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.

Innovate or Die. Really?

I have been thinking and reading about innovation recently, and I must say there certainly is no shortage of material on the topic—much of it with a critical slant.  That may surprise you, since no matter where you work I am sure your organization talks about innovation, believes it is already innovative, or at least plans to become innovative. Why?  Innovation is a trendy concept, it sounds cool, cutting-edge and entrepreneurial. Business schools have embraced it, and consultants have built practices around it. More importantly, many people believe the phrase “innovate or die” is absolutely true and that it applies to all businesses. So, as Dennis Berman points out in the Wall Street Journal: “Most CEOs now spray the word "innovation" as if it were an air freshener.”

William Taylor, co-founder of Fast Company magazine and blogger on the Harvard Business Review Blog Network, described it this way in his 12/6/13 blog Stop Me Before I “Innovate” Again:

“Words matter — in business and in life. I’ve always found that companies that aspire to do extraordinary things, leaders who aim to challenge the limits of what’s possible in their fields, develop a “vocabulary of competition” that captures the impact they’re trying to have, the difference they’re trying to make, the future they’re hoping to create. Almost none of these companies and leaders use the word “innovation” to describe their strategy — implicitly or explicitly, they understand that it has been sapped of all substance. Instead, they offer rich and vivid descriptions of what they hope to do, where they hope to get, and why it matters.”

Ginanpiero Pteriglieri, an associate professor of organizational behavior at Insead, puts an even sharper point on it in remarks quoted in The Experts blog in the Wall Street Journal:

“Innovation is a strong contender for the crown of business buzzword of the decade. The term has all it takes. It is ubiquitous, mysterious and, like its acolyte "leadership," it works alone and pairs well with many adjectives. Is there a problem that transformational leadership and disruptive innovation aren't invoked to solve? Is there a company whose failure is not explained by a lack of both?”

Business buzzword of the decade? Wow. In that race, the competition is steep, and the contenders are many.  By the way, a great place to check out a good collection of the “jargon monoxide” (a term coined by Polly LaBarre) contenders is The Ridiculous Business Jargon Dictionary where you can browse terms ranging from “above board” to “zero-zero split.” 

Whether or not you believe it is appropriate or well deserved, the property-casualty insurance industry isn’t often described as innovative.  Complacent and risk-averse, stolid, stodgy, and conservative are descriptors more commonly used. But let’s step back a minute—what is innovation, and how critical is it to the success of a property-casualty insurance company?

Innovation is often described as the implementation of something new—a product, a service, a process, an alliance, a market, or an experience—that creates value. So while the innovation process may begin with big ideas, it takes execution and results before it qualifies as innovation. Or, as Dr. Lewis Duncan, president of Rollins College, put it: “Innovation is the ability to convert ideas into invoices.” 

Of course, there are also other flavors of value out there to be harvested through innovation—lower costs, higher margins, new or more attractive products or services, more engaged employees, new customers, new distribution channels, happier customers, more loyal customers, enhanced reputation, etc.  Yet for property-casualty insurers who believe they are operating in essentially closed markets characterized by a high level of maturity and stability, the decision about innovating often turns on their competitive situation.  If they believe they are competing successfully (however they define that term), they may elect to avoid the costs of innovation and to focus instead on engineering incremental operating improvements, tweaking their products and operations and processes so they can continue to function competitively.

But if a company is not competing successfully, or if they aspire to grow and be profitable but that just isn’t happening, they need to step back and analyze what isn’t working, why, and what needs to be done to improve results. That’s an opportunity for innovation, for sure, but it also offers a convenient excuse to avoid or abandon any initiative or process that is new (or unwelcome or costly) and to “get back to basics.”  Getting back to basics means different things to different people, of course, but it usually involves a return to a time-tested and proven method of doing something, like implementation of well-established and widely understood industry methods and best practices. You might characterize it as the converse of innovation. Truth be told--it is much easier and more comfortable to get back to basics than it is to get innovative and develop something new to create value. And it just might be enough for an insurance company to get things back on track if their inability to compete had its roots in substandard or underperforming products, practices, services, or operations.

I do always wonder, when an insurance company goes public with its plans to embark upon an ambitious, multi-year program of operational transformation (first cousin of innovation), just how long it will take before they lose their nerve and push the “back to basics” button. I have experienced it, and I have watched others go through it, and it isn’t really that unexpected.  Innovation is often a costly undertaking that generates uncomfortable, disruptive change with no guarantee of success,  That is particularly true when the “value” that is expected to result is difficult to measure and demonstrate convincingly since it arises from something other than “invoices.”  If you have lived through any type of claims-related transformation or innovation, you know exactly what I mean.

Still, I am not convinced that all property-casualty insurance companies are necessarily entangled in an “innovate or die” predicament, at least not yet. Plenty of companies manage to stick to the basics, focus on execution, play around the edges with incremental improvements, and the market allows them to survive and sometimes even prosper.  Yet we all know there are insurance companies out there who are constantly pushing the envelope and doing whatever it takes to create value—they just don’t spend a lot of time bragging about how innovative they are or broadcasting what they are doing. Instead, they are busy trying to create distinctive marketplace advantages that resonate with customers and to give themselves an edge in pricing, costs, products or services.  Why? So they can operate with higher profit margins and grow by attracting customers away from their competitors. So even though innovation for property casualty insurers probably isn’t really a matter of life and death today, it can impact an insurer’s quality of life and general well being. Kind of like diet and exercise can for humans, I suppose.

Narrow the focus to property casualty claims operations, however, and I think the “innovate or die” predicament becomes a bit more pressing and complicated; but that’s a tale for another day.

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 www.linkedin.com/in/deanharring/