While cliché at this point, the “We’ve always done it this way” crowd does still exist. In insurance, the drumbeat of resistance is perceived to be louder than in other industries. Why? Success can breed complacency, and in a market flush with cash, large M&A acquisitions, and record job stability, we don’t often stop to wonder what we could do better.
But things change, and those who are not innovating, growing, and developing get left behind. So, how do we approach a change mindset when things are going well? How do we prepare for change without doing things just for the sake of change? We talked with Chris Cline, Executive Director of the Agents Council for Technology (ACT) and author of The Inertia of Legacy, about his thoughts on the “how and why” of change in our industry.
ReFocus AI: Why should any of us be focused on change, either professionally or personally?
Cline: There is no arguing that change is necessary and inevitable in almost literally every facet of life. And while every generation through each of society’s most significant transformations will attest that their cycle of change was the most dynamic, I think there is an objective case to be made that right now is the fastest and most significant amount of change humankind has ever seen – and with AI still in its infancy it will likely only get faster.
ReFocus AI: But why in insurance? This is an industry some call “recession-proof” and has often been exceedingly successful without changing as rapidly, while other industries have been forced to change.
Cline: Many will posit that we must change in our industry to keep up with the consumer expectation set by innovative companies like Amazon. We’ve heard it and likely agree with much of it – 24/7, anywhere and anyhow, immediate shipping, free returns, maybe even some recommendations for other items we might like. Huge stuff, hard to argue, and we must learn from all of this. In fact, we can all name insurance entrants who aimed to displace agents, carriers, and tenured tech all through the Amazonian lens. Let’s save that debate for another time, but I think many would agree that their experience and learning has pointed back to the value offered from within the very model they were looking to disrupt. Thus, the why?
"And lack of clarity here can send an organization down some unnecessarily frustrating paths whether talking about technology, people, or even trading partners."
Viewing insurance products through the lens of an identical, repeatable, and predictable product like a simple blender, they are right. But insurance is not a blender. In fact, every single customer is different. Every agency is different. And, every carrier is different. Though there are some customers that will absolutely buy our product as though it was a blender, when considering the change(s) you want or need to make in your firm (agency, insurer, vendor partner), it’s critical to assess if that is your target customer. Without a clearer identification of who your target customers are, it is very difficult to define and build a customer experience for them. And lack of clarity here can send an organization down some unnecessarily frustrating paths whether talking about technology, people, or even trading partners. This is your why.
ReFocus AI: That absolutely makes sense. And if that is the “why” then how about the “what”?
Cline: In my mind, “what” is like saying “the fundamentals”. And while it is not always a popular thing to say, this is a fundamentals heavy industry. And I’d be so bold to say that some of the challenges we face, or even create, happen by losing some focus on these fundamentals. Afterall, doesn’t everything that all of us do every day ultimately lead to making certain that there is a financially sound insurer available to uphold its contractual obligation to indemnify a policyholder at the time of a covered loss? Everything. Yes, a lot goes into that, but that is why our industry exists and what makes it complex. Afterall, if we cannot uphold our policyholder obligations, we don’t exist – for long.
These are not excuses to dismiss innovation and change. Rather they are a challenge to make sure we are focused on what needs to change and why. Some may not agree initially, but I submit that even over hundreds of years in our industry (in which a lot really has changed!), many fundamentals, many “whats” do and will remain. Though not intended to be an exhaustive list, since day one hasn’t the industry needed to prospect, quote, underwrite, price, sell, transfer risk, service, bill, settle claims, and you could argue compliance? There are certainly others, but many are captured within the spirit of this abbreviated list.
ReFocus AI: Technology is certainly an avenue for the “how” of some change in this industry, but not all of it. When agents approach “how” for their own change, what steps do you suggest for them?
Cline: This is where we explore the notion that “we’ve always done it that way isn’t working”. Afterall, without alignment about what you are doing and why you are doing it (and how you are measuring it), it’s very difficult to assess if how you are doing it is working or not.
All that said, I do believe most would agree that one of the more harmful expressions in business and life is “we’ve always done it that way.” Hearing it shuts down dialog, stifles creativity, and is a barrier for any form of meaningful innovation. And, in reality, it’s also usually wrong. Afterall, if we are honest and set hyperbole aside, our industry has gone through a continuous cycle of changes in how we do things… in nearly every facet of every role for as long as any of us have been involved. In other words, let’s give ourselves some credit. Any remotely successful business that has been around for a while “hasn’t always done it that way”… or at least not most things.
"I can recall being a carrier field rep delivering rates on floppy disks"
Aging myself here, I can recall being a carrier field rep delivering rates on floppy disks. Some agents loved it, some hated the change, as it wasn’t much earlier that agents and carriers were rating with pencils. Then carriers built quoting portals. Then the portals underwrote and ultimately allowed submissions and binding. Comparative rating grew. We had “real time”. And we are getting to more direct integrations. At each point, the role of the agent, underwriter, processor, IT professional, actuary, etc. - changed as did how they did the thing. Some resisted and others asserted we weren’t moving fast enough. We can debate the pace and effectiveness of this journey over 25+ years, but using this fairly broad scale example, we can honestly say we haven’t always done it the same way. Perhaps it’s naïve or optimistic, but I think we can use this example as an illustration to support the notion that saying “we’ve always done it that way” is not only counter to progress, but it is often incorrect. In the moment it is almost natural to focus on the discomfort or pain associated with something. It’s also hard, but crucial, to look at an overall trajectory of where we are going. It takes both perspectives to think though, inspire, and fuel change.
If something is wrong and counter to moving forward, it’s hard to fathom why people say it. I believe when people say this, it is largely rooted in fear of uncertainty and change. And we can address that with intentional change management efforts, by recognizing progress and impact that has already been made and use that to build upon with new concepts, tools, capabilities, and… results. In fact, we don’t recognize progress enough and we should - if just as a mechanism to inspire future innovation and thought. Believing we can and have is very powerful. So, it’s not entirely clear why (or motivating) to dismiss the past and what can be learned about how and why we are where we are on any change curve. Afterall, where we are is not likely to be where we were even just a few years ago. Again, we haven’t always done it that way and we should continue to embrace not doing it the same way in the future.
Whether someone appears to be reluctant to change OR is pushing change very hard they may feel compelled to reference the “we’ve always done it” sentiment. Though those are very different starting points in your change management efforts, it’s a very powerful opportunity to remind the fearful or the optimistic that we need to always assess our “why”, our “what”, and our “how” and remind them that we really haven’t always done it the same way – and that we cannot continue to do it the way you are today.
ReFocus AI: You address many of these as more philosophical concepts in your book, correct?
Cline: Absolutely. Much has been written, spoken about, and trained to help work through this in a traditional change management context. But, as I am now often prone to do, I quickly saw a correlation between the concepts laid out in my book The Inertia of Legacy.
I started it all with a quick look at the definition of Inertia from Newton’s laws of motion.
“An object at rest remains at rest, and an object in motion remains in motion at a constant speed and in a straight line unless acted upon by an unbalanced force”.
Regardless of your perspective and how you view yourself or business, whether you are at rest or in motion, you are doing so by way of a combination of how external forces and your effort are working together. Much like an airplane, there are always changing conditions that must be accounted for pre-flight and while in-flight. For example, how far they are going, the amount of fuel needed, number of passengers and how they are seated, the amount of luggage, weather conditions, turbulence, other flights… all are external forces working against the flight path and plan that initially guided the plane upon take off. And each requires adjustment to the flight plan and adjustments to be made in real time. It may go without saying that they simply can’t safely execute every flight the way they always have.
In life and in business all of this holds true as well. Even if we are pleased and comfortable with where we are, we cannot simply keep doing the exact same things and expect the same levels of results. There are just too many external forces working around us that can and will alter our trajectory if we don’t take note and address them as needed.
In the book I explore the intersection between inertia and the more esoteric concept of one’s personal or professional legacy and offer several practical tools to help any person or business define, manage, and leave their best possible legacy.
ReFocus AI: Thank you so much for these incredible insights, Chris! We hope our readers will check out more about the innovations in our industry that ACT discusses and dissects, and we’d encourage them to check out your book, The Inertia of Legacy, as well.
