Download

Dare to Be Different: It's the Only Approach That Works

In designing and delivering a Customer Experience Journey, it is important that you have a plan to engage the consumer.  Emotional engagement is the foundation of the customer experience.  People make decisions based on feelings.  A great experience transcends the rational attributes of a product or service (i.e., price).

In today’s dog-eat-dog business environment, it is essential that you develop a strategy to stand out in a crowded marketplace… to separate yourself from your competition.  Simply put, to be different! 

Theodore Levitt, the renowned economist, professor at Harvard Business School and editor of The Harvard Business Review, had the following to say in his 1991 book, Thinking About Management:

“Differentiation is one of the most important strategic and tactical activities in which individuals and companies must constantly engage.  It is not discretionary.  And, everything can be differentiated, even so-called commodities such as cement, copper, wheat, money, air cargo and insurance.” 

Price is the enemy of differentiation.  By definition, being different is worth something.  Consumers are willing to pay a premium, redefine the buyer/seller relationship, erect barriers to the seller’s competitors and establish the seller as a trusted adviser when a differentiated platform offers perceived value in the marketplace.

Research on Brand Differentiation

Even with all of the attention paid to branding these days, more and more companies are being commoditized.  In other words, fewer and fewer are able to differentiate themselves through the eyes of the customer.  Commoditization occurs when the focus of the consumer’s decision is on the offering rather than the quantifiable difference that you bring to the business.  You cannot see commoditization.  However, it can be felt with a negative impact on your confidence, reputation, time, money and relationships.  Brand Keys, a loyalty and engagement research consultancy, analyzed 1,847 products and services in 75 categories via its Customer Loyalty Engagement Index.  It found that only 21% of all the products and services examined had any points of differentiation that were meaningful to consumers.    

So what is missing?  A differentiated value proposition supported by a unique consumer experience.

Differentiated Value Proposition

Value proposition is the reason for your professional existence.  It describes how you create value for others.  It makes you stand out in a crowded marketplace.  Without a compelling value proposition, you are ordinary and disposable – a commodity.  With a distinguished value proposition, you are unique and indispensable. 

Your unique value proposition must summarize the reason why a potential customer should buy your particular product or service, how it exceeds that of your competition and why it is worthy of the price they must pay.  The ideal value proposition is concise and appeals to the customer’s strongest decision-making drivers.  It is an irresistible offer, an invitation that is so compelling and attractive that the customer would be out of his or her mind to refuse your offer. 

Customer Experience Journey

What is the Customer Experience Journey?  It is the sum of all experiences that the customer has with you and your organization … the actions and results that make the customer feel important, understood, heard and respected.  Each and every customer interaction molds and shapes the journey.  While you may take great pride in the “features and benefits” of your offerings, it is important that you assess the degree to which you are stimulating the emotions of those whom you serve.  To accomplish this, you must deeply engage your customer’s emotions in addition to, and even above, their intellect.  You will hit roadblocks unless you are able to form an emotional connection that transcends price and product. 

Emotional connections are essential components of the journey.  Research indicates that more than 50% of the customer experience is subconscious, or how a customer feels.  The self-conscious brain is a fertile garden in which to sow positive seeds.  The mind is highly selective, processing millions of pieces of information each second.  Whether you realize it or not, you are touching the subconscious in each step of the Customer Experience Journey. 

In designing and delivering a Customer Experience Journey, it is important that you have a plan to engage the consumer.  Emotional engagement is the foundation of the customer experience.  People rationalize personal decisions first but make decisions based on feelings.  A great experience transcends the rational attributes of a product or service (i.e., price). 

Cecil Beaton, the English Academy Award-winning costume designer, said: "Be daring, be different, be impractical, be anything that will assert integrity of purpose, emotion and imaginative vision against play-it-safers, the creatures of the commonplace, the slaves of ordinary."

Dare to be different?  You bet! 

Google and Insurance

The future is unfolding before our eyes. We must open them wide and embrace a future that reimagines and reinvents the business of insurance.

Google has really ratcheted up its innovation momentum over the past two to three years by broadening its digital, mobile, and data presence and, in doing so, has raised the potential impact on the insurance industry.

Google continues to push forward, moving well beyond its platform for searches, marketing, and advertising and embedding its technology into the lives of every person, gathering new data to use in innovative ways.

In early 2011, Google acquired BeatThatQuote.com, a U.K. aggregator for auto insurance and, a year and half later, followed with the launch of a new auto insurance comparison site, Google Advisor. Then there are the developments coming out of Google[x] Labs, the R&D and innovation lab for groundbreaking projects.

The first of many head-turners affecting the insurance industry was Google Cars, the pioneer driverless car. The validity and momentum of driverless cars was underscored by three announcements at the recent North American International Auto Show. The first was the rapid development and introduction of driverless prototypes by traditional car manufacturers. The second was the state of California announcing the start of testing driverless cars on the roadways in 2014. The third was the creation by Google of the Open Automotive Alliance (OAA) to promote the use of “open standards of innovation,” urging standardization on the Android operating system in automotive technology and enabling automakers to use a “platform-centric” approach to help drive innovation, make cars safer and intuitive and create a great, reliable customer experience.

Also coming out of the Google[x] Labs last year were Google glasses as a “wearable device.” VSP, the nation’s biggest optical health insurance provider, just announced it would be offering subsidized frames and prescription lenses for Google glasses, making them available to the mass market within a year. Expanding on this concept, Google recently announced the development of “smart” contact lenses that can measure the glucose levels in a diabetic’s tears, making the monitoring of blood sugar levels possible in real time and far less invasive. The prototype contact lenses use tiny wireless chips and glucose sensors built into the lenses that measure blood sugar levels every second.

Finally, there is the announcement that Google is acquiring Nest Labs, a startup technology company that creates and sells “smart” thermostats and smoke alarms with sensors and Wi-Fi connections, helping to manage the heating and cooling of homes, while learning more about the home and users’ behaviors. 

When the capabilities represented by these Google R&D announcements, alliances and acquisitions are combined with Google’s existing capabilities for information search and mapping technologies, a whole new set of opportunities and challenges emerges for insurers.

Google’s innovations are transforming it from its foundation as the premier search engine to achieving its vision of organizing the world’s information and making it universally accessible and useful. What makes this especially interesting is Google’s approach to three things. The first is data and technology. The second is location. The third is people. Put together, Google is organizing data, technology, and location around people, creating a new level of customer empowerment and customer-centricity unparalleled in any industry, let alone insurance. That is powerful! 

This is why the implications for insurance are so great; this is an outside-in, customer-driven approach to innovation that is causing insurers to reimagine and reinvent a technology-enabled future. The new approach will affect all lines of business in insurance from P&C to life and health to every aspect of the enterprise … fundamentally changing the insurance value chain!  

For those insurers operating with the long-standing approach of waiting to roll with the changes by taking a wait-and-see attitude, the pace of technology change puts that approach into serious question and creates risk. Instead of asking, “How can technology help run my business?” insurance leaders should be asking, “How can technology help reshape my business?”

The future is unfolding before our eyes. We must open them wide and embrace a future that reimagines and reinvents the business of insurance. 

Protecting Your Corporate Reputation

Since 2010, there has been an outbreak of “new and improved” reputation insurance policies from name-brand insurance carriers like Zurich (Brand Assurance), AIG (ReputationGuard), Munich Re (Reputation Insurance) and a number of Lloyds syndicates, including a standalone reputation policy produced by Steel City Re.

A company’s reputation, which is core to its profitability and long-term competitiveness, faces new challenges as information speeds blindly through online media and social networks. Lanny Davis, former assistant to President Clinton on crisis management and principal in Lanny J. Davis & Associates, recently noted that, in the age of the Internet, “you never get a second chance to change a first impression. Once your reputation is smeared and your character unfairly attacked, the eternal misinformation echo chamber of the search engine allows the harm to continue eternally, unless you fight back -- early, with all the facts, often yourself -- until the truth gets in the way of the search engine lies.”

When a corporate reputation is tarnished, a company can lose its trust factor; investor confidence is weakened; and a company’s share price can be reduced.  In extreme cases, a damaged reputation can lead to a company’s downfall. “Hackgate,” “Rupertgate,” or “Murdochgate” -– names given by the press to the News International phone-hacking scandal – led to the demise of News of the World newspaper.

Let’s make a list of some leading triggers to reputation failure: 

  • unethical behavior such as Sears’ management team’s unrealistic performance quotas for its car repair business, which led to overbilling and created a scandal in the 1990s.
  • financial irregularities, such as those that led to Enron’s bankruptcy.
  • executive misconduct, such as the conviction tied to insider trading that led to Martha Stewart’s resignation.
  • environmental violations, such as Nike’s exploitation of workers in sweatshops, failure to provide work environments that are safe and contact with cotton factories using slave labor—issues that dogged Nike through the 1990s and beyond.
  • safety & health product recalls, such as followed allegations of “unintended acceleration” in Toyota cars.
  • security breaches, such as the recent one at Target in which tens of millions of people had credit-card data stolen.

In other words, much as Murphy’s Law says:  “Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.” 

What should a corporation do to protect its reputation? 

  • Use your CEO: Fred Smith, FedEx’s legendary founder, is a good example.  A good CEO embodies and reiterates a company’s values, code of ethics and vision.  Your CEO regularly communicates honesty and transparency and is trusted with your corporate reputation. 
  • Perform an S.W.O.T. analysis: Identify your company’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. 
  • Develop a corporate reputation strategy:  Johnson & Johnson is still reaping reputation benefits more than 30 years after its swift and sweeping recall of Tylenol and institution of tamper-proof packaging after some maniac laced some pills with cyanide and put them in bottles on store shelves, killing seven people.
  • Monitor your reputation online.  Constantly check social media sites and your own website. No company can afford to be reputation-blind, and no suit of armor is impenetrable.
  • Be honest, factual and open with the media. 
  • Create a plan to manage an unexpected crisis.  Execution is the cornerstone. Train everyone on identifying the crisis, what to do and who gets contacted.   Preparation is essential to managing potential and actual crises in a timely fashion.  Communication is no longer one-way; it’s now two-way. 
  • Evaluate the purchase of corporate reputation insurance. For 20 years, the insurance industry has known that how a company manages a reputation crisis will have a dramatic impact on the cost of civil litigation arising out of that crisis.  For this reason, insurance purchased for the risk of shareholder lawsuits, directors and officers insurance, has from time to time included an option to purchase, or included automatically, “crisis management” insurance. This reimburses the company for the cost of crisis management expert fees up to a set amount, usually $50,000 to $200,000.

However, since 2010, there has been an outbreak of “new and improved” reputation insurance policies from name-brand insurance carriers like Zurich (Brand Assurance), AIG (ReputationGuard), Munich Re (Reputation Insurance) and a number of Lloyds syndicates, including a standalone reputation policy produced by Steel City Re.

Some carriers emphasize reimbursement of crisis-management expenses while others are more geared toward reimbursing a company for a loss. Finding the right one, or right combination, can be challenging, but they are worth a look.

Be sure to check out Thought Leader Ty Sagalow's recent appearance on New York News!

New York News

Data, Analytics and the Next Generation of Underwriting

2014 marks an opportunity to use technology, data and analytics in innovative ways to achieve excellence in underwriting. Homeowners insurance will be an especially fertile area.

There appears to be violent agreement that 2014 is the year of advanced technology, data and analytics in insurance. Of course, these kinds of prognostications don’t sneak up on anyone. A convergence of growing organizational eagerness and sophisticated tools is allowing momentum to build for the next generation of underwriting to emerge.

Market dynamics are always an important factor in what ultimately makes the cut from strategic planning to implementation. The investment environment, increasing regulatory pressure and rising costs are influencing a more analytical approach to underwriting to increase profitability. With its historically volatile performance, homeowners insurance will be a particular focus in personal lines this year, as carriers adopt new approaches to drive profitability through underwriting.

2014 will provide a focus on shoring up the foundation needed to enable insurers of all shapes and sizes to become more analytically driven. And while carriers make progress, securing the necessary talent needed to succeed is a growing and industry-wide concern.

HOMEOWNERS IN THE SPOTLIGHT

Shifting Focus Toward Homeowners, Following Trends in Auto Market

Analysis of the auto insurance market proliferated at the end of 2013, with some declaring pure direct writer Geico the inevitable winner in the “battle of the titans” against Progressive and other major players because Geico is unencumbered by an agency force. Time will tell if that’s the case, but one thing is clear: Scaling profitable market share in auto can only be done by technology focused and analytically driven carriers, with substantial marketing resources.

The trends in the auto market foreshadow what other lines of property and casualty insurance will face in 2014 and beyond, most urgently in homeowners. Consumer demand for online shopping increases pricing competition and customer-acquisition costs and at the same time lowers retention rates – the combination of which can squeeze margin for carriers that do not have advanced pricing tools. This dynamic forces insurers to sharpen their pencils and produce strategies to differentiate their brands and gain a competitive advantage. For carriers not as advanced as the larger auto carriers, the dynamic can represent fundamental shifts in their business and operating models.

Partially because of continuing market share consolidation and pricing stagnation in auto, there is increasing focus on homeowners insurance. A recent report by Aon Benfield shows 15% growth in direct written premium for homeowners between 2009 and 2012, compared with just 6.5% for direct personal auto premium. With the historical volatility and poor performance of the homeowners line of business, a number of new underwriting approaches are entering the market. At the same time, the industry is adapting to a changing consumer and regulatory landscape.

Consumer Demographics Changing the Game

“Show me the money (i.e., discounts), give me all the info I need wherever I am and in real time, and make sure your customer service is stellar or I’ll write up what a horrible experience I just had in 140 characters and share it instantly with all my friends.”

Exhausted yet?

The Millennial generation, at 77 million strong, demonstrates very different buying behaviors and demographic patterns than previous generations. These young consumers are having a notable impact on personal lines insurers. They primarily choose urban living, with very little difference between those who are parents vs. non-parents, according to a study from the American Public Transportation Association. They are less likely to drive cars and prefer multiple modes of transportation. In fact, a study from USA Today shows that Millennials are less concerned about owning either a home or a car.

This budget-conscious generation is reacting to the dismal economy and job market they encountered upon entering the workforce, as well as the significant levels of student loan debt many of them carry. They are much more sensitive to taking on long-term debt and minimizing monthly expenses. Because they have a job-scarcity mentality, Millennials value being unburdened in case they need to relocate for their career.

These trends also affect home building. While the news about housing starts is promising (up 22.7% in November 2013), real estate developers are responding to the Millennial generation’s desire for high-density urban living and hesitancy to commit to a mortgage – at least for now. While no one can predict how the home-ownership trend will play out for the long term, the insurance industry needs a product mix and customer-service approach that meets the needs of this demographic population.

KNOWING WHO AND WHAT YOU INSURE

Advancements in Advanced Data & Analytics

Traditional property inspection methods being used today only deliver an actionable result 25% of the time, which means 75% of inspections are a waste, according to a Claims Journal study. This ineffective use of resources isn’t sufficient to address the profitability issues that have plagued this line of business for years. In fact, since 1990, the homeowners industry has only experienced four years with combined ratios below 100. To combat the high combined ratios, carriers divide losses into two categories – catastrophe and non-catastrophe – and continually perform analyses to determine what characteristics about a home, the insured and the weather have the greatest impact on controlling losses.

Again, the auto insurance industry shines as being out in front of the P/C market with usage-based insurance and data collection on individual behavioral attributes. While it’s still an uphill battle for consumer adoption, the technology momentum is here to stay. Insurers are leveraging new data sources and analytical insights to improve their strategic approach to marketing, underwriting and claims.

For the full white paper by Valen on this topic, see their website.

4 Keys to Competitiveness in the New Economy

To reduce your risk, you must begin with an assessment of all of your hiring practices.

This post is the first of a four-part series.

Ask any business owner today how the marketplace has treated them the last few years, and you’ll hear a recurring theme: “It’s been hard.” But some have learned how to improve their risk management and shore up several facets of their business where profit leaks can occur. You can explore your own vulnerabilities to claims and correct them by following a system known as “PX4.”

The 4 P’s are:

1. Pre-Hire : What does your hiring process look like?

2. Post-Offer: What should you be doing after you’ve offered someone a job?

3. Pre-Claim: What policies and procedures do you have in place before you have your next loss (whether via workers’ compensation or something else)?

4. Post-Claim: What systems do you have in place to keep yourself and the insurance carriers from losing money because of things you let fall through the cracks?

We’ll cover the first P in this article, then discuss each of the other three in subsequent pieces, as we cover the concept of TCOR (Total Cost of Risk) and lay out tools you can use to streamline and organize various aspects of your business, such as training and claims management. Our goal is for you to take away several insights that could save your company hundreds of thousands of dollars or maybe even millions of dollars in lost profits and revenues.

Pre-Hire

If you’ve had to deal with an employee lawsuit in the past few years, you know they’re frustrating and lead to a major loss of profits. Lawsuits can come from many issues; for this series, we’ll cover lawsuits coming from EEOC issues or workers’ compensation claims.

In the last 10 years, the settlement costs of lawsuits have risen to more than $310,000. If you were sued by one of your employees, and the settlement was a mere $15,000, how much do you think that would cost your company? Would you be surprised to learn a claim like that would cost your company more than $50,000? If your profit margins were 4%, it would take you $1,250,000 in additional sales to make up for that loss.

Reducing your risk is critical to your bottom line. Business risk can take many forms, such as:

1. Financial Risk: Asset price volatility (currency, interest rates, material and labor costs)

2. Operational Risk: Efficiency, productivity, etc.

3. Hazard Risk: Lawsuits, insurance claims (workers’ comp, general liability, fire, etc.)

Of those three areas, companies are surprised to learn that operational risk is the costliest to companies. Although hazard risks are expensive, they can be transferred through the purchase of insurance policies.

To reduce your risk, you must begin with an assessment of your hiring practices. Do you feel like you have a watertight system in place, or have you gotten rusty because you’ve not been doing a lot of hiring in the past several years? Do you feel you’re using good employment applications and asking appropriate questions?

What successful companies realize is that the effectiveness of their hiring can be a great indicator for profitability in the future. Studies have shown that hiring the wrong person can be very costly, and not only from the loss of productivity or from having to find a replacement; bad hires can be fertile ground for workers’ compensation claims.

To avoid bad hires, it is always wise to request a Motor Vehicle Report on potential hires from a vendor who specializes in that service. A couple of good sources are the Insurance Information Exchange (www.iix.com) or LexisNexis Employment Screening (www.screennow.com).

You may also want to consider conducting a personality profile to make sure you don’t hire the proverbial “dog that can point but that can’t hunt”—someone who can tell you exactly what you want to hear but who isn’t a good fit for your company. Predictive Results (www.predictiveresults.com) and Zero Risk HR (www.zeroriskhr.com) are two companies that specialize in personality profiles; they claim a 96% success rate in helping you make sure you’re hiring the best person.

Back ground checks have become a routine part of the pre-hire process these days. You can contact First Advantage (www.FADV.com), Edge Information Management (www.edgeinformation.com) or National Crime Search (www.nationalcrimesearch.com ) for this important process.

Getting the Pre-Hire process right will get you moving in the right direction but is just the start. In our next post, we’ll look at the second part of the “PX4” plan – The Post –Offer process. 

A Dangerous Misunderstanding on the Reinsurance Broker's Role

Many insurance companies act as if a reinsurance broker is a fiduciary working for them. This approach provides for a direct conflict of interest that the company ceding responsibility is often totally unaware of.|

Reinsurance represents one of the most valuable but least understood assets for insurance companies. Unfortunately, it is sometimes, without much further consideration, assigned to be monitored by someone at the insurance company who is not savvy about reinsurance and who has other, primary job duties. As a result, by default, it can be the broker who sold the program who is left to advise management on such important issues as recovery, premium calculations and interpretation. Many insurance companies act as if the broker is a fiduciary working for them. This approach provides for a direct conflict of interest that the company ceding responsibility is often totally unaware of. Deferring reinsurance oversight to the broker is not an appropriate course of action.The misunderstood relationship with the broker

A recent court case (Workmen's Auto Insurance Co. v. Guy Carpenter & Co., B211660 (c/w B213853)) specifically determined that the reinsurance broker does not owe a fiduciary duty to a reinsured company. The court rejected the company's argument that the broker, as the company's agent, had heightened duties including those of honesty, loyalty, integrity and faithful service, as well as a duty to make a full and fair disclosure of facts.

It was asserted that the broker breached its duty by failing to secure timely payments, failing to secure the best available terms of reinsurance and acting with the intent to injure the company by incurring inflated commissions. The court said the question was whether the broker was the company's agent and, if so, whether that agency imposed fiduciary duties on the broker as a matter of law such that the broker can be held civilly liable for breaching those duties.

The court said that an "independent insurance broker is not an agent of the insurer, but rather is an agent of the insured." But the court also said that a broker "cannot be sued for breach of fiduciary duty in a manner that conflicts with existing insurance law. In reaching this conclusion, we confess that agency law and insurance law are in conflict, resulting in a legal conundrum."

The company suggested to the court that case law and statutory law involving insurance brokers should not be applied to reinsurance intermediary-brokers because they have far more complex and comprehensive relationships with their clients. The court responded that such an argument should have been brought up sooner and ultimately allowed the broker to prevail because of procedural rather than substantive issues.

Comparing the relationship of an insurance broker with an insured to the reinsurance broker's relationship with a reinsured is amazingly naïve. Somehow, it escaped the court's attention that the reinsurance transaction is not strictly regulated, and that applying the same rules to a relatively non-regulated transaction was inappropriate at best. Perhaps the court believed that insurance case law developed in a vacuum, and that it was not tempered by regulatory oversight and legislative consumerism.

Still, the author assumes that the court would apply its same "(il)-logic" to other reinsurance brokers.

The aha moment

The broker itself defines "broker" as a reinsurance intermediary that negotiates contracts on behalf of the reinsured. Yet the broker says it does not have the traditional duties imposed in the agency-principal relationship.

The attitude by the broker is, in my opinion, the single biggest takeaway for companies ceding management of their reinsurance. It is confirmation that is incorrect to believe that your broker owes you the duties of honesty, loyalty, integrity and faithful service as well as a duty to make a full and fair disclosure of facts, and that it is acceptable for brokers to generate inflated commissions. It is now been made clear that, when push comes to shove, the standards to which your reinsurance broker is held are not really a whole lot different than when you are buying a used car, where statements made concerning the sale are considered "puffing"; just an opinion or judgment that is not made as a representation of fact.

Companies that delegate reinsurance risk management to a broker may themselves be breaching fiduciary duties to stakeholders. That is, while the case concluded that the broker does not have a fiduciary duty to the reinsured, courts are quick to confirm that officers of the reinsured do have a fiduciary duty to the reinsured.   Obviously, officers cannot meet their fiduciary duties by assigning those duties to someone whom the court has found to have no fiduciary obligation to the reinsured.

I do not fault the particular broker in its defense. The issue is not the particular broker in the case or brokers in general; the real issue is the willful ignorance of the reinsured. Not questioning the motives of the broker is naïve. Remember, the broker, like the used car salesman,  makes his money based on how much comes out of your pocket in the sales transaction.  Risk management requires truly understanding the environment in which you operate.

The above case is not unique in bringing to light the ignorance of courts concerning reinsurance. Judges have been known to throw up their hands when dealing with reinsurance and admit that they do not understand what is being presented.  In the case of Indiana Lumbermans Mutual Insurance Co. v. Reinsurance Results, Inc., in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Case Number: 07-1823, the court stated:

"The lawyers' oral arguments were excellent. But their briefs, although well written and professionally competent, were difficult for us judges to understand because of the density of the reinsurance jargon in them. There is nothing wrong with a specialized vocabulary - for use by specialists. Federal district and circuit judges, however, with the partial exception of the judges of the court of appeals for the Federal Circuit (which is semi-specialized), are generalists. We hear very few cases involving reinsurance, and cannot possibly achieve expertise in reinsurance practices except by the happenstance of having practiced in that area before becoming a judge, as none of us has."

Ignorance is only part of the problem

The reinsured holds much power but is afraid of using it. The playing field is certainly not level to begin with, but all too often the ceding company's management exacerbates this lopsided power arrangement. It is amazing how ceding company management knows instinctively that their clients have many alternatives, but somehow believe that they, as a client of the reinsurance broker, have no alternatives. Companies often do everything they can to protect the "long-term broker relationship."

This demonstrates a complete lack of understanding by ceding company management of their own fiduciary duties. The fiduciary duties of officers of insurance companies are to the company stakeholders, not to the reinsurance brokers.

This lack of understanding should be of particular interest to regulators overseeing insurance. All states now have a statute or regulation pertaining to recognizing a company in "hazardous financial condition"; one telltale sign is the lack of competence and fitness of those in management. Breaching a fiduciary duty could indicate lack of fitness.

Most insurance companies are ultimately in business to make money and serve their clients. Mistakenly believing that you are in business to make friends and keep long-term broker relations will put you out of business.  Reinsurance is a commodity. Thinking of it as anything else makes you an uninformed consumer.

Your reality - the Wild West

Your business (insurance) is a highly regulated one that owes a fiduciary duty to its clients. To stay in business, you must depend on reinsurance, offered by an entity (reinsurers) that is, for all intents and purposes, unregulated. Additionally, this commodity must be purchased in certain quantities or an agency (AM Best) that gauges how viable you are will let everyone know that you face questions.  You may have to go through a salesman (broker) that the courts have determined owes you no fiduciary duties, and whose income is based on how much it can sell you. That is, there is no  incentive for "your" agent to advise you of ways to reduce your costs. To people in other industries, it would appear that "your" agent actually doesn't work for you.

If the commodity you purchased turns out not to be what it was said to be, then you must arbitrate the matter with the entity that offered it. Reinsurance arbitration has proven to be every bit as costly and time-consuming as litigation but offers none of the advantages or safety nets provided by the courts. In spite of naïve judges, the court system is a better option. Judges are naïve only because reinsurance transactions so seldom land in court. Courts are a vastly superior forum that offers reason, rules and stare decisis, where precedent is followed, records are published and the same issues do not have to be determined multiple times. In arbitration, if a decision is made that is unfavorable, you may not appeal the decision. If this same scenario has been arbitrated before, you will never know it, because there is neither precedent nor a record. The outcome will not be determined by legal construction of the commodity you purchased and a set of interpretive construction rules but by the "custom and practice" of the industry, which coincidentally is neither written down nor uniformly agreed upon or adhered to. Arbitration only provides an advantage for the unregulated party to the transaction; it in no way benefits the regulated party. If the commodity you purchased does not measure up to the set of standards your regulator imposes, your regulator will punish you, not the entity that produced the commodity. Additionally, your clients to whom you owe a fiduciary duty have no recourse against the producer of the defective commodity you purchased even if it caused you to go out of business.

Substitute ANY other industry for insurance, reinsurance and broker in this scenario and you will quickly discern the absolute draconian forum in which you must operate.  Now you can see why I don't believe that the ceding company has a reasonable basis to believe that deferring reinsurance oversight to the broker is appropriate.

The next time you sign your broker-of-record contract, try this experiment:

Ask to insert the clause  - "the broker agrees and understands that it is acting as a fiduciary for the Company in all matters in which it services the Company, with all duties and standards imposed in a fiduciary capacity." While the court was not willing to assign such duties, the broker is free to contractually assume them!


Bruce Heffner

Profile picture for user BruceHeffner

Bruce Heffner

Bruce Heffner is general counsel and managing member for Boomerang Recoveries. He is an attorney with substantial business experience in insurance and reinsurance, underwriting, claims, risk management, corporate management, auditing, administration and regulation.

Realities of Post-Disaster Data Recovery

Data management, business continuity and post-disaster data recovery requires a shift in mindset from firefighting to fire prevention. Zero disruptions is a bold strategic imperative that provides a competitive advantage by enhancing field productivity, increasing office efficiency, reducing downtime and preventing data losses.|

The construction industry’s dependence on information technology systems continues to expand with the dramatic shift from document management to data management. With this reliance comes an increased vulnerability to business disruption. Data management, business continuity and post-disaster data recovery requires a shift in mindset from firefighting to fire prevention. Zero disruptions is a bold strategic imperative that provides a competitive advantage by enhancing field productivity, increasing office efficiency, reducing downtime and preventing data losses. Effective data backup and post-disaster recovery protocols are the essential steps to minimize business disruptions. Data management today requires an enterprise view integrating a company’s increasingly complex networks. Data must be construed to encompass all information generated, received, transmitted, stored and retrieved throughout the organization. Additionally, data must be incorporated from its various physical and virtual locations, including mobile devices. Following are IT trends affecting AEC companies:
  • expansion of email as the predominant form of intra- and inter-company communication;
  • growth of online data mobility project management tools using smartphones and tablets to access and transmit data;
  • increased adoption of document imaging to replace paper recordkeeping files;
  • growth of enterprise resource planning (ERP) platform systems and integration with best-in-class specialty software programs;
  • estimators’ use of the same database to work from multiple locations on complex projects;
  • increased adoption of, and massive data files generated by, BIM;
  • emergence of hosted and cloud-based data recovery systems;
  • expansion of e-discovery in litigation, which raises expectations for (and increases the risks of ) record retention; and
  • proliferation of social media networks combined with bring-your-own-device policies, which creates new portals for hacking, malware and viruses.
The severity of natural disasters and the escalating number of man-made emergencies and technological disruptions compounds the construction industry’s dependence on IT systems. Many of these disruptions “only” result in temporary IT system shutdowns, while others pose a threat to the viability of the business. A company’s vulnerability to data loss can be increased or decreased by the actions taken (or not taken) with regard to data backup and recovery. A robust business continuity plan is the first step. Companies have many choices when selecting the best way to back up their vital information and mission-critical data.
The Need for a Comprehensive Business Continuity Strategy
Automatic offsite (hosted or cloud-based) data backup protocols at regular intervals are the best prevention for data loss. These backups must be set for every type of data and for every type of device accessing, transmitting or storing information. Another data recovery strategy is imaging the company’s server and running the restored replica image from a new server in a remote location. However, this strategy requires pre-planning. In a large-scale disaster, obtaining replacement servers may not be possible. Causes, Costs and Consequences of Data Loss Data disruption is a reality of the modern work environment. Causes of data loss include:
  • failure to initiate or maintain regular data backups;
  • hardware failure;
  • human error resulting in accidental deletion, overwriting of data or forgetting to add new IT systems/devices to backup protocols;
  • failure to test the backup and data recovery restoration process to determine adequacy;
  • software or application corruption;
  • power surges, brownouts and outages;
  • computer viruses, malware or hacking;
  • theft of IT equipment; and
  • hardware damage or destruction from vandalism, fire and water (rain, flood or sprinkler system discharge).
The consequences of lost data include direct loss of revenue from missing bid submissions or customer orders, direct expenses to pay for technical specialists to help recover data, decreased productivity during the shutdown and costs to re-key or obtain replacement data. For contractors selling directly to consumers, the loss of Internet connection for any extended time could prove costly. Lost data also can result in litigation for breach of confidential information plus adverse publicity. A 2012 study commissioned by cloud-based data backup company Carbonite revealed 45% of small businesses (defined as fewer than 1,000 employees) had suffered a data loss. Fifty-four percent of the data losses were attributed to hardware failure, and the average cost for data recovery was $9,000. Real-World Data Loss Scenarios
  • Laptop motherboard failure. A project estimator was working offline when the motherboard crashed. Because of a tight deadline, he had to restart the estimate from scratch. Although the bid was successfully submitted on time, the estimator fell behind on pricing other jobs that the company failed to win.
  • Lost iPhone. Pictures of a project safety incident with documentation of a mismarked “one-call system” utility spot were lost. The photo documentation had not been transmitted to the office, and the contractor lost the request for damages against the utility locating service. Moreover, the smartphone was not properly password-secured, allowing unauthorized access to contacts, client information and company data.
  • Desktop computer backup location not properly mapped to server. When a workstation was upgraded with a new desktop computer, it was not mapped to the server for automatic backup. The computer hard drive crashed, and no files were backed up. Recovery using the old desktop computer was slow, and data created on the new computer was lost.
  • New database not added to the nightly backup protocol. A company purchased a new customer relationship management database and, after a power outage, realized it had not been added to the nightly data backup protocol.
  • Onsite data backup location destroyed. The building housing an onsite backup server was struck by lightning, which started a fire and resulted in a total loss of all current and historical data.
  • Disaster recovery software not properly configured. While conducting a test of a company’s disaster recovery plan, it was discovered that some critical data was not being captured in the backup files.
  • Laptop and tablet stolen from a jobsite trailer. The field equipment had not been backed up for several weeks, resulting in the loss of key project documentation.
Best Practices for Data Management Data management and IT network administration is a strategic, unique function for all companies. It is not possible to delineate all data management best practices, but the following guidelines should help enhance most companies’ post-disaster data recovery efforts:
  • Determine the company’s recovery-time objectives, and plan and budget accordingly. Identify which functions and systems must remain operational at the time of a disruption or disaster. This requires advance planning and budgeting for necessary systems and technical support services. It also helps prioritize risk-reduction strategies, including investments in data management backup system and security upgrades.
  • Develop a written business continuity plan that outlines specific responsibilities for protecting vital information and mission-critical data. The business continuity plan should include protocols for backup and synchronization of all office systems and virtual/mobile devices. It also should address the frequency and format for testing data management integrity and security, as well as how gaps will be identified and addressed.
  • Inventory the company’s vital information and mission-critical data, and verify it is being backed up. Key considerations include how the data is being backed up, by whom and how frequently, as well as where the backup data is stored. It is important to ensure the data backup and restoration process work as designed.
  • Initiate automatic scheduled backups, ensure the backup data is stored offsite, and test the adequacy of the data backup and restoration methods. Consider the added benefits of imaging the company’s servers to achieve a complete restoration of the data management system
  • Develop a comprehensive diagram of the company’s integrated data management network, including all physical and virtual/mobile subsystems. Ideally, this will be an “as built” blueprint of the company’s configuration consisting of the hardware, operating systems, software and applications that make up the data management network.
  • Institute policies regarding the use of the company’s Internet, including security protocols. Implement policies for user authentication, password verification, unacceptable personal devices and reporting of lost equipment. It is essential to communicate these policies and security protocols to all users and to train new employees.
  • Establish proactive management of the company’s data and IT network. Ensure the company’s network administrator has state-of-the-art tools, including remote access, help desk diagnostics and anti-spam and malware protection. Request periodic updates on all software licensing audits and verification that all security patch updates have been installed on a timely basis. Establish a fixed replacement schedule for hardware and software.
There is good news and bad news regarding business data management and recovery. The bad news is that the need for post-disaster data recovery can no longer be ignored. The increasingly complex and connected business world demands pre-planning for business continuity. The good news is that data management and recovery services are scalable to meet the custom needs of every business regardless of the size and scope of the operation and its degree of data dependence.
Reprinted with permission from Construction Executive, January 2014, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors Services Corp. Copyright 2014. All rights reserved.

Brian Cooney

Profile picture for user BrianCooney

Brian Cooney

Brian J. Cooney, CCIFP, joined Barriere Construction in 1988 and currently serves as the company’s vice president and chief financial officer. His extensive involvement in the Construction Financial Management Association (CFMA) led him to past positions as national director, national secretary, and national committee chairman.

Call Reluctance: the Bane of Sales People

Do you ever find yourself organizing your desk, calls or calendar, checking email, or talking with co-workers instead of prospecting? Some 80% of all new sales people fail; 40% of all veterans stop prospecting; and sales people earn a small fraction of what they could... all because of call reluctance.  

I remember my first day as a stockbroker like it was yesterday, I was sitting at my desk in my brand new, three-piece suit. I was fired up, ready to start my new career! As I waited for my license to clear over the next three days, I researched different stock ideas that I could recommend to potential investors.

On the third day, the owner of the firm came up to me and asked, "What are you doing?"

I said, "I'm waiting for the phone to ring."

He looked at me with amazement and said, "That's not how this business works! You need to pick up the phone and start making calls." He gave me a list of people to call and walked away.

I sat there for a couple of minutes thinking, "What have I gotten myself into?" This was not how it was supposed to work. Months earlier, I had walked through the skyways in downtown Minneapolis watching stockbrokers jumping up and down with excitement as they watched the tape from the New York Stock Exchange while talking on the phone. It looked like so much fun. Obstacles weren't even on the radar!

Sometimes, it is better to not know about the obstacles that lie ahead.  In the movie "The Wizard of Oz," Glinda the good witch didn't tell Dorothy about all the obstacles she'd face: the poppy field, the spells, the guard. . .  well, you get where I am headed. Had Glinda told her about all of the obstacles, Dorothy might never have made it back to Kansas. She might not even have left Munchkin Land. To this day, I am grateful that I never realized all the obstacles I would encounter as a stockbroker.

My biggest obstacle? Myself. I was flat out afraid: of failure, of success, of the phone! I had severe call reluctance. What was I going to do? How was I going to overcome this? The telephone seemed to weigh a thousand pounds. I had a knot in my stomach the size of a basketball.

I remember the first call; I was terrified. The person I called hung up, and I was relieved, actually, I didn't have to say anything. The next person listened to my pitch but then hung up. I made several calls that day with no success, and I thought, "This is going to be a very tough road." I finally made it to the weekend, went home and did everything I could to avoid thinking about Monday morning.

When it inevitably rolled around, I felt like I was going to the slaughter house. I reluctantly headed to the office to attend my first sales meeting. I still had a knot in my stomach as I sat down to listen to Tom Vanyo, the owner of the investment firm. I had never been to a sales meeting before, and I didn't know what to expect. Deep down, I was hoping it would last all morning so I wouldn't have to get back on the telephone.

For the next 60 minutes, Tom talked about the value of personal development. He repeated over and over again that we must work on sales skills. He shared examples of how to ask better questions to engage the prospect and how to ask for the order more than once. I locked on to every word he said, taking several pages of notes. The entire meeting was inspiring and full of great sales ideas.

Afterward, walking back to my desk, I observed the top producers in the company making outbound calls. I noticed how enthusiastic they were. It was almost like being at a revival. As I pondered my next move, I thought, "Why not model excellence!" I asked a couple of the top producers if I could sit with them to observe their phone presentations. They agreed. I wrote down word for word what they said. I observed the key to their success: They were enthusiastic about what they were selling. I thought: I can do that.

I was so inspired. I still had a knot in my stomach about making phone calls, but I was not going to let that hold me back. Enthusiasm overcame my nerves. In my first month, I opened up more than 35 accounts and earned more than $3,000 in commissions, plus a $250 bonus for opening so many new accounts. Within eight months, I opened up more than 180 accounts. I still knew very little about sales. I did learn, however, the secret to overcoming my call reluctance: enthusiasm! And when I was excited, my prospects and clients got excited, too.

My first full month was simply amazing. I noticed that, with every phone call, my skills were improving dramatically.  This sent my confidence soaring. The more calls I made, the more confident I became. Tom was right. The key to success in sales was personal development.

You, too, can develop yourself.  You have unique skills and abilities.  Add those to a positive attitude, continuing personal development through learning and applying what you learn, preparation, persistence and enthusiasm, and you have some of the keys to transform your own call reluctance.

Reputational Risk Management Using the Three Bell Curves

The inside-out approach to reputation risk management requires an understanding of the nature of organizational culture.

Incremental reputational risk, if not managed correctly, can chip away at a company’s brand for years and eventually result in lower sales and lower retention of customers.

Most risk management initiatives we hear about are “outside-in” approaches.  Managing the Three Bell Curves proposes an “inside-out” method that builds an organizational culture where reputational risk management is woven into the fabric of a company’s DNA.  The only way this can be done is by including the customer’s voice in just about all decision making.

What Is Organizational Culture?

I Googled “organizational culture” and got more than 36,000,000 hits in .32 second.   None of the definitions is wrong—but none is perfectly right, either.  What people miss is that organizational culture is an emergence – an immeasurable state made up of two or more relatively simple ingredients, where 2+2=7. 

Deal and Kennedy (1982) defined organizational culture as “the way things get done around here.”  Of all the definitions I’ve read, this simple one resonates with me most.  Deal and Kennedy’s definition, while not perfect, seems to be the most widely accepted.

“The Way Things Get Done Around Here”

While culture itself is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to measure and manage, the relatively simple ingredients of culture are not.  Because they are manageable, it is possible to guide the organization’s culture without being able to manage it directly.

When we think about “the way things are done around here” from a high level, we see there are really only three key ingredients:  employees, work and customers.  That’s all.  And managing all three well ensures customers get what they want, when they want it, at a quality level they expect (or better).   Guiding culture through the proper management of employees, work and customers results in a maximization of customer retention, brand strengthening and even growth (through referrals). 

The Three Bell Curves

The simple bell curve shows the normal distribution of things in many facets of business.  We use them when gauging success, failure, mediocrity and everything in between.   A bell curve can be assigned to each of the simple ingredients that make up your company’s culture.

Employees

Gallup estimates that 52% of American workers are not engaged and that a further 18% are actively disengaged.  This means  that only 30% are either engaged or actively engaged.    Where does your company stand?  There are several ways to find out.

  1. Employee surveys
  2. Employee giving
  3. Attendance
  4. Customer surveys

The impact of employees on reputational risk is obvious.  Or is it?  When we think about the impact employees have, most of us think about the customer-facing employee – the ones customers actually communicate with.  The fact of the matter is that, in many companies, most employees are back-office or noncustomer-facing.  These workers as a whole have every bit as much of an impact on customer retention and growth as those who are customer-facing.  This is because problems left unsolved in the back office always present themselves in some form or another on the front line.  Similarly, the problem solving that occurs in the back office creates a smoother experience on the front lines, helping those customer-facing employees provide a better experience.  This is even more the case in manufacturing, where a product does all the speaking for itself and there is no customer-facing employee to manage the experience.

While it’s one thing to come up with metrics, it’s a whole other thing to execute strategies for change or improvement.  Fortunately, much work has been done in the field of organizational psychology that has revealed the drivers of engagement.  Sirota Survey Intelligence, out of New York, has been capturing data regarding employee attitudes since the early ‘70s.  Their findings are really interesting.  In terms of drivers of engagement, the three most important areas should be:

  1. *Employee equity (sense of fairness)
  2. Employee camaraderie
  3. Employee sense of achievement

*most impactful

By measuring and managing the workforce’s sense of equity, achievement and camaraderie, a company can make great strides toward reducing reputational risk.

Work

Peter Drucker said, “There is nothing more useless than doing efficiently that which is not necessary.”  Unnecessary work (waste) results in a couple of things.  First, working with processes that aren’t necessary smacks an employee’s need for the sense of achievement in the gut – dead center.  Second, the customer pays for everything your company does, even if the work is considered “waste.”

Necessary work is activities that are required (usually by law) that customers aren’t necessarily interested in paying for but must.  Valuable work is work that customers would pay for.

The measure of value vs. waste comes during the process of problem solving.  Problem solving done the right way eliminates waste.  Done the wrong way, it adds complexity.  Workarounds, for instance, add waste.  Root-cause elimination removes waste and leaves more room for creating value.

Success on the” work” ingredient can be measured in terms of speed, cycle time and quality.  It also presents itself in overall customer satisfaction.  It helps employees to envision the work bell curve as they perform their everyday job duties.  If everyone had an “eliminate waste, maximize value” mindset, think of the ideas employees would come up with!  And once those ideas are acted upon, it leads to the employee’s sense of achievement and the removal of something customers didn’t want to have to pay for.

The Lean Enterprise Institute (Cambridge, MA) has a website that contains a plethora of useful information on working with the principles of lean inside and outside of manufacturing.  Check out http://www.lean.org for more information on thinking and working lean.

Customers

Fred Reichheld, who founded Bain's loyalty practice, was determined to find out why some companies were so successful while others weren’t.  In side by side comparisons, he and his research team found that customer advocacy was very strong among the successful companies while, at the mediocre or poor-performing companies, customer advocacy was weak.  This all makes perfect sense. What didn’t (make sense) was that there was no calculation, no indicator, that could help a company understand where it stands and how to move the needle to the right on the bell curve.

By asking just one question, the team found, a company could develop a benchmark and use it to improve results.  The one questions is: “On a scale of 0 through 10, how likely are you to recommend (company XYZ) to a family member, friend or colleague?” Having listened to answers to that question many times, researchers began to notice that customers who responded with a 9 or a 10 had actually promoted the organization or were going to in the future. Those who answered with a 7 or 8 were neither excited nor disappointed.  Customers who scored between 0 and 6, the team found, were most likely to damage the reputation of the company by speaking about an experience in a negative light.  

So how does a company calculate its Net Promoter Score?

A company’s Net Promoter Score is calculated by subtracting the percentage of detractors from the percentage of promoters:  %PROMOTERS – %DETRACTORS = Net Promoter Score.  Yes, it’s that simple.  NPS is a sign for everyone from the ground up to the corner office to see and work to improve.  It’s the customer’s voice.  It’s your company’s true north.  Measure it.  Improve it.

For more information on The Net Promoter Score , read The Ultimate Question by Frederick Reichheld. 

Conclusion

The inside-out approach to reputation risk management requires an understanding of the nature of organizational culture (the way we do things around here).

Net Promoter, Net Promoter Score, and NPS are trademarks of Satmetrix Systems, Inc., Bain & Company, Inc., and Fred Reichheld

Brain Drain: 22 Steps to Reduce the Impact of Retirement and Increase Employee Retention

To solve the coming talent crunch, organizations must commit the resources to tackle this problem strategically, while there is still time.

Is your organization ready to lose as much as 25% of its intellectual capital in the next decade? You need to be, because more than one quarter of the U.S. working population will be old enough to retire in less than three years, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

This may lead to a shortfall of nearly 10 million workers. Add this flight to an average job stay of four years, where today’s employees switch to a competitor without so much as a backward glance, and businesses in America are at risk.

America is poised for a brain drain so dramatic that many companies will find themselves unprepared to face the coming talent shortage. Yet it appears few companies are taking steps to deal with the crunch. 

This article explores actions companies can take to manage looming intellectual losses. Some are straightforward; some will take more planning. Any organizational change comes from the top, and industry leaders must deal swiftly and strategically with the changes our work force will undergo in the coming years.

As companies increasingly rely on intellectual capital, the value of work force intelligence to an organization cannot be overstated. There is little doubt that the insurance industry, so reliant on intellectual capital, should be at the forefront of addressing the looming loss of intellectual capacity.

Where Did All the Experts Go?

Brain drain historically has been defined as the loss of human skills in developing nations, usually because of the migration of trained individuals to more industrialized nations or jurisdictions. However, as baby boomers begin to retire, the term is increasingly used to describe the loss of intellectual capital at U.S. organizations. Downsizing also takes its toll on work force intelligence.

The U.S. work force has changed dramatically. A baby boomer’s parents may have held one job in their entire careers; experts estimate a typical young American will hold from seven to 10 different jobs before retirement. Insurance organizations are experiencing brain drain as long-term employees retire, switch employers or change careers. There is little doubt—insurance organizations are about to see drastic changes resulting from this exodus.

Future employment demographics should sound an alarm to insurance companies in America. Over time, the lack of top talent can be devastating to an organization, especially in an industry as complex as insurance. Add an increasing dependence on technology, and future employee skill deficits are a certainty, not just a theory. While this exodus is beginning to hit the insurance industry now, it will accelerate greatly in the next few years as aging boomers, those best placed to assume senior management roles, retire. This talent shrinkage must be managed now, before organizations find themselves in crisis.

Penny-Wise, Pound Foolish?

It may seem profitable to replace an older, more costly employee with a younger person. However, organizations may lose a great deal more than they bargained for with that replacement. With the departure of these highly experienced employees, companies lose more than their individual expertise. Also lost is what psychologist Daniel Wegner calls “transactive memory.”1 Transactive memory is information a person accesses that is outside of his or her own memory, information routinely called up by using another person’s memory.2 Groups where this transactive memory is understood and valued function better than groups that lack this trait.3

Take co-workers. On a difficult property claim, an adjuster may turn to a co-worker and ask, “What is the name of that engineer we used a few years ago in Georgia on that storm-surge claim?” Our brains can store only so much information. If we have access to people around us who may be more suited to remember a particular type of information, then we don’t have to work as hard to remember items that we don’t understand, don’t recall or don’t need at the time we hear it.

Brain drain slows the work process and impairs a company’s product quality. It can result in inefficiency because of the time it takes employees to find new co-workers with the information they may need. It can also result in costly mistakes resulting in lawsuits, lost subrogation opportunities or claims paid that, with a thorough investigation, would have been denied. Probably most importantly, a work force lacking robust intellectual capital loses its strategic advantages and abilities to respond quickly to business opportunities.

Insurance professionals are concerned about brain drain, yet even a casual review of insurance literature shows that much of the focus in industry research centers on improving technology to enhance operations. Even the term “human-resource management” seems to be morphing into a robot-like term, “human-capital management.” This disembodied approach seems to negate the fact that we’re still dealing with people; yes, they may be “capital’ to a company, but most employees would be offended to hear themselves referred to in that manner. “Talent management,” the new euphemism for recruiting and retaining employees, again seems to dehumanize the worker. Few people appreciate being “managed” or referred to as “capital.”

The emphasis in insurance companies seems to have shifted away from quality toward quantity. How much faster can we complete a process, appears to be the question. Can we settle a claim in 30 days, even if we have to throw more money at it? Has customer service and quality been forgotten in the effort to improve company operations? Have we, in an effort to increase profits, driven much of our brightest talent right out the door?

The Devalued Older Worker

Insurance message boards are filled with complaints from older, highly experienced insurance professionals who cannot find work, some with two to three decades of knowledge. “I have a solution to the brain drain in the insurance industry. Hire me and all those still looking for work … and some of the people whose resumes are posted on the Broward County RIMS website, among others,”4 one frustrated professional said in a June 2007 on-line risk management discussion. If these complaints are true, the widespread reluctance by insurance organizations to hire older, experienced workers may backfire because of the lack of new talent breaking down doors to enter the industry.

Nowhere is brain drain felt more acutely, it appears, than in claims departments nationwide. According to Conning Research & Consulting,5 70% of the nation’s adjusting staff is age 40 or older. “I have found this [talent leakage] particularly true in the claims arena,” according to James Brittle, a producer in the National Accounts division of Cobbs, Allen & Hall in Birmingham, Alabama.  “Coming from the highly engineered chemical and energy field, try to find one carrier that still has experienced and knowledgeable adjusters to handle property claims. There are two options — young and inexperienced or experienced and independent. The latter group is getting smaller and smaller. It’s not real comforting.”

How can companies prevent brain drain? Here are some possible solutions.6

1. Analyze current workforce strengths and talents to determine core competencies.

If an employee’s store of knowledge is known only to a few co-workers, then it is largely useless to the organization as a whole. It becomes an information silo, a vertical information cluster that is not transmitted laterally to co-workers, usually to the detriment of the organization. Analyzing employees’ expertise and knowledge and categorizing it so that it becomes accessible by other employees and departments is critical to improving and strengthening the work force.

2. Determine, through surveys or informal meetings or email queries, where employees go for specific information.

Who are your employees’ “information agents” in given areas? Imagine this scenario—a Lloyd’s underwriter wants to issue a binding authority to an agent in Florida. Before agreeing, however, the underwriter must determine wildfire hazards in the counties where the agent wants to write business. If the underwriter can, with a few keystrokes, search a database that shows Lloyd’s experts who understand catastrophe modeling and perhaps understand wildfire exposures particularly well, the decision to issue the binding authority can be made more easily and accurately, not to mention more quickly.

Knowledge Asset Mapping, written about extensively by British researcher Bernard Marr, allows organizations to locate and diagram internal knowledge. This visualization of intellectual capital, which Marr states is the “principal basis for competitive advantage,”7 can then be used as a strategic planning tool so that organizations can predict future intelligence gaps before they occur.

Today’s organizations must be agile to compete. Classifying employee knowledge to make it more accessible to others in the organization can help companies make decisions rapidly. It goes without saying that companies like Apple have seized marketplace opportunities to catapult themselves into leadership positions. Without sufficient intellectual capital, however, a company may not be robust enough to respond to opportunities as they arise.

3. Prepare to replace exiting information agents when those employees retire.

In smaller organizations, this process may not be formal. It may be as simple as acknowledging that an employee who is an expert on a subject is leaving. Notify all employees of the loss of this person, then direct them to another employee who may not have as much knowledge, but has some knowledge in that area. The company must develop incentives and time frames so that newer information agents can become experts on specific topics as gaps arise, and even before they arise.

4. Determine which employees are potential flight risks, whether to retirement, recruitment or family pressures such as aging parents.

Talk openly with employees who are considering retirement or having home/work difficulties to determine how you can retain them. Flexibility is the key—the employee may need more time off or greater leeway to work non-core hours or to work at home. If the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) is voluntary, your organization should consider allowing FMLA leave.

5. Hire retiring employees as consultants on a part-time basis to retain their expertise.

With increasing cost of medical care for retirees, many welcome a supplement to their retirement income. Adding benefit package components that appeal to older workers, such as long-term care insurance or prorated health coverage for part-time work, may help retain them, as well.

6. Provide incentives for employees to consider postponing retirement.

When an organization considers the total impact of losing a long-term employee, it is generally cheaper to retain that employee than to hire and train a replacement, especially if the employee’s knowledge routinely saves the company money. Consider the following scenario:

A claims manager will retire in two years, after working more than 30 years for just two carriers. He is one of the top arson investigators in the Midwest, taking dozens of arson claims to trial or to closure. Currently, there is no one else in his company who handles arson files without his supervision, and no one who remotely approaches his level of expertise.

What happens to this company when he leaves? How much will his departure cost the company in terms of claims payments that might have, with his expertise, been compromised or denied? Can this organization really afford to lose the employee’s expertise without a solid exit strategy?

7. Use technology to drive intra-company communications.

Intranets, videoconferencing, peer-to-peer technology and podcasts are information ways that allow workers to communicate over distance and varying time zones. Encourage disparate and divergent workers to develop virtual relationships to share ideas and solve problems using these tools. Why not take advantage of your global work force?

8. Establish “practice communities” where individuals from various departments — claims, underwriting, marketing and reinsurance — meet regularly to solve problems.

According to James Surowiecki, author of The Wisdom of Crowds, a crowd is a group of diverse people with differing levels of intelligence and information who collectively make smart decisions. A good example of this wisdom, as many claims managers have found, is “round tabling” a claim. Allowing a group of adjusters with varying amounts of experience to determine a claim’s value or to develop a plan of action to kick a stalled claim forward often provides excellent results and acts as a learning tool for less experienced team members.

Surowiecki defines four elements that make a smart crowd. He recommends a diverse group because each person will bring a different set of experiences to the process. The crowd should have no leader, so that the group’s answer can emerge. But there must be a way to articulate the crowd’s verdict. Finally, people in the crowd must be self-confident enough to rely on their own judgment without undue influence from other group members.

With today’s sophisticated technology, organizations don’t have to rely solely on local talent. A company-wide initiative can be implemented readily with some help from your organization’s information technology department. Practice communities build virtual relationships that, in turn, make employees more connected to the organization.

9. Organize and memorialize your practice community results with wikis, a decade-old web application that allows many people to collaborate on a single document.

There are several sites dedicated to collaborative writing, including https://www.zoho.com/docs/. Visit http://www.wikipedia.org, the on-line encyclopedia written by collaboration, to view an example of wiki technology at its finest.

10. Implement a formal mentoring program.

Some insurance organizations have implemented mentoring programs. The National Association of Catastrophe Adjusters formed a mentoring program in 2005. While not online, it matches new adjusters eager to learn CAT adjusting with experienced field adjusters.

Aon Services is almost a year into an ambitious mentoring project. With 600 Aon employees in the pilot program developed with assistance from Triple Creek Associates in Colorado, Aon expects to roll out the program companywide. The program was not limited to senior manager mentors; anyone in the organization with good performance was eligible to participate. “This challenged our operational paradigms, to have a junior person mentoring a senior person,”8 according to Talethea M. Best, Aon’s director of U.S. talent development.

The results have been positive, she reports. 86% of the mentees and 62% of the mentors who responded to a recent survey felt that the process improved their own performance. 85% of the mentees and 78% of the mentors would participate again if asked.

“We encouraged a protégé-driven process,” Ms. Best said. Potential mentees used a computerized platform with specific parameters to search for what they wanted in the mentor relationship. “It was a win/win for all involved,” Ms. Best said.

“This [mentoring project] was an opportunity for us to think more strategically,” Ms. Best reported. “To retain employees, it is critical to make people feel invested and engaged. How do you make folks feel like they make a significant contribution? Mentoring is a way to address that,” at a cost of pennies per employee, Ms. Best said.

Not all managers are mentor material. To be effective, mentors must receive some training. Aon addressed this concern with initial employee development workshops.

To ensure the highest quality mentorship for your employees, it is critical that mentors are carefully selected not only for their technical skills, but for their ability to communicate effectively in an increasingly diverse work force.

11. Pool knowledge across organizations.

Your Encore, founded by Procter & Gamble and Eli Lilly, is a society of retired research scientists and engineers who “continue to provide value―at its highest level—to companies on a consulting basis,” according to its website. The insurance industry is particularly well-suited to this approach because risk pools changed the face of insurance, so the models to implement this approach are already well-accepted by our industry. Don’t be unreasonable with information, but do set some ground rules and ensure employees comprehend which information is proprietary and which can be shared.

12. Cross train employees.

“A former employer of mine combined the loss control and underwriting functions,’”9 and it worked out well, reports Mike Benisheck, director of risk management for Pacific Tomato Growers. “They had a historical loss ratio of 30–32% annually for about 15 years.” When the functions were separated, losses spiraled, Benischeck reported.

Cross training can limit employee burnout and provide new motivation for employees who feel stymied in their careers. It also strengthens an organization’s operational team.

13. Cultivate a culture that values expertise.

To prevent brain drain, an organization must provide an atmosphere that values aging workers and the knowledge they possess. Recognizing, but more importantly acknowledging, their contributions to the organization, not just the number of claims they close or the amount of new business they produce, may mean keeping employees a few years longer. Small changes in any organization, as anyone who read the book The Tipping Point knows, can mean enormous changes overall.

Younger workers should be made aware of demographic trends and what they mean to their careers. Many younger workers are eager for career advancement. The demographics pointing to a sharp talent drop are in their favor if they prepare themselves, and organizations help them prepare, to take supervisory and management positions. Few younger workers recognize this trend. Organizations that speak frankly of these developments and what they mean to each person, not just the organization itself, will build loyalty and perhaps help to cultivate patience in generations that are used to quick answers and quick solutions.

14. Encourage employees to join online insurance groups like RiskList or PRIMA-Watch.

Insurance professionals are notoriously generous with their time and information when it comes to helping their counterparts, as any insurance industry employee knows who belongs to a professional organization. Insurance server lists have been online for many years with a faithful membership. List members will respond to just about any inquiry with an impressive depth and breadth of knowledge, with some humor thrown in, as well.

15. Support employee membership in professional organizations like your local claims association, Insurance Women, RIMS or CPCU Society.

“Support” means paying dues and supporting the absences necessary for employees to both attend conferences and to hold committee positions. This gives employees a strong network to turn to for information and support. There has been a mindset in the industry that allowing employees to network outside the company increased the employee’s flight risk. More enlightened managers realize that if employees feel valued for their expertise and encouraged in their professional development, they are generally more loyal to their employers.

16. Offer incentives for obtaining professional designations. Offer greater incentives for attending classes rather than online participation.

According to the CPCU Society, in 2006, 88% of CPCUs were age 40 or older. Taking a class from an experienced instructor with students from other companies and disciplines gives students a much broader experience. It also exposes them to others with whom they can network or seek advice. Designations are a clear indicator that employees see insurance as not just a job, but a career.

17. Avoid the human resources “silo.”

An information silo is a pool of information that is not well-integrated in an organization. Human resources departments often act as “silos,” gatekeepers in the hiring process, by determining which applicants get interviewed. Forming inter-departmental hiring panels, teams that develop job descriptions, review applications and give input on general hiring and other personnel issues like employee retention, can greatly improve a company’s work force.

18. Don’t underestimate the impact that younger generations and their different work standards have on older workers.

There are four generations of workers in today’s increasingly diverse workforce. With Millennials, Gen Xers and Yers in the employment mix, many young people are either intimidated by older workers or are downright contemptuous. Older workers, in turn, often cannot comprehend their younger peers’ thinking and may be intimidated by their ease with technology.

Forming intergenerational teams can bring divergent employees together so that they can benefit from each others’ strengths, not just complain about their weaknesses. Utilizing younger workers who are good communicators and technologically proficient to train older workers in new technology can bridge two gaps—the generation gap and the technology gap. In turn, older workers can mentor younger employees and model appropriate and ethical behavior.

19. Consider the Total Cost of Jerks (TCJ) to the organization.

Verbal abuse, intimidation and bullying are widespread in the American work force.10 But some companies are taking notice. There is a growing trend in companies to consider the TCJ impact on the work force, including several organizations on Fortune’s “100 Best Places to Work.”

Robert Sutton, Ph.D., professor of management science and sngineering in the Stanford Engineering School, views “jerks” in a much more explicit light. Sutton wrote The No Asshole Rule, a business bestseller that provides steps organizations can take to quantify the cost of jerks and eliminate them.

He lists the “dirty dozen,” the top 12 actions taken by those who use organizational power against those with less power. “It just takes a few to ruin the entire organization,” Sutton writes.11

Older workers may have seen it all, but they don’t always have the patience to put up with twits. That jerk in the cubicle next to a long-term employee may be the final nudge that pushes a valued older worker out the door. Most employees who have options like retirement tolerate jerks for just so long, and then they clean out their desks.

Eliminating toxic employees can improve more than the organization’s internal structure, because if an employee treats coworkers badly, how is he treating your customers?

20. Make the most of the existing work force.

Studies have found that as much as 40% of the time spent handling a claim can be spent in administrative tasks that don’t affect the claim’s outcome significantly. It makes sense, then, to drive work down to its lowest possible level of the organization. Are adjusters still issuing checks, composing the same letters over and over and answering calls that could be delegated? According to employment consultant Peter Rousmaniere, some corporations are outsourcing their claims-support systems.  “[Outsourcing] offers the potential of injecting into the claims management process some very intelligent, well-educated people who are very motivated to perform functions [that], due to global information systems, they can do proficiently.”

21. Don’t overlook diversity.

Many employees are overlooked in the promotional process because they are of different nationalities, ethnicities or gender than the dominant makeup of an organization. Whites follow a different career path than their non-white counterparts, according to David A Thomas, author of an article on minority mentoring that appeared in the Harvard Business Review. Whites frequently get more attention from their managers and hence more opportunities.

Thomas’s research showed that the one common attribute people of color who rose to the tops of their organizations had was mentorship, but mentorship that went beyond what he termed “instructional.” They had mentors who provided a deeper relationship that increased their mentees’ confidence and did not shy away from frank discussions about race.12 If we fail in our organizations to see beyond employees’ gender, skin color or religious beliefs, we may overlook our brightest talent.

22. Address the problems of brain drain strategically.

To date, there is a great deal of discussion on brain drain in the insurance industry, but little empirical evidence to use to determine which methods might avoid this loss. Many insurance executives are talking about the problem in conferences and trade journals, but what are insurance companies doing to address it?

To create organizational change, an organization must start with a vision. What are the problems we face, and what are their consequences both short-term and long-term? Where will our work force needs and realities stand in five years?

Effective Organizational Change Begins with a Plan

Without a roadmap, even the savviest traveler occasionally gets lost. To address brain drain strategically, a company must develop a strong vision and a stronger plan. This plan can be implemented over time, but it must have clear goals and time frames to avoid becoming mired down in processes.

From top management to line supervisors, there must be a shared sense of urgency about this problem, because any critical initiative can go astray because of the competition that all organizations face in today’s highly competitive global market. To solve the coming talent crunch, organizations must commit the resources to tackle this problem strategically, while there is still time.

1 Wegner, Daniel, Paula Raymond, and Ralph Erber. “Transactive Memory in Close Relationships,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 61 (1991): 923––929.

2 Gladwell, M. (2000). The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make A Big Difference. New York: Little, Brown & Company.

 3 Ibid.

4 RiskList Users Group, June 23, 2007.

5 “Generational Talent Management for Insurers: Strategies to Attract and Engage Generation Y in the U.S. Insurance Industry,” Deloitte & Touche, 2007.

6 Private communication.

7 Marr, Bernard, and J.C. Spender. "Measuring Knowledge Assets - implications of the knowledge economy for performance measurement." Measuring Business Excellence 8(2004): 18–27.

8 Private communication.

9 Private communication.

10 Lutgen-Sandvik, P., Tracy, S. J., & Alberts, J. K. (in-press). Burned by bullying in the American workplace: Prevalence, perception, degree, and impact. Journal of Management Studies.

11 Sutton, Robert. The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn't. 1st. New York: Warner Business Books, 2007, p. 180.

12 Thomas, David A. "The Truth About Mentoring Minorities: Race Matters." Harvard Business Review April 2001.