Posts Tagged ‘strategy implementation’

Uncommon Business Integration

Thursday, August 20th, 2015

So you are the proud owner and as CEO, guardian of the new combined business, the hard work now begins, turning the reasons why you bought the business (investment thesis) into an organisational reality.

You assemble the executives and managers in both firms with guidance on the strategic vision, financial synergies, operations, talent and culture. In all likelihood, they have interacted briefly to exchange information in the due diligence, negotiation and closing phases but they have rarely got to know each other on a personal basis.

How each party sees that you handle that first integration meeting in most cases creates an indelible impression for the ensuing relationships, the level of commitment to your objectives and your probable success.

Knowing “what to do” and “how to do it”, is largely a mixture of art and science for most leaders. “Art”, in the sense of gut feel and good judgement in creating a welcoming environment for the newly acquired executives and managers. “Science”, in the sense of knowing precisely like choreographing a play “what” business outcomes must be prioritised, “where” to devote time productively, “when” you must accelerate the conversation (agreed action points) or intervene to bring circular conversations to a close and “why” a chosen integration alternative is appropriate.

Here is seven “integration killers” you want to avoid in that first meeting of the “new” colleagues:

1. Ambiguous and Unclear Meeting Invite. The focus needs to be on performance-based priorities (crystal clear business outcomes) not tasks and activities (“getting acquainted with each other”).

2. Inviting Wallflowers. Peers want to meet, talk and reach agreement with peers or possibly employees who are one grade above. They don’t want to converse with subordinates, who cannot contribute meaningfully and do nothing more than to act as a “posse” or mute cheerleaders for an executive or senior manager.

3. Enabling People Who Arrive With An “Agenda”. Nothing kills an integration meeting like an HR person from the acquiring company, who arrives with an arbitrary alternative (“non-negotiable” policies and procedures) to force the newly acquired employees to comply to their process without first listening to and collectively examining whether it makes sense. The real crime is the facilitator who allows them to make a speech and enables their passive-aggressive behaviour.

4. Leaders Whose Behaviour Precisely Undermines The Meeting’s “Rules of Engagement”. If the understanding is that PDA’s and phones are to be switched off until the scheduled break, there is zero excuse for the leader, who blatantly ignores the rule. What the leader’s behaviour says to the other participants is “this discussion is not my priority”.

5. Kick off at the wrong starting point (integration alternative). Any discussion must start with “what is the desired business outcome?” (rapid reduction in business acquisition expenses), “what are the integration alternatives?” (adopt Company A or B’s sales approach or develop a new approach), “what is the risk and reward attached to each alternative?”, and ends with “what action is required to rapidly and effectively implement the preferred alternative” (next steps). Nothing else.

6. Priorities are given an arbitrary score (“7”) or (“High”). Organise and separate priorities into three headings (“GSI”): “Gravity”, what is the gravity of the issue? “Speed”, how fast does this need resolving or improving? “Impact”, what is the actual or potential impact on the firm’s future? Use actual descriptive sentences not scores.

7. Lack of definitive “next steps” with agreed action points (“I’ll discuss this with the COO when I next see him”). Every action point must have a time, date and accountability given to it with an understanding of the supplementary action to follow.

My observation is that most first integration meetings start with the very best of intentions. Where they go awry is that the meeting chair and participants overlook the importance of speed as well as quality. “Speed” in terms of, for example, identifying decision-making shortcuts that enhance the quality of the results (more impressive financial synergies, happier customers). “Quality” in terms of asking the right questions in the integration meeting to enhance the “speed” of accomplishing the desired business outcomes (ease of implementation, reduced risk).

© James Berkeley 2015. All Rights Reserved.

Bank Imbalance

Wednesday, July 8th, 2015

This morning the Board Chair of Barclays, the global bank, fired his CEO with analysts suggesting the speed of top line revenue growth, cost reduction and value creation has been underwhelming while acknowledging the progress the Bank has made in re-shaping its’ culture and shared values. The inference being that the bank has spent excessive time and resources on internal versus external issues. The point here is you have to do the following in  parallel, not sequential phases:

  1. Frame and commit resources to your strategic vision of the future
  2. Define and move swiftly through the strategy, tactics and execution towards your desired future state
  3. Define and make cultural changes to the firm’s operating beliefs, employee’s attitudes and their behaviour consistent with your new strategy and your desired future
  4. Allow for mid-course corrections to #2 and #3, where market assumptions and so forth change and need moderate or significant adaption
  5. Seek to exploit the results and value when you arrive at your desired future state (leverage and innovation).

Here is some key questions to ask in your own organisation and your clients:

  1. What proportion of management time, employees time and capital is being directed to internal issues versus external issues? Is that appropriate for the organisation at this stage of its’ growth strategy? If not, what needs to change?
  2. Does the firm’s leadership posses the skills and volition to make appropriate decisions rapidly and exemplify the desired beliefs consistent with the growth strategy? If not the leadership needs expert help to adapt or ultimately change those at the top.
  3. Is the business measuring what matters? Does it possess performance-based job descriptions and metrics for each individual throughout the organisation consistent with the growth strategy? If not, it needs immediate correction.
  4. Are they holding each other to account for accomplishment of key performance-based priorities? If not, starting with top management it needs to create or reinforce accountabilities down the line (carrots and sticks, monetary and non-monetary versions)
  5. Are they hiring, recognising and rewarding people for both the right behaviours and results consistent with the new growth strategy?  If not, it needs immediate adaption of the hiring, performance and rewards systems undertaken by line management not HR.

The banking sector is a poster child for excessive internal focus on compliance and costs. I sat at dinner last night with the regional head of a Top 10 global bank, who is accountable for protecting the bank from financial crimes and compliance breaches. He recounted his daily routine of corralling 12 CEOs of regional operating units, questioning their practices and where necessary forcing them to abandon clients, employees and products. What is obvious from the conversation is that in an effort to protect the bank’s bottom line there is a daily struggle to define “prudent risk taking”, to balance that with profitable growth and to use everyone’s time valuably. Isn’t that a skills set you would expect every banker to have learned at the start of their career?

The reality as Anthony Jenkins dismissal today shows is that those skills are in shorter supply than most imagined.

© James Berkeley 2015. All Rights Reserved.

Willis Towers Watson Uncovered

Tuesday, June 30th, 2015

A few weeks after my recent blog post http://www.jamesberkeley.com/business-transformation/the-best-re-inventor-award low and behold Willis and Towers Watson surprise the market this morning. Occasionally you see a deal announced and your first reaction is to re-read the headline making sure what you think you have read is in fact true. Uhm, a “merger of equals”, really?

On the surface the logic would be obvious, Willis’s immediate competitors, AON and Marsh both own substantial professional services firms, Hewitt and Oliver Wyman. The future is largely being shaped by high-value advisory services and low-cost transactional broking and administrative services. That is where the easy comparisons stop.

Oliver Wyman largely operates as a separate “silo” with its’ own brand focus, leadership, culture and resources inside MMC. Collaboration is limited to a small number of “joint” client assignments.

Hewitt has been absorbed more comprehensively into AON’s brand offering, leadership and culture. The healthcare consulting has largely been transferred to AON’s transactional healthcare broking business. The Hewitt outsourcing business has undergone extensive changes. What exists of “Old Hewitt” today is largely a talent, rewards, retirement and investment consulting business.

Twinkle Eyes

Willis and Towers Watson had the advantage of getting know each other last year in the due diligence phase of the sale of Towers Watson’s reinsurance broking business (ultimately sold to JLT). At the time, JLT trumpeted a future collaboration with Towers Watson. Are we to presume that the JLT/TW collaboration has really proved underwhelming or were there hidden attractions for a Willis/TW merger that few in the public domain spotted? While surely welcome, the mention that ValueCapital, Willis’s activist shareholder, is supportive of the transaction, could be interpreted to mean that Willis was under pressure to consummate a deal with organic growth prospects hardly setting the pulse racing?

The Challenges Ahead

A “merger of equals” is the hardest type of deal to pull off. The first requirement to a successful merger is everybody is open to change. Yet both firms would be characterised by conservative leadership teams and cultures that more often than not have rejected change or accepted it with some reluctance, particularly in the era of Joe Plumeri.

Here are some fundamental questions that investors and analysts need to ask:

  1. Would Willis Towers Watson be willing to abandon, for example, default labels such as investment consultant, treaty broker and political risk broker? The world is looking for expertise, it is not looking for a client issue to be wrapped in a broking, consulting or investment solution with the inevitable internal competition that does nothing to help the client. Would they be willing to rip up widely held beliefs about fee-setting (scrapping unethical hourly billed fees, a relic of audit firms) or contingent commissions?
  2. What do the people within the new firm need to thrive? (very light on detail)
  3. What are the benefits of this union to the customer? (very light in today’s announcement)
  4. Do the leaders and people within each of the businesses truly believe in those benefits? (Fostering compliance or commitment to the “cause”)
  5. Do they have people with the skills and volition in the real world to leverage Willis’s global distribution platform or articulate TW’s consulting proposition in the cherished mid-market? Are we going to see a TW expert called in by a Willis broker and vice-versa? (The unwelcome legacy of Willis’s foray into the US – HRH acquisition – has been a high dependency on the local broker’s trusting relationship and very rich producer incentive plans that do little for margin improvement)
  6. To what extent is each firm’s current structure fundamental to the new firm’s profitable growth and success? (Abandon existing structure or selective tinkering. For example, TW’s prized asset Liazon is dependent on 640 indepdendent brokers who cannot reasonably expect to standby and hand opportunities to a competitor)

My experience and observation is that the combined firm will have some of the brightest and best people working in their respective fields (reinsurance, political/credit risk, capital markets, insurance consulting). They have thrived because they have had strong leaders willing to cut through the institutional bureaucracy and it has been in their self-interest to do so. On top of the Miller-Willis liaison, this is a high-risk foray and investors would be wise to ask the right questions of senior management.

As a footnote, the departure of Steve Hearn, Willis Deputy CEO, yesterday is incidental to the firm’s announcement today. It almost certainly has more to do with Hearn returning to his passion (wholesale broking) in a business where he can have a greater impact on its’ future.

© James Berkeley 2015. All Rights Reserved.

 

 

Healthy or Unhealthy Growth

Tuesday, June 23rd, 2015

Most of us when we get larger after a certain age, do so at our own peril (increasing obesity, great risk of heart and other serious illness). When CEO’s pronounce “scale” as an imperative for an acquisition strategy, why do I think it says more about their own fears and their inability to innovate successfully? Sure stronger balance sheets are desirable from a client’s perspective and it is easier to take risks when the pockets are deeper. Most obviously in sectors such as pharma, biotech and defence where the R&D lead times are many years and the risks with a new product exponentially higher. When I hear US health insurers (Anthem, CIGNA, Human and Aetna) pushing the same message, I draw breathe and ask:

If you are a visionary CEO,

  1. Why has your business reached a growth plateau (or sub-scale)? (what are the “causes”: incorrect market assumptions, poor strategic implementation, reduced productivity, insufficient innovation and so on)
  2. Are the causes of your growth plateauing (or size) predominantly external or internal? (there is always a bias towards external when more often than not the reasons are internal)
  3. What is the minimum level of growth in future without which your business would be in danger of becoming a marginal player? (It is relatively easy to be explicit about costs, it is much harder to articulate profitable growth. Why? Personal accountability.)
  4. Why is “scale” the answer? (what unique resources, expertise, products and so on are available that only when combined successfully with the driving force in the new business would create a more impressive future for your firms’ key constituents – customers, shareholders, employees, healthcare facilities and physicians, regulators etc)
  5. Why now? (limited window of opportunity)
  6. Why in the manner proposed? (Tried and failed alternative organic growth or strategic alliance options)

If you are not a visionary CEO, I suggest you quit now.

Investors are wise to not take the bait. There is a litany of businesses where “scale” is a soft excuse for simply stripping out cost and the acquiring CEO boosting their ego and pay packet. No business can dominate it is market alone without dramatic top line revenue growth. The fastest way to do that is to sell new products to existing customers and existing products to new customers. Let’s see the case in full technicolour before rushing to judgement.

© James Berkeley 2015. All Rights Reserved.

 

Published Article in WealthBriefing

Friday, May 8th, 2015

WealthBriefing, the premier news, features and information source for the global wealth management sector asked me to contribute a piece on the retirement revolution sweeping through many economies. The uncertain future for wealth managers, financial advisers and others demands that those running those businesses dramatically transform their business models. Yet many are moving in inches, fearful of  the future and uncertain where to start.

Retiring Pensions – Challenges For Wealth Management

http://www.wealthbriefing.com/html/article.php?id=162419&page=1

© James Berkeley 2015. All Rights Reserved.

Easter Treasure Hunt

Friday, April 3rd, 2015

One of the fun reminders of childhood is Easter treasure hunts around the garden for the hidden chocolate eggs. In the Spring sunshine, some of the eggs are easily spotted and others require rather more ingenuity. Yet young kids with a paucity of experience but a nose for the prize, move with unerring accuracy to collect their treasure.

It reminds me of a common failure many businesses make when contemplating entry into a new market and the fears that inhibit success. Convention states that we must know all the fine details of how to market, sell and deliver services to our target clients and we must have established an appropriate business model to do that efficiently and effectively.  So much thinking before we start doing that often we find the prizes have disappeared because a larger competitor has swept into the market or our assumptions are no longer valid due to other disruptive forces.

My observation  is that when you have sufficient knowledge of what you are looking for (the chocolate egg) and the wherewithal to work out the quickest path to your goal (wisdom), you are far better served getting started. You almost certainly will have to make one or more changes of direction along the way because even veterans make invalid assumptions or unforeseen obstacles conspire to scupper the best plans. If you are prepared for it that shouldn’t deter your ability to accomplish your goals. After all the eggs won’t stay hidden forever and worse, there is no  guarantee they won’t melt in the spring sunshine.

Happy Easter wherever you may be.

© James Berkeley 2014. All Rights Reserved.

Rainmakers Seat In The C-Suite

Wednesday, March 11th, 2015

One of the things that fascinates me about advisory firms in their search for profitable growth is the “beliefs” top management have that govern their attitudes and behaviours about being seen to the outside world as a “specialist” or a “generalist” firm. This is never more evident than when the amount of uncertainty within the business and the competitive threat levels are dramatically ratcheted up. Should our value proposition address all areas of client improvement or a very narrow set of improvements? What is more important to our clients and prospects our content knowledge or our process knowledge? Where is the “safest” position for our people and the firm’s health and well-being? Where can we make money?

My observation in many professional service, insurance and financial service advisory firms today, is that they have a hell of a lot of people (“specialists”) who know a lot about a little. They have very few people who know a lot about a little. Where they have people with the latter attributes, very often they have modest levels of power and influence on the strategic decision-making process. I am talking about the rainmakers with the “real world knowledge”, not the Chief Strategy Officer, Client Strategy Director and so on, whose insights and ideas although valuable are largely conceptual. The people with the skills, volition and trusting relationships to profitably grow and expand the firm’s value provided to clients and prospects. These are the individuals who are “vested” with the responsibility and have the capability to make it happen. The Formula 1 drivers in the organisation.

Yet so often I find advisory firms do their level best to neuter their ability to apply their knowledge to the organisational issues that are critical for accomplishing the firm’s strategic vision. There is no accountability beyond short-term performance goals (sales target or budgets). There is little involvement in setting and implementing strategic goals. Obstacles are put in their path (vested interests, management information systems, accounting system, internal feedback and communication). The Firm’s rewards system is largely designed to motivate a rainmaker’s short-term performance and behaviours. There is little or no conscious development of the rainmaker’s skills to address clients’ future needs, beyond adherence to compliance standards.

These firms are characterised by leaders, who have a high propensity to manage with a microscope (focus on next quarter’s sales target), not a telescope (focus on strategic vision and constraints).

Consequently, they find it very difficult to adapt to significant changes in demand or competitive threats. Indeed, whole advisory sectors such as private banking, wealth management, reinsurance and the law, have an abundance of advisory firms undergoing merger and acquisition activity as a defensive tactic to fend off adverse winds and tides.

Shouldn’t firms first ask their rainmakers to apply their knowledge to:

  1. How broad or narrow the value proposition needs to be to attract new prospects and retain existing clients? (Hard evidence, anecdotal insights)
  2. What skills and technology should we upgrade, adapt or abandon? (Lend a “client experience” perspective)
  3. Triage client relationships: those in a “profitable growth” mode, those with some nurturing that could be in a “profitable growth” mode and those flatly that cease to be supportive of the firm’s growth plans (Inclusive approach to “change” in key client relationships and the constraints on profitable growth)
  4. How best to create and promote new, relevant expertise to buyers: new value propositions, new offerings, changes to relationships and so on in advance. (Intelligent preventative and contingent actions)
  5. Future competitive threats and uncertainties that may impact the firm’s ability to improve the client’s condition (More powerful internal feedback and communication)
  6. Rewards that would align key constituents’ demands for short- and long-term profitable growth (Stronger alignment of the rainmaker’s contribution with value creation, not just revenue or profit targets)

Today there are far too many leaders and middle managers “guessing” at where to head for profitable growth when many of the answers lies in the heads of the firm’s rainmakers. The imperative today is to distill the rainmakers’ knowledge into a set of wise decisions consistent with the firm’s goals. If you need external help, hire qualified expertise. Move with speed. Put the rainmakers at the centre, not the outskirts of the strategic decision-making process.

© James Berkeley 2014. All Rights Reserved.

 

Free Consulting for British Telecom

Monday, March 2nd, 2015

Why does the proliferation of customer or client communication channels rarely result in happier clients? In British Telecom’s case, if the objective is to profitably grow the business, in a world where Pay TV, broadband, fixed line and mobile,  are converging fast (“Four-Play”), shouldn’t you start by looking at the quality of your management and employees. You are rarely successful planting new vegetables where the the soil’s composition largely rejects the seeds.

  1. Cultural constraints: When the customer calls for help with a broadband or mobile connection difficulty at BT, the operating beliefs needs to be congruent with your strategy. If as I witness, “you are advised to contact us by email or online chat and in person, as a last resort” what you are really saying is “you must conform to our business model and needs i.e the lowest cost form of communication”. You have a misalignment. If you are the only game in town, the customer may have no option but when your fiercest competitors are snapping at your heels, you are endangering your business.
  2. Speed of Response: When your customer communications via telephone, online chat and email demand I invest 1 hour “waiting for an agent”, at my expense, you are further destroying our relationship.
  3. Public Profile: When I seek to contact you via social media and your response is so inadequate, you demand that I submit my difficulties online to a webpage that is inaccessible, you are hastening my exit.
  4. Quality of Response: When I finally speak to an agent in an offshore call centre and his default position is to assume that I am ignorant, necessitating 30 minutes testing a connection that has had a visible recurring fault, you are pushing my patience to an extreme.
  5. Accountability: when the “agent” needs authority from “Level 2”, presumably his supervisor, to set up an appointment at my home, you are further wasting my time.
  6. Aligning Customer Needs and Your Competencies: when your engineers will only visit a customer’s home between 8am – 5pm Monday to Friday, you are asking 90% of the working population in London will readily take “time off” work, at their expense. You are putting your cost base and business model, ahead of your customers’ lifestyle needs.  
  7. Risk and Reward: when the “agent” tells me (the customer) that in the event the engineer finds the fault is due to an electrical or structural issue in the premises, I will be charged £140 for the visit, you are telling me this is not a relationship of “equals”. I bare all the “risk” and you none.

BT has a CEO, Gavin Patterson, who has made highly assertive moves into Pay TV and mobile. What he is experiencing, is that the “strategic intent” at Board level in BT (profitable growth and expansion of existing customer relationships)  is being refracted in the operational layer of the business. Mid-level managers are putting their own mutual interests ahead of BT’s existing customers and demanding their subordinates do the same, irrespective of common sense. Why? The managers beliefs are to protect the firm’s business model at all costs, the rewards and feedback systems are reinforcing this “penny wise and pound foolish” message. You cannot profitably grow if you don’t first align the operating beliefs with the new strategy.  That may sound simple but in large organisations it is so rarely done well.

© James Berkeley 2014. All Rights Reserved.

The Best Re-Inventor Award

Wednesday, February 25th, 2015

In Oscar week when you think of truly great film stars (Bergman, Olivier, Brando), not just the celebrities the glossy magazines salivate over, arguably their greatest skill is their ability to career reinvention. They escape the routine typecasting, which leaves some actors and actresses careers “beached” in the minds of their audience  (Hugh Grant, Dudley Moore, Eddie Murphy). Much the same danger lurks in advisory or brokerage businesses with alarming consequences. Firms, particularly those with a strong brand earned in the “cut and thrust” of transactional deal making, inherently find that their clients form a visceral connection with their brand. That bond is the “glue” that creates loyal and “permanent” clients, management and employees. In so doing, maximising the value of the franchise.

Here is the rub, when those firms seek to reinvent themselves with higher-margin, higher value advisory services, particularly around strategic not tactical issues (growth and expansion), they often come across resistance in two forms, personal and business:

Personal

1. Buyer’s Self-Worth – the cherished transactional buyer within a key client thinks they “own” the relationship with the advisory firm and its’ key people. They are reluctant to promote an advisory firm’s expertise (strategic), in areas outside their own expertise and experience (tactical). They “fear” that in making the introduction to the “strategic” buyer or worse,the results that arise from the relationship may reflect negatively on their own judgement, repute and reward. While they may respect and like their adviser, they don’t see clearly what’s in it for them (financial gain, increased repute, future career opportunities etc.).

2. Adviser’s Self-Worth – the key point person in the advisory firm is reluctant to promote his or her colleagues strategic expertise (no trust). There is a perceived and sometimes actual “fear” (risk of destabilising or destroying the transactional relationship). There is no personal non-monetary (promotion, repute) or monetary incentive to do so. Indeed, the relationship is akin to the adviser’s “pension”, why put it at risk for little or no visible benefit?

Business

3.  Client Credibility – the advisory firm’s brand attributes and specialised transactional expertise are etched in the mind of the transactional buyer and their peers. Their key people are less well known or unfamiliar with the buyer(s) of strategic expertise. They might not  be seen as “peer” of the transactional buyer. Finally, there may be perceived or actual conflicts with the firm’s transactional work.

4. Adviser Credibility – the leadership of the advisory firm don’t see themselves as “peers” of the strategic buyer or other strategic advisers, sometimes with good reason (don’t hang out with the strategic crowd). Their beliefs inform the behaviour and attitudes of their subordinates. When pressured by the client to include strategic expertise in the client offering, the transactional advisers use leverage to throw strategic expertise in for “free” and fear pushing back (loss of a key transactional client relationship). They don’t actively promote the expertise to clients and new prospects, rather it is “a bunch of guys with MBAs sitting in expensive offices at the end of the corridor, who never seem to make us any money”.

Leaders have three options: accept the “status quo”, circumnavigate it or blow right throw it. First, let’s take a step back and answer some essential questions that will enable us to find the shortest, quickest path  to our goal:

1. Why are we intent on reinventing our firm in this direction (future health and well-being of the firm)?

2. What is the ideal result we want to accomplish (stronger brand, happier clients, more valuable firm)?

3. What options exist that can meet this goal (triage existing client relationships; prudently expand the firm’s transactional offering in concert with existing clients’ internal expertise; introduce new strategic relationships to existing transactional clients; leverage referrals)?

4. What options can we create that meet this goal (hire in qualified expertise; leverage new strategic alliances with external experts; create new value propositions; new strategic products and services for existing transactional clients and strategic prospects;  create new strategic intellectual property; build and lead new communities)?

5. What perceived, actual or catastrophic risks are attached to each of these options?

6. What preventative or contingent action could we apply to avoid or evade these risks?

7. How do the risks and rewards of each option stack up?

8. What is the firm’s propensity to take risk in relation to reward?

Armed with this knowledge, the advisory firm’s leadership can make wise decisions consistent with the firm’s strategic direction.  Firms such as IBM, Blackstone, EY and others have successfully created, built, leveraged and exited strategic advisory businesses as their strategic direction has evolved.

In my experience, too often leaders in advisory firms fail to apply this level of rigour and focus. Their aspirations to re-invent or recast the firm’s value proposition are just that aspirations that never become a reality. Powerful voices within the advisory firm project biases that has little do with what is in the firm or its’ clients’ best interests (ego, self-serving). The best laid plans sit in three ring binders, blown off course by a leaders who absent themselves from leading the process of change. Yet reinvent, we must constantly do if we are to increase our learning, attract smarter employees and reduce the level of uncertainty and competitive threats to our firm’s future.

© James Berkeley 2014. All Rights Reserved.

 

 

The Global Reinsurance Market Uncovered

Thursday, February 19th, 2015

There is a scene in the 1973 film “The Sting” where Robert Redford’s character, Johnny Hooker an aspiring con artist keen to ingratiate himself with the seasoned pro, Henry Gondorff (Paul Newman). Redford utters the line “”Luther said I could learn from you. I already know how to drink.” I am not equating today’s reinsurance business directly with the 1930’s underworld but for any current or future participant that is an attribute sure to draw a rueful smile in a hyper-competitive market.

If you believe as I do that the future of re(insurers) and intermediaries is dependent on the wisdom of line managers to consistently apply knowledge and great judgement to organisational issues in alignment with the firm’s strategic vision, you would be wise to think about three critical issues:

1. Profitable growth mindset: this is a philosophical issue, you cannot have profitable growth if your line managers visibly don’t have the right mindset. Ask yourself, does our environment (leaders’ behaviour) actively encourage our line managers and employees to think big (ambition, prudent investment and risk tolerance, innovation, new standards of performance) or minimise risk (fear of failure, conserve cash, problem-solving, deflect responsibility)? On a personal level, are we constantly and consistently investing in their self-worth (acquiring new skills)? In volatile times, the future of businesses is largely determined by the number of managers and employees with high levels of self-esteem, not the deepest pockets. There are plenty of examples over the last three decades of brokers (Pat Ryan, Graham Chilton)  and re/insurers (Brian Duperreault, Bob Clements) who have swept past their competition for these exact same reasons. Why should this decade be any different?

2. Brand Power: Let’s keep it simple, whether you are an underwriter, broker, MGA or any other professional services firm, you are really in the marketing business. Your brand is important to your future because it is a representation of your quality. You can build and nurture it yourself or let the competition or market define it for you by default.  If you want to command a premium for your product or service you cannot be the 1500th person talking about the complexity of cyber risk underwriting or the transformative effect of alternative capital on traditional reinsurance. (Try the simplicity of cyber risk prevention or  the transformative effective of traditional reinsurance on alternative capital). You need to stand out from the crowd (try a contrarian stance).  Ask yourself is our brand(s) sufficiently memorable and powerful to:

  • Attract our ideal prospects over the next two years?
  • Weather the amount of uncertainty (future-proof) and the competitive threats (new business models)  impacting the future of our business?
  • Allow us to command a “premium” price for the value delivered to clients (Hermès, Goldman Sachs, McKinsey) or must we offer a “premium” value (Tesco, Samsung, Delta) to justify the price our customers are willing to pay for your products and services?

Then,

What tweaks or dramatic changes must we make?

The current period of M&A may lessen the competitive threat from traditional players but it may be largely irrelevant if the new entrants are gorillas encroaching on the path to your strategic goals.

3. Diversification: a spread of risk is a fundamental insurance concept, yet in many firms the call for greater diversification often feels like a response to the fire alarm going off in the boardroom.  Ask yourself, is your desire to diversify being made from a point of strength or weakness? Is it a response to competitor moves, invalid market assumptions (defensive, protect operating margins) or serendipity and planned growth (offensive, assume a distinct or market-leading position)? Is it a response to the quality of your employees and management or the amount of uncertainty and competitive threat facing your firm’s future? What hard evidence or strong anecdotal information do you possess (or can easily acquire) to demonstrate the positive impact diversification will have on your firm’s short- and long-term profitable growth? Is it in the best interests of some or all of your firm’s key constituents (customers, shareholders, employees, business partners, regulators and so on)?

In tough trading conditions diversification is often the wrong call, businesses are better making their strengths more productive. Yet the demands of assertive investors chip away at what top management “know” to be the right course of action. This gets exacerbated when their key competitors make what appear to be “enlightened” moves to diversify when they have yet to be proven as a “wise” move (the decision stands the test of time).

The future is bright. The future is not in the stars or a glass of whiskey, it is within ourselves.

© James Berkeley 2014. All Rights Reserved.