By Wanda Shumaker
Is your agency "organized for change" or "disorganized by change"? Certainly, the sweeping changes brought about by the replacement of an automation system are almost a guarantee of employee angst in any company. However, the difference between achievement and agony are often based on fundamental organizational philosophy.
While your firm may not be facing automation system replacement in the future, other sweeping changes facing our industry beg us to assess our internal readiness for change. Hardening markets, better-informed customers, global technology, and e-commerce are only a few of the challenges and changes in the future. Understanding how well you and your staff are positioned to accept change should be an essential part of future planning.
How staff members react during staff meetings reveals a great deal about an organization's overall reaction to change. The following Agency A vs. Agency B scenarios provide examples of some common behaviors.
Agency A: During a session on rebuilding automated workflows, transactional filing was introduced into the discussion. The room began to buzz as almost everyone had a comment on T-filing. But that energy was soon quashed by a stern admonition from the unit manager about maintaining meeting order. What followed was neither productive nor inspiring, notable only by the sullen hush punctuated with "because I said so" mandates from the supervisor. Open dialogue was avoided to dodge management scrutiny. Not surprisingly the organization continually struggled with adopting new ideas.
While the effort to maintain meeting order seemed successful, the "water cooler dialogue" told a completely different story. Staff frequently engaged in conversations that were critical of the management. Investigation of procedures revealed that many staff went their own direction in spite of the mandates, and the manager was constantly frustrated with the lack of buy-in and adherence to procedures.
The agency did conduct periodic employee surveys, but few participated and those who did would do so only upon the promise of anonymity. Furthermore, any good that might have come from such a survey was diminished by the manager's insistence on discovering the identity of those who were so brave as to offer criticism.
Agency B: This agency held a similar session regarding T-filing. The management called a kickoff meeting to discuss the implementation of the new process. Anticipating questions as well as concerns, the manager handed each attendee a sheet of paper containing the following outline:
* I cannot T-file _____________type of business/task because (give reason).
* If I were to consider T-filing the above-mentioned task, the following would be necessary (list resources, steps, anything you feel you would need to make this change).
* The following is one thing I can change that will make this possible.
Regular workflow development meetings were held, and participants were encouraged to identify challenges. The caveat was that for every challenge brought to the table, the participant was also responsible for bringing at least one solution of his/her own. The group also reviewed each concern, and a collective solution was devised.
The manager of agency B was not threatened by the competency of the group members. To the contrary, she believed that the only way to engage the group was to draw on the knowledge of the whole, and knew that a better solution would develop far more quickly than she could have developed on her own.
This organization also frequently engaged in employee surveys. The participation was always above average, and few if any staff members felt the need to submit only under terms of anonymity.
Managers in agencies similar to Agency B possess an abundance mentality when it comes to the collective power of their staff. There are occasional conflicts, but instead of squelching the dialogue, this type of manager welcomes "constructive conflict" and opens the matters to wider discussion. The common thread speaks of individuals who are able to "park their egos at the door" to engender trust and foster a non-threatening forum for ideas.
Whether the topic is T-filing or Web-based solutions, product development or financial management, engaging change is inevitable. Someone once told me that it is not change, but our reaction to change that is the key to success. While that statement has merit, it also assumes that we will always find ourselves "reacting to" change rather than proactively embracing productive change.
Are you ready? If change were an automobile, would you be the driver, the passenger, or the hapless pedestrian in its path? *
The author
Wanda Shumaker is a 20-year veteran of the insurance industry, beginning her career in an agency, then traveling as a trainer for a major software vendor. She has returned to the agency side of the business and is an assistant vice president and the automation manager for Conseco Risk Management, Inc., a large independent insurance agency located in Carmel, Indiana.