Tick Tock: 30 Seconds to Connect

Somehow it feels thrilling and frightening at the same time, like when you stand too close to the edge of a cliff.  Your heart starts thumping, the air passages to your lungs expand, your blood pressure increases, the pupils in your eyes enlarge, and your blood glucose levels fluctuate, all because the stress-triggered hormone adrenaline is flooding your bloodstream.  Your body is preparing to deal with a nerve-racking, physically demanding situation, all because inside the packed convention center ballroom you have just been introduced as the next speaker. You stride purposefully to the podium; the applause dies down and the room goes silent with anticipation. You take a deep breath and look out at the audience.  They look back at you--curious, and expectant.  You are on the verge of doing something that most humans fear more than death: public speaking. 

Not long after I graduated from college and started working, I enrolled in the Dale Carnegie Course in Effective Speaking and Human Relations. I had heard tremendous things about the program and I really wanted to become one of those people who was always ready, willing and able to stand up and speak when necessary, no matter what the situation. At the first Dale Carnegie session, there were people in the class who were so terrified of speaking in front of an audience that they could not even stand alone at the front of the room.  At the end of the course three months later, the instructor could barely get those same people to stop speaking and sit back down! I learned a lot in that course by delivering two or three talks a week (often on topics assigned just minutes before), getting feedback, and giving feedback. In the years since I've spent a large part of my working life delivering, listening to and critiquing presentations.  So when I work with students now to help them become more effective presenters, I always share this Dale Carnegie quote with them:

A talk is a voyage with purpose, and it must be charted. The man who starts out going nowhere generally gets there.

Almost anyone can conquer their fear of public speaking with appropriate coaching and practice, but conquering the fear doesn't necessarily make you a good speaker--it just makes you a more comfortable speaker. If you haven't framed your message, polished your content, and planned your delivery carefully you might be able to blather long enough to fill your time slot, but you'll end up nowhere, as in no audience connection and no message delivered.

Years ago, folks weren't too concerned about messaging during the opening of a talk.  The prevailing wisdom was that audiences didn't really hear anything a speaker said at the beginning because they were too busy processing the speaker's non-verbal signals: facial expressions, gaze and eye contact, clothing, haircut, shoes, posture, gestures, etc.  So since the audience wasn't listening anyway, speakers were encouraged to use that time to get comfortable at the podium, smile, relax, maybe chatter a bit. You know--thank the person who did the introduction, thank the meeting sponsor for the invitation, describe how wonderful it is to be there, tell a joke, make witty comments about the weather, or the travel challenges encountered on the way to the venue, or the local sports team. Then, dive in to the speech.

That chatty style of opening is still being used (I saw two speakers use it last week, with predictable results) but I think it is fair to say that it probably worked better 20 years ago than it does now.  Back then, audiences were usually captive, they seemed to have longer attention spans, and they certainly didn't have what Dr. Carmen Taran of Rexi Media calls "digital pacifiers" in their pockets (or on their wrists) capable of providing them with a dizzying array of distracting alternatives to listening to the speaker.

If you believe, as I do, that audiences today are ruthlessly inattentive victims of information overload, then as a speaker with a message to communicate, you must do something to capture their attention quickly, within 30 seconds according to the experts (check out Better Beginnings by Carmen Taran and The Best Way to Start a Presentation by Nick Morgan.) Sounds difficult, but it really isn't--good speakers do it all the time. Television commercial producers routinely do it to sell products and services. Writers do it by inserting intriguing first lines in novels and articles to get you to keep reading. 

Let's break it down. If you think of a talk as having three phases--opening, body, and conclusion--in a 20 minute talk the opening might be 3 minutes, the body 15 minutes, and the closing 2 minutes.  So in the first three minutes, a speaker needs to accomplish three things:

1. Hook the audience within 30 seconds. Grab their attention, engage and enroll them in what you are about to do.
2. Lay out your approach and establish your credentials. What do you want the audience to know, do and feel at the end of your talk? How and why are you qualified to talk on this topic?
3. Provide a compelling answer to the audience's unspoken question: Why should I listen to you, and if I do, what is in it for me?

Next time you prepare to give a talk, focus on energizing the first 30 seconds of your opening. The best way to do that is to supercharge the communication environment by pushing or luring listeners out of their comfort zone and into their learning zone.  Surprise the audience somehow, throw them off balance, interrupt their inertia. Replace the expected with the unexpected. Create suspense and drama. Open with a provocative question or quote. Make an outrageous statement. Tell a powerful personal story. Share your view on a controversial aspect of your topic and ask for a show of hands of those who agree, or disagree. Do a show and tell with a compelling object, photo, news story or statistic. Challenge a widely held belief, or a sacred cow. Make a bold prediction and tell the audience to write it down.  Or even offer the audience something helpful and irresistible, as Amy Cuddy did in the opening line of her extremely popular (22 million views) TED Talk on body language.

For other potentially useful details and examples, check out these resources:

• ·         How to Start a Speech--12 Foolproof Ways to Grab Your Audience! by Dr. Gary Genard
• ·         12 Ways to Hook an Audience in 30 Seconds by Bruna Martinuzzi
• ·         Start Your Presentation with PUNCH by Garr Reynolds
• ·         6 Ways to Hook Your Audience by Alex Rister
• ·         The 30-Second Rule: How to Create Unforgettable Presentations by Peter Economy

Finally, since capturing an audience's attention is one challenge, and holding it is another, you might also enjoy speech and presentation coach Sims Wyeth's brief overview of techniques to help you keep the connection going. And never, ever forget this practical speakers' maxim:

Each of us here has a job to do. My job is to talk and yours is to listen. The challenge is for me to finish my job before you have finished yours.

Dean K. Harring, CPCU, CIC is a retired Chief Claims Officer and an expert and advisor on property casualty insurance claims and operations.  He can be reached at dean.harring@theclm.org or through LinkedIn or Twitter.

Confident Idiots

Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?

Every time comedian George Carlin posed that question in a performance, the audience roared because they knew they were all absolutely guilty of being at least that judgmental when comparing the driving skills of others to their own. Studies have shown that most drivers believe they are more skillful and more careful than the average driver on the road, but what's really fascinating is how that self-serving bias and illusion of superiority extends to many other areas. In his article We Are All Confident Idiots, Psychology professor David Dunning describes it this way:

A whole battery of studies conducted by myself and others have confirmed that people who don't know much about a given set of cognitive, technical or social skills tend to grossly overestimate their prowess and performance, whether it's grammar, emotional intelligence, logical reasoning, firearm care and safety, debating, or financial knowledge.

Surprising? Hardly. You and I have known and worked with a formidable collection of confident idiots, and we've probably played the role ourselves on more than one occasion. We just didn't realize we were doing it.

Professor Dunning is an expert in metacognition, the processes by which humans evaluate and regulate their knowledge, reasoning, and learning. He and his colleague Justin Kruger first described what is now known as the Dunning-Kruger effect in a 1999 paper entitled Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments. From the paper's introduction:

People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it.

Dunning calls this "unrecognized ignorance". As he explains in the We Are All Confident Idiots article:

For poor performers to recognize their ineptitude would require them to possess the very expertise they lack. To know how skilled or unskilled you are at using the rules of grammar, for instance, you must have a good working knowledge of those rules, an impossibility among the incompetent. Poor performers—and we are all poor performers at some things—fail to see the flaws in their thinking or the answers they lack.

While the notion that "we don't know what we don't know" seems reasonable and familiar, the scary part is that even though we might be incompetent to deal with a particular situation, we're not troubled because we are blissfully unaware of our incompetence. Even scarier, we usually feel pretty confident about our chances for dealing with the situation effectively. Dunning again:

What’s curious is that, in many cases, incompetence does not leave people disoriented, perplexed, or cautious. Instead, the incompetent are often blessed with an inappropriate confidence, buoyed by something that feels to them like knowledge.

Blessed with inappropriate confidence? As much as we admire and react favorably to confidence and self-assurance, most of us wouldn't rely upon someone to do something important for us if we knew the person was confident, but not competent. Or would we?

Overconfidence is very common. According to a TED Talk by University College (London) professor Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, who has studied the relationship between confidence and competence for over 10 years in 40 different countries, the distribution looks like this:



To make matters worse, in most parts of the world people equate confidence with competence, so they assume people who are confident are also competent, allowing confidence to mask incompetence. In the HBR Ideacast The Dangers of Confidence , Dr. Chamorro-Premuzic drew the distinction:

In reality however, there is a very big difference between confidence and competence. Competent people are generally confident, but confident people are generally not competent. They are just good at hiding their incompetence and their insecurities...

Yet success "correlates just as closely with confidence as it does with competence" according to The Confidence Gap by Katty Kay and Claire Shipman. And men tend to be more confident than women. A few bullet point takeaways from the article:

• Having talent isn’t merely about being competent; confidence is a part of that talent. You have to have it to excel.
• Confidence is... the factor that turns thoughts into judgments about what we are capable of, and that then transforms those judgments into action.
• In studies, men overestimate their abilities and performance, and women underestimate both.
• ... there is a particular crisis for women—a vast confidence gap that separates the sexes.

So if talent (the ability to do something well) requires both confidence and competence, what do you call confidence without competence? Dr. Shahid Qureshi calls it arrogance. Professor Chamorro-Premuzic is in the same camp. In Why Confidence Is Overrated he describes the consequence of appointing leaders on the basis of confidence rather than competence:

...if we keep rewarding those who think highly of themselves, simply because they think highly of themselves, then we will always end up with incompetent charlatans in positions of power and influence.

So why is it that we keep bumping into incompetent charlatans and confident idiots in leadership positions? It's our fault! We like and admire people who are self-assured and confident, and we're not that troubled if they happen to be incompetent. Professor Chamorro-Premuzic in the HBR Ideacast, on why we find confident people so compelling:

I think there are two main reasons. So the first one is that confident people tend to be more charismatic, extroverted, and socially skilled– which in most cultures are highly desirable features. The second one is that in virtually every culture, and especially the Western world, we tend to equate confidence with competence. So we automatically assume that confident people are also more able-skilled or talented.

What can we do about it? Chamorro-Premuzic in Why Confidence is Overrated:

When we hear people making claims about their talents, let's not assume that they are true, even if they are being honest (as a consequence of being self-deceived). Most talented people don't brag about themselves, and most of the self-promoters in the world are simply impostors.

You might be wondering whether talent plays any role in all this. I like to think that while your confidence may help you land a big job, sooner or later you need to perform and deliver in order to keep that job, so it's your talent (ability and results) that will ultimately determine your success. That may be the way it works on American Idol, but of course it doesn't always work out that way in business. Just think of all of the incompetent and feckless executives you've known who succeeded in holding on to key positions for far too long simply because they had a talent for dodging accountability--creating diversions, making excuses, and shifting blame and responsibility to others.

Confident idiots.  I can just imagine Mark Twain scratching his head and marveling at their success as he scrawled this line: "To succeed in life, you need two things: ignorance and confidence."

Dean K. Harring, CPCU is a retired Chief Claims Officer who advises on property-casualty insurance claims and operations.  He can be reached at dean.harring@suite200solutions.com or through LinkedIn 

Uncertainty

I remember being taught, a long time ago, that if you can't describe something, you can't measure it, and if you can't measure it, you can't manage it. I have been fascinated by management metrics since then, and I still believe that if performance metrics are designed correctly and aligned with an organization's strategic objectives they will naturally encourage employees to behave such that those objectives are achieved (for more on this, see my 2005 article Keeping Score .)

So when I came across the book Managing Uncertainty by Michel Syrett and Marion Devine, I had to look twice because the title troubled me. Uncertainty, of course, is the opposite of certainty--so being able to describe it well enough to measure it would seem to present an enormous challenge. According to the authors, while there is no precise, widely accepted definition of uncertainty, there are definite degrees of uncertainty. The book opens with a 2002 quote from Donald Rumsfeld:

There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns--the ones we don't know we don't know.

Clear? One problem with planning (projects, strategy, risk or change management, financial, estate, etc.) is that we often use planning models that assume we can collect enough information about strengths, weaknesses, threats and opportunities to predict with acceptable certainty what challenges we will face during the plan period. Once the challenges are identified, we simply develop action items to address them, craft metrics to track performance against those items, assign accountability and put the plan in motion. But early in Managing Uncertainty the authors credit Arnoud De Meyer, President of Singapore Management University, with identifying four types of uncertainty:

• Variation--where small influences cannot be easily anticipated individually, but the resulting total impact can be identified and managed
• Foreseen--where identifiable and understood variances may or may not occur
• Unforeseen-- where an event's possibility is not recognized or its likelihood/probability is sharply discounted (unk unks)
• Chaos--where unforeseen events invalidate the strategy

In their paper On Uncertainty, Ambiguity, and Complexity in Project Management , Professor De Meyer and colleagues Michael T. Pich and Christoph H. Loch suggest that projects (and other plans) can be expressed as equations or "payoff functions" that are dependent on two things:

• The state of the world
• The choice of a sequence of actions

In other words, success in planning requires knowledge of the challenges presented by an operating environment, and the perspective to come up with appropriate action steps to deal with those challenges--although "adequacy of the available information" is critical to that success.  In their words: “Inadequacy of information is caused either by events or causality being unknown (ambiguity), or by an inability to evaluate the effects of actions because too many variables interact (complexity).” The more inadequate the information, the more difficult it is to plan successfully. But since information inadequacy arises from a lack of awareness or a lack of understanding, there are techniques (centered around learning and selectionism) that can be used to improve planning in unforeseen uncertainty situations. For a few practical examples, take a look at Three Tools to Manage Uncertainty by Kim Girard.

All of this struck me as interesting and relevant because I could see an obvious parallel within the insurance industry, particularly with the processes and procedures insurance claims managers use to set loss cost reserves. Anyone responsible for setting loss cost reserves on claims deals with De Meyer's four types of uncertainty, and they have no choice but to grapple with the adequacy of information available to them.

For example, when setting loss reserves on complex litigated claims that we believed were going to be tried to a verdict, we used to consider the likely verdict value (tied to damages, liability, venue, etc.) and modify it using a multiplier we called the "percentage chance of losing." So if the case had a verdict value of $500,000 and we had a 60% chance of losing, the reserve would be $300.000.

Ambiguity and complexity routinely invalidated that approach, however, because even if we were confident in our predicted verdict value and the % chance of losing, the actual verdict would rarely match our loss reserve. But when we did things to reduce ambiguity and complexity, when we developed better information about the likely trial environment (the state of the world--jury research, verdict history, attorney qualifications, etc.) and when our resolution plans included the most appropriate and impactful sequence of actions prior to and during trial, we usually got better outcomes.

I smiled when, in the course of thinking about this topic, I remembered situations during my career when I encountered individuals who were trying to manage uncertainty involving case or portfolio loss reserve adequacy in rather unorthodox ways. One claims officer "managed" reserve development by insisting on personally approving all reserve increases over $10,000, and he then moved very slowly on those requests. Another refused to improve any proposed reserve increase unless a corresponding and counterbalancing reserve decrease on another file was also submitted. A third incented his employees to minimize claim payouts each month, knowing that reserve adequacy for his environmental claim portfolio was determined based upon burn rate (number of years the reserve would last at current payment rates). A business unit leader, who was new to long tail lines and uncomfortable with the concept of prior year reserve development, insisted on sending teams of consultants out into the field offices to "fix" long tail line reserves. In the process he spooked the claims managers, artificially inflated case reserves and destroyed the reserve consistency that the actuaries relied upon to calculate ultimate loss exposures.

But my most enduring memory involved the business unit leader who told his assembled claims management group in September one year that he was tired of prior year reserve development, and that he didn't want to see any more of it after the first of the year. I don't need to tell you what happened with loss reserves in the fourth quarter that year.

All of which goes to show, I suppose, that some efforts to manage uncertainty end up creating even more uncertainty.

Dean K. Harring, CPCU, CIC is a retired Chief Claims Officer and an expert and advisor on property casualty insurance claims and operations.  He can be reached at dean.harring@theclm.org or through  LinkedIn or Twitter.

Bristling with Adaptive Capacity

 

One of my favorite leadership books is Geeks and Geezers, by Warren G. Bennis and Robert J. Thomas, in part because the book introduced the notion of "adaptive capacity" in leaders:

... adaptive capacity is applied creativity. It is the ability to look at a problem or crisis and see an array of unconventional solutions.

According to Bennis and Thomas, adaptive capacity permits individuals to:

...confront unfamiliar situations with confidence and optimism. Those with well developed adaptive capacity are not paralyzed by fear or undermined by anxiety in difficult situations. They believe that if they leap, a net will appear--or, if it doesn't, they will be able to find or fashion one in time. Where others see only chaos and confusion, they see opportunity.

If you are in the insurance business, you know that good claims leaders absolutely bristle with adaptive capacity. Flexibility and resiliency are requisites for managing claims, and successful claims leaders find meaning and strength by grappling with the adversity and uncertainty they face every day. The best claims leaders also have the confidence and the will to get personally involved in contentious and difficult situations and creatively move them toward successful resolution. They embrace challenges, overcome obstacles, and learn and grow and become more confident as they go. In other words, they act a lot like Teddy Roosevelt!

I was watching the Ken Burns documentary The Roosevelts: An Intimate History last week and I was reminded of a story I once read about the 1912 presidential campaign. Teddy Roosevelt had served two terms as president and had decided not to run again in 1908, so his Secretary of War and hand-picked successor William Howard Taft won the presidency. Teddy wasn't happy with Taft's term, however. He also missed the action and excitement of national politics, so he decided to challenge Taft and seek the Republican nomination for president in the 1912 election. He didn't secure the nomination, so he decided to run as a third-party candidate representing the new Progressive (also known as Bull Moose) party.

It was an arduous campaign, raucous and hard fought. So intense and relentless that at one point Roosevelt was shot in the chest during a campaign appearance in Milwaukee, but went on to deliver a 90 minute speech before agreeing to go to the hospital. He was fighting an uphill battle with voters, and his campaign was running short of time and money, but his staff decided to push forward and print an elegant pamphlet with Teddy's photo on the cover for distribution to voters during the final round of whistle-stop tours.

They had three million copies printed, but as they were readying the pamphlets for distribution someone noticed that Moffett Studios in Chicago held a copyright on the cover photo of Teddy. Unfortunately, no one had bothered to obtain permission from Moffett Studios to use the photo. The potential penalty for unauthorized use was staggering-- $1 per pamphlet, or $3 million. The campaign didn't have the time or funds necessary to reprint the pamphlets using another photo, and simply moving forward and incurring the penalty and bad publicity associated with using the photo without permission was not an option. Staff members knew they had no choice but to strike a deal with the photographer, but they hesitated because they believed their bargaining position was weak.

Enter George Perkins, executive secretary of the Progressive Party and Roosevelt's campaign manager, who after being briefed on the situation took immediate action, sending this cable to Moffett:

We are planning to distribute millions of pamphlets with Teddy's photo on the cover. This will be great publicity for the studio who took the photo. How much will you pay us to use yours? Reply immediately.

Moffett replied immediately:

We've never done this before, but under the circumstances we'll offer you $250.

Problem solved!

I have always enjoyed that story, and I've told it many times to illustrate what adaptive capacity looks like. While you might not agree with his approach to Moffett, Perkins was a successful businessman, a heavy hitter, well connected to financier J. P. Morgan, and he knew how to get things done. He had the ability to look at a problem and quickly come up with an unconventional yet brilliant solution, and in this situation he converted a $3 million exposure into a $250 revenue item rather handily. Adaptive capacity, personified! Of course Theodore Roosevelt himself could have served as an adaptive capacity poster boy--a charismatic leader who also happened to be a tireless and prolific writer, an innovator, a problem solver, an obstacle surmounter and an odds-defying achiever and adventurer. Take a look at what he accomplished during his remarkable life here.

Well, the pamphlet got distributed as planned, but as we all know Woodrow Wilson went on to win the 1912 election with 42% of the votes, followed by Roosevelt at 27% and Taft at 23%. The Progressive party nominated Teddy as its presidential candidate again in 1916, but he refused the nomination and never got directly involved in politics again. Two and a half years later he died in his sleep at Sagamore Hill, his family home at Oyster Bay, NY.

Dean K. Harring, CPCU, CIC is a retired Chief Claims Officer and an expert and advisor on property casualty insurance claims and operations.  He can be reached at dean.harring@theclm.org or through  LinkedIn or Twitter.

Just How Difficult Are You?

You are without a doubt the most pretentious, self-absorbed, arrogant, vain and ruthless little tyrant I have ever had the misfortune of knowing. You are emotionally unbalanced and delusional.  For some reason you believe you are special and entitled, demanding praise and attention and privileges you haven't earned and don't deserve--yet you are shamelessly uninterested in the needs and feelings of others. You exploit, criticize, scapegoat and treat others contemptuously, yet you can't tolerate a single word of criticism.  There's only one way to describe you. You are:

(a)  A real jerk

(b)  An infant

(c)  A CEO

(d)  A narcissist

(e)  Other _______________

People I ask seem to be able to identify, without hesitation or difficulty, somebody they know who fits this description, so they quickly and emphatically answer this multiple choice question.  Corporate types tend to choose answers (a) or (c) although in the write-in category (e) the most common answer is "A real asshole" (more on this crass yet technical academic term later.) Politicians, lawyers and ex-spouses also get honorable mention in (e).  Parents of young children, and students of Freud who have read "On Narcissism" (which introduces the concept of His Majesty the Baby) might choose (b).  Psychology majors and anyone who has ever read a book or an article in Time Magazine by Jeffrey Kluger tend to offer up the textbook answer (d), i.e., a person who behaves this way is usually described as a narcissist.
Most of us know the story of Narcissus, retold succinctly in a New Yorker piece by Joan Acocella called Selfie:

In Book III of Ovid’s Metamorphoses, from the first century B.C., we meet Narcissus, a young man so handsome that all the nymphs are in love with him. He doesn’t understand why; he wishes they would leave him alone. One day, in the woods, he comes upon a pool of water and leans over to take a drink. In the reflection, he sees his face for the first time, and falls in love. He swoons, he kisses his image, but he cannot have the thing he desires. In despair, he stops eating, stops sleeping. Finally, he lays his head down on the greensward and dies.

There are longer and darker versions of the story, but the prevailing theme is that Narcissus is so taken with himself that he is incapable of paying attention to anything or anyone else. Narcissism is sometimes described as a "fixation with oneself" but the American Psychiatric Association actually classifies it as a personality disorder.  In Selfie, Acocella also tells us that according to the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V) the primary characteristic of narcissism is grandiosity:

Narcissists exaggerate their achievements and what they are certain will be their future triumphs. They believe that they are special and can be understood only by special people, of high status. They feel entitled to extraordinary privileges. (They have the right to cut in line, to dominate the conversation, etc.) They show no empathy for other people. They envy them, and believe that they are envied in return. They cannot tolerate criticism.

If you really want to dig into narcissism, there is no shortage of reading material out there.  I recently read Why Is It Always About You? The Seven Deadly Sins of Narcissism by Sandy Hotchkiss.  She describes seven categories of narcissistic behavior (Shamelessness, Magical Thinking, Arrogance, Envy, Entitlement, Exploitation, and Bad Boundaries) so well that if you read her book you might begin to feel a bit uneasy about your own narcissistic tendencies.  The good news is that if you worry about such things you probably aren't really a narcissist, but just to be sure you can take a quiz here.  It is the Narcissistic Personality Inventory developed by Robert Raskin and Howard Terry of the University of California, Berkeley. I felt a little better after taking the quiz.

Of course the world is teeming with all kinds of people we perceive as difficult, not just narcissists but an eclectic assortment of know-it-alls, liars, cheaters, whiners, complainers, slackers, back-stabbers, perfectionists, illusionists, abusers, bullies, tormentors, mean-spirited rogues, and otherwise nasty weasels.  Robert Sutton, a professor at Stanford University, lumps them all into one descriptive category: assholes.  His entertaining book The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One that Isn't establishes two tests for determining whether someone fits into that category:

• After talking to the alleged asshole, does the "target" feel oppressed, humiliated, de-energized, or belittled? Does he or she feel worse about him or herself?
• Does the alleged asshole aim his or her venom at people who are less powerful rather than at those people who are more powerful?

Sutton also identifies twelve techniques assholes commonly use:

• Personal insults
• Invading "personal territory"
• Uninvited physical contact
• Threats and intimidation
• Sarcastic jokes and teasing, used as insult delivery systems
• Withering email flames
• Status slaps, intended to humiliate victims
• Public shaming
• Rude interruptions
• Two-faced attacks
• Treating people as if they are invisible

Any of this sound familiar? Of course it does. I hear you, and I feel your pain!  I can think of dozens of people I've worked with just in the past ten years who fit quite comfortably into this category. Sutton reminds us that even Steve Jobs, celebrated for his ability to imagine, inspire, motivate and create, was notorious for behaving poorly and routinely used many of these techniques. But while most of us have such tendencies and may slip into poor behavior patterns on occasion, there's a big difference between what he calls "temporary" and "certified" assholes: to qualify as "certified" you have to behave poorly persistently.  If you want to see where you fit on the scale, take Sutton's Asshole Rating Self Exam (ARSE, of course...would you expect anything else?) here, but steel yourself: if your self-rating score gets to a certain level, you will see this admonition from Sutton:

You sound like a full-blown certified asshole to me, get help immediately.  But, please, don't come to me for help, as I would rather not meet you.

Good luck, and be careful out there.

Dean K. Harring, CPCU, CIC is a retired Chief Claims Officer and an expert and advisor on property-casualty insurance claims and operations.  He can be reached at dean.harring@theclm.org or through  LinkedIn or Twitter.

Digital Destruction and Big Bang Disruption

My wife is a project manager who is responsible for business operations at our local high school. She hired some people this summer to process and distribute new textbooks within the school, but they hadn't finished the job and school was about to open, so she needed someone to come in at the last minute and help get the work done. More specifically, someone who would follow her instructions and would not expect to get paid. So I spent a long Saturday with her at the school, schlepping pallets and boxes of new textbooks to the classrooms, getting everything in place in time for the start of the new school year.

I wasn't happy with the work (the school was hot, the textbooks heavy) and more than once I thought wistfully about Steve Jobs, who according to biographer Walter Isaacson, had targeted the school textbook business as an "$8 billion a year industry ripe for digital destruction." Targeting textbooks seemed like a good idea to me because not only are they big and heavy and expensive--they don't update easily, either. Unfortunately, Jobs didn't live long enough to disrupt the textbook industry, but others are on the same path and, selfishly, I wish them well! Check out The Object Formerly Known As The Textbook for an interesting look at how textbook publishers and software companies and educational institutions are juggling for position as textbooks evolve into courseware. Also, As More Schools Embrace Tablets, Do Textbooks Have a Fighting Chance? takes a look at how The Los Angeles Unified School District—second largest school district in the country—is equipping students with iPads and delivering textbooks digitally in a partnership with giant book publisher Pearson.

Harvard professor Clayton Christensen, author of The Innovator's Dilemma, is credited with coming up with the term "disruptive innovation," which he defined as:

...a process by which a product or service takes root initially in simple applications at the bottom of a market and then relentlessly moves up market, eventually displacing established competitors.

These days we tend to associate disruptive innovation with a new or improved product or service that surprises the market, especially established, industry-leading competitors, and increases customer accessibility while lowering costs. The notion is appealing, and it makes for exciting business adventure tales featuring scrappy, innovative underdogs overcoming entrenched, clueless market leaders. Of course disruptive innovation has been happening for a long time, even if it was called something else, but lately technology has made it easier and cheaper for upstart firms to take on industries they think are "ripe for digital destruction."

In her recent article The Disruption Machine, Harvard professor and New Yorker staff writer Jill Lepore squinted hard at disruption theory, though:

Ever since “The Innovator’s Dilemma,” everyone is either disrupting or being disrupted. There are disruption consultants, disruption conferences, and disruption seminars. This fall, the University of Southern California is opening a new program: “The degree is in disruption,” the university announced.

By the way, USC's Jimmy Iovine and Andre Young Academy for Arts, Technology and the Business of Innovation is in fact opening this year and will focus on critical thinking with plans, according to the Academy website, to "...empower the next generation of disruptors and professional thought leaders who will ply their skills in a global area." And yes, that is Dr. Dre's name on the Academy!

But there are others who believe we have now entered a decidedly more treacherous innovation environment, one that Josh Linkner in The Road to Reinvention says is forcing companies to systematically and continually challenge and reinvent themselves in order to survive. His fundamental question is this: "Will you disrupt, or be disrupted?" And Paul Nunes and Larry Downes, Accenture folks who wrote an article for the Harvard Business Review Magazine in 2013 entitled Big Bang Disruption (they have a new book on the same topic, summarized by Accenture here) warn of a new type of innovation which is more than disruptive--it's devastating:

...a Big Bang Disruptor is both better and cheaper from the moment of creation. Using new technologies...Big Bang Disruptors can destabilize mature industries in record time, leaving incumbents and their supply-chain partners dazed and devastated.

Should CEOs be worried? When Mikhail Gorbachev visited Harvard in 2007 and said “If you don’t move forward, sooner or later you begin to move backward”, he was talking about politics and multilateral nuclear treaties, not companies, but the warning certainly could have been directed at company CEOs. That message, refreshed to incorporate the disruptive and big bang innovation threats that have emerged since then, seems a bit unsettling: If you run a company and you aren't dedicating resources to continually scanning the marketplace for threats and improving and reinventing your business, if you are instead taking a "business as usual" approach, you are at risk of being marginalized or supplanted by competitors who will bring new products, services, experiences, efficiencies, cost structures and insights to your customers. Maybe not this year, or next year, but sometime soon. It's not a question of whether it will happen, but when. Thus Linkner's question, restated: Will you disrupt yourself, or be disrupted by someone else?

Of course some industries, like property casualty insurance, may not be high on anyone's "ripe for digital destruction" list, so maybe there's no need for insurance company CEOs to worry. Except perhaps about Google and Amazon. I keep thinking back to Blockbuster CEO Jim Keyes' comments to The Motley Fool in 2008: "Neither RedBox nor Netflix are even on the radar screen in terms of competition." You know the rest of the story, which illustrates the real-life consequences of an incumbent underestimating and then becoming "dazed and devastated" by a competitor.

Dean K. Harrring, CPCU, CIC is a retired Chief Claims Officer and an expert and advisor on property casualty insurance claims and operations.  He can be reached at dean.harring@theclm.org or through  LinkedIn or Twitter.

Righteous Denials

I have what could be described as an accumulation problem, and it involves newspapers and magazines. It is mostly self-inflicted, since I haven’t yet convinced myself to transition to digital subscriptions, but it is chronic as new paper items arrive every day and I refuse to recycle those that remain unread. Instead, I create "read later" piles and then intermittently try to deal with those piles, as I did last week when I sat down on my screen porch, surrounded by stacks of newspapers and magazines, intending to read and recycle until current.

Unfortunately, reading world news in large doses can be disheartening, and when your mind wanders off in search of more uplifting thoughts while you are reading, you end up not remembering what you just read. This has everything to do with how your working memory operates, and how your two competing modes of attention (focused and wandering) interact. See Hit the Reset Button in Your Brain by Daniel J. Levitin for an enlightening description of how it all works.

So while I wasn’t concerned when my mind began to wander, I was surprised when this quote from Nobel Prize winning poet, dramatist and literary critic T.S. Eliot popped into my head:

“Most of the evil in this world is done by people with good intentions.”

I have been unable to discover the original context of his statement, but if I take it at face value and consider it from today’s perspective I have difficulty accepting the premise that most evil is accidental and unintended. Fellow Nobel Prize winner Albert Camus’ observation in The Plague somehow seems closer to the mark:

“The evil that is in the world always comes of ignorance, and good intentions may do as much harm as malevolence, if they lack understanding.”

The concept that actions taken with good intentions, but fueled by ignorance or lack of understanding, can be as harmful as actions taken with bad intentions isn’t really surprising. We’ve all worked with both types of people: the well-intentioned but uninformed folks who, through their lack of understanding and/or incompetence, cause all kinds of trouble and damage, and the malevolent ones who intentionally do harm. But the Camus quote reminded me of something else, something I hadn’t thought about for many years, something that used to be a problem in claims handling in the early 1990s. We called it the righteous denial.

Righteous denials occurred when an insurer refused to honor a first party property claim simply because, in the opinion of the claims handler, something wasn’t quite right with it. The decision to deny, usually made at the local claims office level, was often not evidence-based; sometimes the denial would be issued before the investigation had even been completed. The written comments in the file supporting the denial were usually colorfully raw and emphatic, flavored with instinct or emotion. You know, comments like “This claim stinks” or “This guy is a crook” or “I know he set this fire, no matter what the Fire Marshal says.” It goes without saying that these were called “righteous” denials because the claim handlers earnestly, perhaps even sanctimoniously, imagined themselves occupying the moral high ground. They were driven and determined to resist any claim that seemed inflated or fraudulent, against all odds and at all costs.

Don't get me wrong--these were not evil people intent on doing harm. But their doggedness to do what they saw as the “right thing”--even if the evidence didn’t entirely support doing it—arguably interfered with the performance of the duties of good faith and fair dealing that insurance companies owed to the people they insured. The litigation that followed exposed insurers to negative publicity, contractual damages in excess of policy limits, and to direct actions for extra-contractual damages, including punitive damages in some cases.

It may be hard to believe now, but back then most claims handlers didn’t understand what “bad faith” claim handling was, and they never imagined that their righteous denials could contribute to such unfortunate outcomes. Their good intentions, pursued intractably with ignorance and a lack of understanding, were characterized in litigation as egregious, outrageous, unscrupulous, arbitrary, capricious, reckless and/or unreasonable behaviors designed to avoid claim payment while placing the insurer’s interests ahead of the insureds’. And their claim file comments were used against them as evidence to support that characterization.

Those were stimulating and challenging times. As I recall, it required quite a bit of time and effort to change the underlying operating mindset and banish the righteous denial, in part because some claims handlers had a hard time “unlearning” something they believed in so strongly. Of course adults often have trouble learning and integrating things that conflict with something they believe they already know. Jane Bozarth described it this way in her article Nuts and Bolts: Unlearning:

Old habits are hard to break, and revising old thinking patterns, even when one recognizes the need for change, is challenging. And when we’re under pressure the old learning may reemerge, as it has a longer history inside our responses.

I need to get back to my reading, but for more about first party bad faith and the history of bad faith in general, check out the ABA’s Recovery of Extra-Contractual (“Consequential”) Damages in First-Party Bad Faith Cases and Thomas F. Segalla’s Bad Faith as a Continuum: From Claim to Trial.

Dean K. Harring, CPCU, CIC is a retired Chief Claims Officer and an expert and advisor on Property Casualty insurance claims and operations. He can be reached at dean.harring@theclm.org or through LinkedIn or Twitter.

Airports, Innovation and Go Fever

I don't spend much time in airports anymore, and I admit to being grateful for that. For me, air travel has degenerated into an unpleasant and frustrating series of annoying experiences, end to end. Parking, baggage, security, boarding, being on board--all aggravating and uncomfortable, but hard to avoid when you need to travel long distances quickly.

I was walking through BWI airport after a flight a few weeks ago, studying the crowd flowing past me, and I realized I was surrounded by miserable, unhappy people--people in transit--apprehensively winding their way through a noisy, competitive obstacle course bristling with deadlines, pressures and uncertainties. Kids wailing, wishing they were somewhere else. Teenagers with eyes fixed on their phones, or scanning the baseboards looking for electrical outlets for a quick charge. Flushed, exasperated travelers. Grimacing, arguing, whining, snarling into phones and at airline personnel and at each other. Some dutifully playing the role of designated navigational obstacles, bumbling and shuffling along, blocking the walkways and standing in the wrong lines. Others speed walking, aggressively bobbing and weaving, dragging companions and kids and enormous wheeled bags behind them, while glaring at the elite priority platinum business travelers pirouetting to the front of the line. All these poor souls desperately trying to do one thing: escape from the airport, either in a plane (departures) or out the front door (arrivals.) I quickened my pace toward the exit.

Outside, I stood near a family with a talkative and curious child, about 7, who was interrogating his father:

Q: Why are we standing here?

A: We are waiting for our ride home.

Q: Do we have to?

A: Yes.

Q: I'm hot. Why can't we wait inside where it is cool?

A: We are waiting here.

Q: Why?

A: Because I said so, that's why.

The child let it drop. Is it any wonder we learn to stop asking questions when we are young? Even if we didn't have mind-shrinking conversations like that with our parents, in school we quickly learned that doing well involved answering questions, not asking them. Asking questions is an integral part of learning, creating, and innovating, however, so there's a cost. Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman described it this way in their Newsweek article: The Creativity Crisis

Preschool children, on average, ask their parents about 100 questions a day. Why, why, why—sometimes parents just wish it’d stop. Tragically, it does stop. By middle school they've pretty much stopped asking. It’s no coincidence that this same time is when student motivation and engagement plummet. They didn't stop asking questions because they lost interest: it’s the other way around. They lost interest because they stopped asking questions.

Sir Ken Robinson, in his wildly popular (over 27 million views) TED talk Do Schools Kill Creativity?, makes the point that while young children are usually not frightened of trying new things and they have no worries about being wrong, by the time they become adults most have learned it is safer to avoid taking chances, to limit the possibility of making mistakes. Schools, by stigmatizing mistakes, educate people out of their creative capabilities. Companies are run that way, too, says Robinson: "If you are not prepared to be wrong, you'll never come up with anything original."

I think it is fair to say that most of the large, bureaucratic companies I have worked with over the years valued compliance much more than they valued innovation or creativity. Employees were rewarded for knowing and following the company's policies and procedures, and reprimanded for making mistakes, particularly if the mistakes involved deviating from established company best practices. Rethinking processes, imagining new products or services, experimenting with new approaches--these activities were rare because they were potentially dangerous to an individual's career (penalties for failure) and it was just easier and safer to stick with established protocols. If something really needed to change, the smart move was to call in a consulting firm and have them make the change recommendations. This dynamic is probably what Rosabeth Moss Kanter was thinking about when she penned the line: "Mindless habitual behavior is the enemy of innovation.”

Yet innovation isn't frightening just because it involves implementing something new—a product, a service, a process, an alliance, a market, or an experience. It is frightening because of the expectation that the new thing will somehow create value and improve results. So while thinking and talking about innovation is easy, innovating demands execution, a commitment to a new course of action, a personal, public leap of faith. There's a steady drumbeat of danger, disruption, and discomfort that accompanies that leap, and given there's never any guarantee of success, innovation looks just like the sort of thing we learned to avoid back in elementary school. Innovation may be a popular discussion topic these days, but not much of it seems to be happening in the property casualty business. (See Innovate or Die. Really?)

Every once in a while, though, circumstances conspire to create a high urgency insurance company version of a "go fever" situation, pushing innovation and transformation to center stage. This can happen for many reasons, like when a new CEO makes lofty promises to investors about expense containment or growth, or when a company is not competing effectively and needs to hit the reset button to get back in the game.

The "go fever" scenario adds another level of risk to any innovation/transformation effort. Even though Jack Welch says innovation ought to be everyone's job, all the time, in a "go fever" situation someone is usually chosen to drive the innovation/transformation process and deliver the anticipated benefits, quickly. Under pressure to deliver, to get things done, there is a huge temptation to take short cuts, to start the change process without first becoming sufficiently familiar with the realities and constraints of the system being evaluated. I suppose it's a bit like starting surgery without first getting the patient's medical history, working up a diagnosis, and preparing a surgical plan. Without a baseline understanding and appreciation of the rules and regulations and intricacies and dependencies of whatever it is that needs to improve, even the best plans and intentions will be shaken and undermined by unintended consequences, unforeseen obstacles, false assumptions and unanticipated collateral damage.

Of course unintended consequences, unforeseen obstacles, false assumptions and unanticipated collateral damage look and sound a lot like undesirable outcomes, and they can derail and/or kill an innovation project and the career of the person driving it. Sure, there's no guarantee that better preparation would help avoid such outcomes, but a more informed and enlightened innovation approach arguably would at least put the risks on the radar screen.

So if you are tapped to run a high profile innovation/transformation project, job one should be to get yourself familiar with the realities and constraints of the system. By all means, ask questions of the people actively involved in managing the work, but don't demonize or penalize them for pointing out obstacles or risks or dependencies no one had considered previously. Gather the facts, and don't fall into the trap of accepting any single point of view as definitive, even if it is the CEO's; seek insight and understanding instead. Remember philosopher Marshall McLuhan's cryptic admonition: “A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight and understanding.”

For an entertaining and informative look at failure, the costs of failure avoidance, and "go fever", check out the Freakonomics podcast Failure is Your Friend.

Dean K. Harring, CPCU, CIC is a retired Chief Claims Officer and an expert and advisor on Property Casualty insurance claims and operations. He can be reached at dean.harring@theclm.org or through LinkedIn or Twitter.

The Consultants Your Boss Hired Are Here to See You...

If you are running an insurance claims operation, and your boss or the board brings in outside consulting experts to evaluate it, chances are you have a problem. Not just the problem the consultants are being called in to examine, but a pricklier, more personal problem--a perception problem. Someone with some clout in your organization apparently doesn't believe you are capable of doing whatever it is the consultants are going to be doing.

That puts you in a tricky situation, one that demands thoughtful action. First of all, don't try to convince your boss or the board that you are an expert and that you don't need outside assistance to handle the situation. Don't waste time arguing that your training and years of experience managing claims qualify you for the challenge. Do understand that the decision has already gone the other way, and any attempt you make to reverse it looks like resistance, concealment, perhaps even cluelessness.

Think about it. If you argue that there is no problem, or the problem is outside of claims, or that every claims operation has the same problem, you risk being classified as stubborn, change averse, and overly comfortable with the status quo. If you protest that you have already diagnosed the problem and designed a solution, realize that others don't see it that way. They want another opinion, another perspective. Maybe they don't like your plan, or perhaps it conflicts with some other course of action they want to pursue. It could be they don't quite know what the problem is, but there's something troublesome in the loss numbers, and they want to understand why it is happening and what to do about it. Or, worst case for you, they might just be looking for evidence and justification for overhauling your organization and/or escorting you out the door.

The reason really doesn't matter, but your response does. As activist and author Jerry Rubin once said: "The power to define the situation is the ultimate power." You have the power to assist in framing the inquiry and shaping the outcome by being visible and playing an active, cooperative role with the experts during the engagement. Take advantage of that power.

First, welcome the consultants and make arrangements to provide them with whatever help and information they need. Brief them fully on your organization, your strategy, and your operating procedures. Impress them with the dashboards and controls you use to manage risks and results. Talk to them about process efficiency, effectiveness, and loss cost management techniques. Show them how you establish and monitor key performance indicators and how you interact and communicate with your stakeholders. Demonstrate how you identify and incorporate best practices in your claims handling processes. If some of the consultants lack industry knowledge and have no background in claims--don't be dismayed. Instead, patiently take the time to make sure they fully grasp how your company functions and how your operation contributes to results. In other words, do whatever you can to provide the experts with plenty of evidence supporting the proposition that when it comes to running an insurance claims operation: 1) you know what to do, 2) you know how to do it, and 3) you are doing it, quite well.

The consultants' job is to identify performance gaps and root causes, and propose actions to close those gaps. Your objective should be to provide them with the information, the insights and the support they need to do that job well. People who hire consultants usually believe the consultants will bring very high levels of knowledge, objectivity, credibility and perceptiveness to the engagement. While that belief might not always be accurate, the reality is that consultants' findings are accepted as authoritative in most cases. That means their recommendations will impact you and your organization, so it makes sense for you to invest your time and effort into framing the inquiry and shaping the outcome. Give it your best shot--you might even learn something in the process.

The downside is that in tricky, prickly situations like this there is no guarantee things will turn out well even if you do everything right. Sometimes there are hidden operating agendas, foregone conclusions and predetermined outcomes underlying the consulting engagement, and unless you know about those factors going in, there's not much you can do to manage their impact.

Dean K. Harring, CPCU, CIC is a retired Chief Claims Officer and an expert and advisor on property casualty insurance claims and operations. He can be reached at dean.harring@theclm.org or through LinkedIn

Invisible Man on Third…

I was wandering around my yard after dinner the other night, half-heartedly taking inventory of the garden chores I had been dodging, when I noticed some kids playing kickball across the street. There were six of them, three per team, and they were pretty good kickers, so they were doing a lot of base running. I chuckled when the tall kid standing on third base yelled "Invisible man on third!," at which point the base runners on first and second and the kids on the other team watched intently while he jogged to home plate to kick. Bases loaded, invisible man on third! I hadn't heard that proclamation for a long time, but if you have ever played kickball, stickball, baseball or softball with teams of three or less, you know all about the invisible man.

For some reason, that kickball game got me thinking about invisibility as a attribute in planning and operations and personal behavior. In certain circumstances, as in the small team base-running scenario, it is an operating imperative as the game can't proceed unless the invisible runner rule is invoked. Invisibility is the goal of many corporate security protocols, to protect sensitive information, to preserve privacy and confidentiality, and to shield intellectual property from attack or discovery. It is the intended product of stealth functionality, to camouflage activities while providing cover or anonymity. It can be an element of a individual's operating model, or a preference, as when someone acts behind the scenes or tries to avoid visibility or to otherwise conceal their activities. And sometimes it emerges as an incidental factor in a program or project, usually through negligence or inadvertence, when folks aren't paying attention and ownership, accountability and decision rights don't get clearly established.

My first encounter with a corporate version of the invisible man came decades ago while I was working as a claims supervisor for a large insurer in Massachusetts. I remember the claims supervisor job as a tough one, largely because the supervisor was responsible for monitoring and directing a hefty and constantly shifting portfolio of claims toward timely and appropriate resolution. Theoretically, the supervisor would assign the claims to claims handlers who moved them through the phases--investigation, evaluation and resolution--but sometimes there just weren't enough claim handlers available to handle all the claims. Turnover, training, vacations, hiring freezes, an increasing volume of new claims--any one of these things could create a situation where there were too many claims and not enough claim handlers. The solution? At that particular company the solution was Mr. X, who had a diary number and carried a large caseload of slow moving claims reassigned from other claim handlers. Every claims supervisor had a Mr.X on staff. He was imaginary and invisible, so he wasn't able to accomplish anything on the claims, but the reassignments to Mr.X created workload capacity so the real claim handlers could handle more new claims. Mr.X was an operating imperative.
 
Years later, I bumped into Mr.X's cousins at a third party claims administrator in New Jersey. The TPA had guaranteed their clients that claim workloads would not exceed a certain number per claim handler. As the end of the month approached, if workloads were higher than promised the TPA claims supervisors would reassign claims to themselves or to their office manager to reduce the claim handler workloads to the agreed number. This was done for stealth reasons, to conceal actual workload levels. Of course the supervisors and manager weren't imaginary or invisible, but they may as well have been since they did not actually work on the claims assigned to them. They were simply placeholders until after month end, at which point the claims would be reassigned to the claims handlers.

Radio and TV journalist Richard Harkness is credited with drafting this definition of a committee: "A group of the unwilling, picked from the unfit, to do the unnecessary." While I think that characterization is a bit severe, I have probably been on too many committees, so I believe it is fair to say that most committees have at least one member who fails to attend meetings and contributes little or nothing to the committee's work. That's awkward enough, but when the invisible committee member also happens to be the committee chair, it is even more awkward. I remember working on a committee in New York where the chair would schedule a meeting, then miss the meeting at the last minute because of a vague, recurring malady he described only as "man flu." The committee would meet without him, cover the agenda, provide him with the minutes, then he would schedule another meeting, and at the last minute...well, you have probably lived this dream yourself. He was an absentee committee chair, he took credit for the committee's work, yet he never contributed anything to that work.

I have seen the same type of incidental invisibility in large scale technology development and/or implementation projects, where it is frequently difficult to determine who, if anyone, actually "owns" the project. I always ask two questions: 1) Has any one person actually been tasked with setting direction, managing obstacles and making decisions on the project? 2) Is there a real person who knows and understands he/she will be held responsible and accountable if things don't work out as expected on the project? It is usually easy to identify the project sponsor, and the steering committee, and the subject matter experts, and the IT folks who are managing the project, but the project owner is often not visible. Why? Either project ownership responsibility was never specifically assigned or, more likely, ownership was assigned to a committee. Psychologist Will Schutz was no doubt thinking of something else when he wrote this, but he did a good job of describing the inevitable, unfortunate outcome when an owner-less or committee-owned project fails to meet expectations: "Everyone is responsible but no one is to blame."

It is even worse when the wrong person or department is identified as the owner. I think it is crazy for Human Resources executives to own an employee engagement project, for example, or for IT executives to own a technology development or implementation project. These are business projects, and they should be owned by the business leader who convinced the organization that he/she had a problem or an opportunity, and that the project was the solution. Sure, HR and IT are there to assist, to provide expertise, structure, oversight, and maybe even project management, but the business person owner needs to remain visible, responsible and accountable.

Jonathan Lethem made a point about invisibility in his book Chronic City: "The invisible are always so resolutely invisible, until you see them." That's true in business and in life, I suppose, but no matter how hard you try, you'll never be able to see the invisible man on third.  That's just the way it is.

Dean K. Harring, CPCU, CIC is a retired Chief Claims Officer and an expert and advisor on Property Casualty insurance claims and operations. He can be reached at dean.harring@theclm.org or through LinkedIn or Twitter.

If You Have to Explain It, It’s Not Working…

My father was an artist, but once he settled down to raise his family he earned his living as an advertising and design executive. He had a tremendous eye for print advertising, and he enjoyed talking about the critical interplay between the design of an advertisement, and the message it was trying to convey.

He said a successful ad had to do three things:

• Grab the viewer's attention
• Stand on its own
• Speak for itself

If it couldn't do those things, if someone had to explain it to the viewer, then the ad wasn't working. Maybe you've seen the E. B. White quote about jokes: "Explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog. You understand it better but the frog dies in the process." My father would tell you that although White was writing about jokes, he could easily have used the same simile to write about advertisements.

I was thinking recently that most of us probably assess business communications using roughly the same standards my father used to evaluate advertisements, but with a twist. We have been traumatized by years of exposure to lame jokes, rootless speeches, painful presentations and ill-reasoned papers, and we are under pressure since the volume of communications we see seems to be growing steadily. Circumstances have forced us to adapt and develop into discerning judges with low patience, high expectations and absurdly short attention spans.

So when we consider whether a particular communication is worth our time and attention, we decide very quickly. If it's not important, if it doesn't engage or enchant us, we ruthlessly shift our attention elsewhere. That shift can be quite noticeable at a live presentation. Next time you find yourself in the audience at a presentation that isn't going well (easy to do, unfortunately), take a look around and you will see audience members whip out their smart phones or tablets and begin brazenly swiping through screens just as if they were home sitting at their kitchen table. Some might even attempt "quiet" telephone conversations from their seats. Once this happens, it is as if these audience members have exited the room. They are no longer listening, so they have no chance of receiving or remembering or using the information embedded in the presenter's message.

No matter what you think about this behavior, it is the new normal and it is happening all around you--at conferences, in meeting rooms, in offices, in cubicles, on video conferences and on teleconferences. It even happens one on one. I used to work with a particularly exasperating CEO who would schedule a meeting with me, ask a question, and then never lift his eyes from his Blackberry as I answered. He was an unapologetic multitasker--confident he was absorbing what I was saying while he was clearing his email. Of course in his mind he was also a fabulous public speaker, and I suppose under the right circumstances (convention of robots?) his lifeless, monotone expostulations might have been well received.

When it comes to multitasking, here's the reality: humans cannot read and listen with comprehension simultaneously. If you are talking to someone and they are reading their email, they cannot process what you are saying. Douglas Merrill describes why in his blog Why Multitasking Doesn't Work:

When you’re trying to accomplish two dissimilar tasks, each one requiring some level of consideration and attention, multitasking falls apart. Your brain just can’t take in and process two simultaneous, separate streams of information and encode them fully into short-term memory. When information doesn’t make it into short-term memory, it can’t be transferred into long-term memory for recall later. If you can’t recall it, you can’t use it.

What's the solution? That depends upon whether you believe there's a problem and, if so, how you perceive it. If you think folks are justified in tuning out of presentations that aren't working, turning on their devices, and dropping out of the audience, then you might believe the solution has something to do with requiring presenters to deliver more engaging presentations. If, however, you think the electronic devices are the problem--that they are enabling unwelcome and inappropriate audience behavior--you might support a ban on audience electronic communication devices at presentation sessions. Or maybe you think that both solutions, applied together, make sense.

I tend to look at presentations the same way my father looked at ads. I think people who presume to stand in front of a group (or a microphone, or a video camera) to deliver a message have an obligation to deliver it in such a way that it works, i.e., the message grabs the audience's attention, stands on its own, and speaks for itself. I also believe audience members should give a presenter their undivided attention, but I suppose a legitimate question is for how long? I watch a new TED talk each day and I admit that even when confronted by a talk that is by definition limited to 18 minutes, I will move on if the speaker hasn't hooked me in the first minute. I don't pretend I am multitasking, I just move on to something else. While that approach may be fine for TED talks, where what's being communicated is usually potentially interesting but not particularly important to me, shouldn't the standard be a bit different in a business presentation setting?

I think so. If we want business communication to work better, we could start by being better presenters and listeners. Chris Anderson, the curator of TED, has said: "A successful talk is a little miracle--people see the world differently afterward." My father would have said the same thing about a successful ad. And whether the ultimate objective is to entertain, direct, inform, inspire or convince, isn't that really the whole point of communicating, even in business?

Dean K. Harring, CPCU, CIC is a retired Chief Claims Officer and an expert and advisor on Property Casualty insurance claims and operations. He can be reached at dean.harring@theclm.org or through LinkedIn or Twitter.

Dirty Tricks?

I recently read a vigorously worded document published by the American Association for Justice (formerly the Association of Trial Lawyers of America--ATLA®--an organization that supported plaintiff trial lawyers) entitled Tricks of the Trade: How Insurance Companies Deny, Delay, Confuse and Refuse . Even though the document reads like an alarmist commercial for plaintiff law firms, it got me thinking about a series of half-day seminars on claims management principles I delivered to groups of property casualty insurance agents a few years ago. The objective was to familiarize agents with the claims process and help them become more effective as coaches and claims advocates for their insureds.

The class was usually relatively sedate until we started discussing how an insurance company handles claims. Many of the agents already had fairly well-formed opinions on that topic, i.e., they were convinced the claims process took unnecessarily long, that it was needlessly complex and inconvenient, and that claims payments were delayed and unfairly minimized by claims adjusters who they believed were rewarded by insurance companies for underpaying claims. Some of the agents had been involved in or had heard about at least one nightmare claims situation, the details of which they always enjoyed sharing with the group. So while I was often surprised by the students' general lack of knowledge and understanding of the claims handling process, I was never surprised by their fascination with the "dirty tricks" they were convinced claims handlers commonly used to minimize claims payments.

I thought it was important for the agents to understand all of the forces that exerted influence on the claims handling process, so I gave them a quick overview of the elements of fair claims practices regulations that had been implemented in many states, including this list of some of the prohibited behaviors in California:

• Misrepresenting coverage
• Failing to acknowledge and act reasonably promptly upon communications
• Failing to adopt and implement reasonable standards for the prompt investigation and processing of claims
• Failing to affirm or deny coverage of claims within a reasonable time after proof of loss
• Not attempting in good faith to effectuate prompt, fair, and equitable settlements of claims
• Compelling insureds to institute litigation to recover amounts due under an insurance policy by offering substantially less than the amounts ultimately recovered in actions brought by the insureds.
• Failing to provide promptly a reasonable explanation of the basis relied on in the insurance policy, in relation to the facts or applicable law, for the denial of a claim or for the offer of a compromise settlement.
• Directly advising a claimant not to obtain the services of an attorney.
• Misleading a claimant as to the applicable statute of limitations.

Once the agents realized that California didn't just dream up this list of prohibited behaviors, once they understood that claims adjusters had indeed been doing these things in California, and that was why the behaviors had been prohibited, they were intrigued. At that point, to illustrate the impact regulation has had on claims handling, I would tell them stories about some of the things claims adjusters were taught to do before fair claims practices regulations were in place, back in the 1970s, when I worked as an adjuster. Like refusing to reveal policy coverage limits, or negotiating to "save something on the policy limit" (Supervisor to Adjuster: If we are going to pay out the full policy limit, why do we need you?), or "controlling" cases (contacting a claimant quickly to establish a relationship and encourage him/her to deal with you directly, without an attorney involved) or engineering "drop-check" settlements (sending out an unsolicited check along with a release to attempt to settle a claim.) I would also relate the urban legend about an insurance company claims officer who introduced a short-lived loss cost management program that had a catchy name, something like "Operation 3%." It supposedly worked like this: once the adjuster figured out what a claim was worth, he (adjusters were almost always men back then) would deduct 3% from the number and that would become the new maximum to be paid on the claim.

With the exception of "Operation 3%," these probably were not really dirty tricks--they weren't illegal or unethical-- they were simply best practices at that time. The agents would usually agree, although a few would remain unshaken in their belief that adjusters are rewarded for underpaying claims. And they wouldn't budge, even when I described how most insurance companies routinely reviewed closed files to assess claim handling quality, and when they found an underpayment they immediately corrected it.

If those insurance agents were any indication, there is a receptive audience out there for publications such as Tricks of the Trade. Google "dirty tricks used by adjusters" and you will get a quarter of a million results, many of which are links to law firm websites shrilly warning consumers about ploys, tactics and dirty tricks used by adjusters. Unspeakable, heinous and despicable tricks such as attempting to talk with a claimant, or to get a claimant's statement, or to secure a medical authorization form.

"Some matters are simply contentious" wrote Sara Sheridan recently in a Huffington Post blog totally unrelated to claims. Indeed.