 17% -- Increase headcount
• 10% -- Top up existing campaigns
• 1% -- Other stuff

Would better customer insight influence the decision for a new campaign or topping up of existing ones, or provide better insight into consumer sentiment? Certainly the evidence is that effective use of analytics optimizes the marketing process, and an ROI isn’t difficult to find. 

All this seems to point to a new generation of marketers that is emerging – marketing professionals who are customer-, segment-, channel- and technology-savvy. These marketing professionals embrace technology as the key enabler, rather than feel threatened by it, and are the ones most likely to put more funding into technology and people development, rather than doing more of the "old stuff."    

In the current economic climate, where cost-cutting is prevalent and having additional budget is a rarity, it’s critical that current funds are used effectively. How insurance marketing organizations prioritize their spending is increasingly a critical success factor.

Establishing the right priority is always a challenge, especially where there are multiple stakeholders.

Jerry McGuire simply said, "Show me the money," reminding us all of the need for a solid benefit case. 

George Best, Manchester United and Irish international soccer player, had his own particular view on life and priorities: 

"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered."

This presents a difficult challenge for insurance companies, many of whom have kicked off customer-experience improvement initiatives in recent years. After all, how do you holistically manage the customer experience when you don’t control it in its entirety?

Some carriers skirt the issue by focusing on what they do control—customer touchpoints such as billing, correspondence, 800-line interactions, etc. That’s a reasonable approach to start with, but it has its limits.

The agendas of all the big workers' compensation seminars agree. Controlling costs is the biggest and most pressing issue. Some might say it's the only issue. But I wonder if this emphasis isn't counterproductive….

The regulatory side

From a regulator's point of view, cost control is accomplished by imposing restrictions, by establishing fee and treatment schedules and, occasionally, by providing incentives that encourage the desired behavior. At bottom, the basis of regulation is distrust.

Controls are generally set to make everyone play by a single set of rules that allow the illusion of predictability and fairness.

I say "the illusion" because a clear understanding of the most common style of regulation shows a dysfunctional relationship. The regulator issues a regulation controlling, say, billing by physical therapists. The physical therapists will always collectively understand their business better than the regulator and will soon find a way to "work around" any portion of the regulations that they find objectionable. The regulator will eventually become aware of the "hole" in the regulations. The regulator will then move to reassert control by tightening the regulations, only to start the cycle all over again. 

In the meantime, the regulator comes to believe that the stakeholders (physical therapists in this example) cannot be trusted. The stakeholders have to be ever more closely controlled. When that fails, it "must be" because those pesky PTs are trying to make excess profits; the belief that they are self-serving becomes entrenched. Multiply this phenomenon by all of the various groups of stakeholders and service providers, and you see the atmosphere of "us against them" that is all too common in regulatory circles.

The trouble with this pattern for controlling costs is that it really is a cost driver. Every time the regulations change, two things happen. 

First, the change itself is costly. Computer programs have to be changed. People have to be retrained. Time that used to be spent doing the work of the industry is spent doing the work of the regulator. At the end of the day, the passive-aggressive resistance of the industry will win, and the cost of cost controls will outweigh the savings.

Second, the services to the injured get constrained by the cost controls, and the ability to provide individualized services suffers. One size does not fit all in injury management, and attempts to make it so usually end up fitting virtually no one.

The claims side

When the claims payer tries to impose control costs, the result is a different kind of cost driver. Once again, the whole system is based upon distrust. The claim must be investigated before it is accepted --even though only about one in 20 of the claims reported for suspected worker fraud justifies a finding of illegal behavior.[i1] Rehabilitative services that the research clearly shows are most effective if provided within the first days of the claim are delayed because this claim just might be the one in 20 (or worse, in a cynical attempt to save money by getting the injured worker with a legitimate claim to "just go away.") Unfortunately, the delay of necessary services makes the claim more likely to become complex, more likely to attract the ungentle ministrations of the lawyers[ii], and less likely to resolve uneventfully.

Not only does the delay hurt, but the process of investigating the claim creates its own opportunities for adverse outcomes. Investigation is a statement of distrust. Tell the worker that you question whether she is really as hurt as she claims, and the natural reaction is to push back and try to prove that the injury really is severe. Sometimes, in that process, workers become attached to the belief in the seriousness of their injury, with unfortunate results.

Medicalization of the claim often occurs in the process of seeking a diagnosis. The diagnosis is not necessary for treatment of the injury in many cases – conservative care for, say, lower back pain is the same for the first few weeks whether it has a diagnosis or is just unspecified pain. Yet, because of the payer's distrust of the claim, we routinely get a diagnosis even though that risks losing control of the claim. 

Once the claim has been accepted, the scrutiny and distrust continue, again in the name of cost control. Adjusters and third-party payers have to justify their work, so claims are scrutinized. Frustration, delay and anger may be created in another self-perpetuating cycle of distrust.  

The outcomes of this dysfunction are often visited on the injured worker, in the form of reduced or curtailed injury management and lack of time for patient education that has proven value in durable recovery. 

We fail to realize that many cases of failure to recover as anticipated are caused by distrust, expressed in the system as cost-control measures. Moreover, the evidence is overwhelming that claims with unexplained failure to recover make up a large percentage of the 20% of claims that result in 80% of our loss costs. We might save a few dollars on some claims with our cost-control scrutiny, but at the risk of creating unnecessary complex, long-tail claims. We also risk pushing some of the cases into becoming one of those relatively rare cases of genuine misconduct, as people try to make the system work for them, in any way they can.

So, where are the savings?

A way forward

There are many other ways that cost controls actually become inadvertent cost drivers in the system. I'm not going to belabor the point further, because the important take-away is that an alternative exists. If 20% of claims create 80% of costs, then any efforts to prevent claims from falling into that 20% are heavily leveraged in their cost-savings impact.

If we want durable and sustainable cost control, the first step is to understand the dynamics that allow some people to recover and thrive while others with similar injuries spiral down to despair and dependency. While there isn't the space to discuss that topic here[iii], a better understanding about what helps injured people to avoid becoming "disabled" almost certainly leads to real and sustainable cost savings. And the distrust that currently permeates our systems isn't any part of it.

We created our situation, so we ought to be able to control it. Einstein said: "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex and more violent. It takes a touch of genius – and a lot of courage – to move in the opposite direction." Our current fixation on cost controls certainly makes the system more complex and full of new players eagerly selling us the latest magic bullet. The understanding to move us in the opposite direction also exists, if we can find the internal fortitude to use it.

Recently, I had the privilege of serving as chairman of the inaugural Insurance for Analytics USA conference in Chicago, which was very well organized by Data Driven Business, part of FC Business Intelligence. I am convinced that analytics is not only one of the most valuable and promising technology disciplines to ever find its way into the insurance industry ecosystem, but that its very adoption clearly identifies those carriers – and their information technology partners – that will be the most innovative.

Analytics has exceptionally broad enterprise potential, with the ability to permanently change the way carriers think and conduct their business. The future of analytics is even more promising than most can imagine.

The conference -- where the excitement was palpable -- showed the sheer diversity of carrier types and sizes as well as the many different operational areas in which analytics is being used to drive insight, business outcomes and innovation and create real competitive differentiation. From large carriers such as Chubb, Sun Life, Nationwide, American Family, CNA and CSAA, to smaller insurers including Fireman's Fund, Pacific Specialty, Great American, Westfield, National General and Houston Casualty, presentations demonstrated how broadly analytics should be applied through every function and every level of the organization. Presentations from information technology provider types including Dun & Bradstreet, L&T InfoTech, Fractal Analytics, Megaputer, EagleEye Analytics, Clarity Solutions Group, Dataguise, Quadrant, Actionable Analytics, Earley & Associates and DataDNA laid out the future potential.

Recent research shows that one major application of analytics — predictive modeling — is getting attention in pricing and rating, where more than 80% of carriers use it regularly. However, only about 50% use it today in underwriting, and fewer than 30% do so in reserving, claims and marketing.

Based on information shared during the conference, there are six major thrusts to the analytics trend:

• Analytics liberates and democratizes data, which in turn ignites innovation and change within carriers.

• Analytics is uniting insurance organizations, breaking down information silos and creating collaboration between operating units, even as enterprise data governance policies and practices emerge.

• Investment and M&A activity in information technology companies in data and analytics is surging and will create even greater disruption and innovation as more entrepreneurial thinkers continue blending art with science.

• New "as-a-service" pay-per-use models for delivery and pricing are emerging for software (SaaS) and data (DaaS), which will be appealing and cost-effective, especially for mid-tier and smaller carriers.

• Analytics is driving innovation in products, business processes, markets, competition and business models.

• Carriers will have to innovate or surrender market share and should watch for competition from new players, such as Google and Amazon, which understand data, the cloud, innovation and consumer engagement.

This article first appeared on Insurance & Technology

Insurance regulation has traditionally been the near-exclusive province of the states, a right jealously guarded by the states and secured by Congress in 1945 after the Supreme Court ruled insurance could be regulated by the federal government under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

Any fear that the FIO report would call for an end to state regulation proved unfounded, but industry members might be well-advised to prepare for the eventualities that may result as the FIO uses both the soft power of the bully pulpit and the harder power of the federal government to achieve its aims. As the designated U.S. insurance representative in international forums that more and more mold financial services regulation, and as an arbiter of standards that could be imposed on the states, the FIO and this report should not be ignored.

Having met with the FIO’s leadership team, we believe there are concerns that uniformity at the state level cannot be achieved without federal involvement. We further believe the FIO plans to work to translate its potential into an actual impact in the near future, making a clear-eyed understanding of the report and what it may herald for insurers a prudent and necessary step in regulatory risk management.

Insurers’ numerous intricate reinsurance contracts and special pool arrangements, countless policies and arrays of transactions create a massive risk of having unintended exposure. The inability to ensure that each insured risk has the appropriate reinsurance program associated with it is a recipe for disaster.

Having disjointed systems—a combination of policy administration system (PAS) and spreadsheets, for example—or having systems working in silos are sure ways of having risks fall through the cracks. The question is not if it will happen but when and by how much.

• Cession treaties and facultative management
• Claims and events management
• Policy management
• Technical accounting (billing)
• Bordereaux/statements
• Internal retrocession
• Assumed and retrocession operations
• Financial accounting
• AP/AR
• Regulatory reporting
• Statistical reports
• Business intelligence

The study should at least contain the following:

• A detailed report on the company’s current reinsurance management processes.
• A determination of potential gaps between the carrier reinsurance processes and the target solution.
• A list of contracts and financial data required for going live.
• Specifications for the interfaces.
• Definitions of the data conversion and migration strategy.
• Reporting requirements and strategy.
• Detailed project planning and identification of potential risks.
• Repository requirements.
• Assessment and revision of overall project costs.

• General introduction and description of project objectives and stakeholders
• What’s in and out of scope

• Cession requirements
• Assumed and retrocession requirements

• Interfaces/hardware and software requirements

The transition into your first risk management job can be difficult. Whether your boss promotes you into your first risk management job or hires you from another organization, you want to excel at your new position over the long haul. In part, that means avoiding mistakes. We often learn our best lessons when we fail, but some mistakes can seriously hurt your risk management program, harm your reputation or even derail your career. Here are 10 mistakes you can avoid.

1. Don’t rush in with all the answers. You may arrive wanting to form your own alliances and acquire your own team, but avoid making hasty decisions. Give current employees a chance to prove themselves before you transfer them or hire your own team. The same applies to vendor relationships. You can lose a great deal of knowledge about loss history and coverage negotiation if you immediately decide to switch insurance brokers. “Changing brokers can be a great way to create significant coverage gaps or an errors and omissions claim for your friend the new broker,” according to one Atlanta broker. Some vendor alliances, such as relationships with contractors and body shops, may be long-standing, especially in a small town. Rushing in and making changes can cause big ripples in a little pond.
2. Don’t try to do everything at once. In my teens, I read a book called Ringolevio, about a kid named Emmett Groan growing up in the streets of New York City. One of his compatriots frequently warned Emmett when he was about to rush headlong into a decision, “Take it easy, greasy, you’ve got a long way to slide.” I found that advice very applicable in risk management. If you inherit a big job, you will be faced with hundreds of decisions, some big, some small. Take your time. While you may feel overwhelmed at first, chip away at the organization’s most pressing problems. Put out fires as they arise. Then schedule time for you and your advisers — your brokers, your attorneys, your actuaries and your managers – to develop sound strategies and plans.
3. Don’t use a shotgun, use a rifle. If the organization is experiencing too many injuries, for example, don’t jump to an obvious solution like using more personal protective equipment. Talk with front-line supervisors, study historical loss data and consider several options before you throw money at a problem. Once in the door, interview employees, talk with other managers, meet with your vendors and set a few important priorities for your first six months in the job. Using a rifle approach means you’ll have to say “No” to some people. This can cause problems. When possible, explain why you’re declining to act on the problems or the specific issues others may present to you. The more transparently you operate, the less criticism you will face. Openness reduces speculation and helps avoid resentment.
4. Don’t job hop. Most people can be very ambitious early in their careers. Yet too much ambition can hurt your career. Think long and hard before changing jobs. Bad bosses rarely outlast their employees. Deciding to change jobs because of a conflict with a supervisor is often short-sighted. The grass might seem greener on the other side, but sometimes that’s because of a septic tank (to paraphrase a famous comedian). These questions may help you avoid rash decisions.
   • Am I making the change solely to earn more money or for a more prestigious title? If so, will this change “pay for” what I will lose?
   • Am I making the change because I’m feeling unchallenged or bored? If so, what steps can I take to make my current job more challenging? For example, would becoming more active in a trade association, offering expertise to a local nonprofit or mentoring an up-and-coming risk management professional add challenge and interest?
   • How will this affect my retirement financially? Will I be changing retirement systems, or will I lose significant bonuses or vacation because of the change? Always factor those figures into the salary decision. This question becomes more important as retirement age nears.
   • How will this change affect my family and my coworkers? Our coworkers can turn even a challenging job into an appealing one. Do you really want to leave your coworkers? As for family, what ages are your children? Disrupting school-aged children can have negative, long-term consequences.
   • What are the odds I will regret this decision? Go ahead, we’re numbers people. Put a percentage to your decision, then ask yourself if you’re really ready to take that gamble.

   It takes months to settle into a new job. It’s often a year or more before we feel comfortable. Some studies show that many people who change jobs would have done much better if they had stayed put longer. Change for the sake of change frequently is not positive.

5. Don’t entertain gossip about your predecessors. Some at your new organization may try to build an alliance with you at the expense of your predecessor. Short-circuit these conversations whenever possible. Tactfully turn the conversation to another subject or excuse yourself from the conversation. Try not to make an enemy of the person who is trying to get into your good graces.
6. Don’t revisit your predecessor’s decisions. Especially when working with unions, you may find people lined up at your door asking you to revisit your predecessor’s judgments. Unless your predecessor’s conclusions hurt your overall program, don’t rush into undoing the decisions and the work he or she completed. You may not be operating under the same set of facts or with the same long-term vision that the former risk manager had at his or her disposal.
7. Don’t believe your own PR. Never pretend you know more than you know, and don’t start believing your own “press.” While others may soon invite you to participate on panels and present at conferences, remain humble and teachable. It’s terribly painful to learn humility through humiliation.
8. Don’t fail to communicate. A lack of communication is one of the most damaging mistakes a risk manager can make. A risk manager must have the ear of employees across the organization, from line supervisors to senior management. According to Don Donaldson, president of LA Group, a Texas-based risk management consulting group, “A risk manager needs to be an excellent communicator and facilitate his or her message across the entire organization. In my mind, that requires getting out of the office and pressing the flesh; seeing and being seen and listening, really listening, to determine what is going on in the organization.” Management by walking around is one strong tool in a new risk manager’s tool bag. Once people see that you’re willing to leave your office to discover what is happening, whether it’s on the shop floor or on the sewer line, they’ll more readily accept your expertise and counsel.
9. Don’t get discouraged. “New risk managers may make the mistake of thinking that risk management is as important to others in the organization as it is to them,” according to Harriette J. Leibovitz, a senior insurance business analyst with Yodil. “It takes time, and more time for some than others, to figure out that you're more than an irritation to the folks who believe they drive all the revenue.” Over time, you will prove your value to the organization many times over. Until that day, quietly do your job and find encouragement from your risk management peers.
10. Don’t forget to laugh. You will be privy to the peculiarities of human nature both at its finest and at its worst, so don’t forget to find the lighter side of situations when you can. A robust sense of humor will help you through the rough spots and build bonds with your coworkers.

While these are just a few tips to help you in your new role as a risk manager, your peers probably can offer many more ways to ensure success. Over my career in risk management, I have found my fellow risk management professionals to be some of the most generous people in my life, always willing to share their expertise and provide me with a helping hand. Develop and lean on your network. If this is your first job as a risk manager, you’re in for a wonderful experience. Take time along the way to enjoy the experiences, appreciate the great people you will meet and appreciate the lighter side of risk management.