Column: Risk Management

Perceptions of Risk

By: | February 18, 2014 • 3 min read

Joanna Makomaski is a specialist in innovative enterprise risk management methods and implementation techniques. She can be reached at [email protected]

Decisions we make today will shape our future. It is our experience that guides us. It is our ability to recognize the influences on each decision we make that allows us to make better decisions as we mature. Or so we hope.

Advertisement




The difficulty with decision-making is that our environment and influences are ever changing. Expectations are always changing. As such, leadership is difficult. Leaders must be confident enough to make decisions as they humbly seek wisdom and historical perspective from those with alternative views, experiences and understanding. As we might say, those who remember the past are less condemned to repeat it.

As a risk manager, I rely on experiential data. As I conduct strategic risk assessments, I purposely look for known threats or symptoms that may defeat a proposed decision or path. I look for flawed strategies that have caused failure in similar situations in the past. That approach is part of my craft. But is it reliable?

The insurance industry has plenty of historical failures to study. Unfortunately, we can only discuss failures that have already occurred. We cannot foresee the failures yet to play out.

The mortgage industry, specifically the subprime mortgage industry in 2006 and 2007, is an excellent example of how mimicking the success of many subprime lenders of years past looked like a fruitful and profitable venture. Many banks adopted the strategy. And why shouldn’t they have? Everyone was doing it. Risk? What risk?

But clearly the measure of risk in that situation was distorted. Huge risk existed, but at the time it was perceived that the risk of not entering the market was far greater than the risk of any financial disaster. Clearly, this turned out to be a disastrous gamble.

In the years following the meltdown, the entire banking system froze. This reaction was almost equally catastrophic. No one lent anything to anyone, at any rate, for any time, for any reason. This response was a disaster in of itself.

Except for a courageous and wise few, the opportunity to profit was missed. Decisions were made in a dangerously risk-averse environment fueled by some leaders’ loss of faith in the banking system. Those risk-averse leaders failed to seize a tremendous opportunity to make money.

During this time, I observed two environments: An environment of excessive confidence, and one of deep naiveté coupled with excessive fear and paralysis. It was a dramatic spread.

Advertisement




Leaders who kept their perspective and passed up the easy money maintained the ability to capitalize on tremendous opportunities after the crash. Those who stayed their course, were true to their values and recognized the distortions in the markets were able to lead their organizations through the disaster and come out stronger than their peers.

These leaders, we must cherish and embrace. The leaders who were paralyzed by fear are still immobilized or likely now unemployed.

But we shouldn’t be too hard on those leaders who only now may understand their failures.

Any point in time never seems historic when you are living through it.  As we enter or exit the next realm of decision-making, I hope we are able to recognize the distortions and the opportunities, and sidestep the decisions that may cause us peril.

More from Risk & Insurance

More from Risk & Insurance

4 Companies That Rocked It by Treating Injured Workers as Equals; Not Adversaries

The 2018 Teddy Award winners built their programs around people, not claims, and offer proof that a worker-centric approach is a smarter way to operate.
By: | October 30, 2018 • 3 min read

Across the workers’ compensation industry, the concept of a worker advocacy model has been around for a while, but has only seen notable adoption in recent years.

Even among those not adopting a formal advocacy approach, mindsets are shifting. Formerly claims-centric programs are becoming worker-centric and it’s a win all around: better outcomes; greater productivity; safer, healthier employees and a stronger bottom line.

Advertisement




That’s what you’ll see in this month’s issue of Risk & Insurance® when you read the profiles of the four recipients of the 2018 Theodore Roosevelt Workers’ Compensation and Disability Management Award, sponsored by PMA Companies. These four programs put workers front and center in everything they do.

“We were focused on building up a program with an eye on our partner experience. Cost was at the bottom of the list. Doing a better job by our partners was at the top,” said Steve Legg, director of risk management for Starbucks.

Starbucks put claims reporting in the hands of its partners, an exemplary act of trust. The coffee company also put itself in workers’ shoes to identify and remove points of friction.

That led to a call center run by Starbucks’ TPA and a dedicated telephonic case management team so that partners can speak to a live person without the frustration of ‘phone tag’ and unanswered questions.

“We were focused on building up a program with an eye on our partner experience. Cost was at the bottom of the list. Doing a better job by our partners was at the top.” — Steve Legg, director of risk management, Starbucks

Starbucks also implemented direct deposit for lost-time pay, eliminating stressful wait times for injured partners, and allowing them to focus on healing.

For Starbucks, as for all of the 2018 Teddy Award winners, the approach is netting measurable results. With higher partner satisfaction, it has seen a 50 percent decrease in litigation.

Teddy winner Main Line Health (MLH) adopted worker advocacy in a way that goes far beyond claims.

Employees who identify and report safety hazards can take credit for their actions by sending out a formal “Employee Safety Message” to nearly 11,000 mailboxes across the organization.

“The recognition is pretty cool,” said Steve Besack, system director, claims management and workers’ compensation for the health system.

MLH also takes a non-adversarial approach to workers with repeat injuries, seeing them as a resource for identifying areas of improvement.

“When you look at ‘repeat offenders’ in an unconventional way, they’re a great asset to the program, not a liability,” said Mike Miller, manager, workers’ compensation and employee safety for MLH.

Teddy winner Monmouth County, N.J. utilizes high-tech motion capture technology to reduce the chance of placing new hires in jobs that are likely to hurt them.

Monmouth County also adopted numerous wellness initiatives that help workers manage their weight and improve their wellbeing overall.

“You should see the looks on their faces when their cholesterol is down, they’ve lost weight and their blood sugar is better. We’ve had people lose 30 and 40 pounds,” said William McGuane, the county’s manager of benefits and workers’ compensation.

Advertisement




Do these sound like minor program elements? The math says otherwise: Claims severity has plunged from $5.5 million in 2009 to $1.3 million in 2017.

At the University of Pennsylvania, putting workers first means getting out from behind the desk and finding out what each one of them is tasked with, day in, day out — and looking for ways to make each of those tasks safer.

Regular observations across the sprawling campus have resulted in a phenomenal number of process and equipment changes that seem simple on their own, but in combination have created a substantially safer, healthier campus and improved employee morale.

UPenn’s workers’ comp costs, in the seven-digit figures in 2009, have been virtually cut in half.

Risk & Insurance® is proud to honor the work of these four organizations. We hope their stories inspire other organizations to be true partners with the employees they depend on. &

Michelle Kerr is associate editor of Risk & Insurance. She can be reached at [email protected]