Communication problems and unresolved conflict in the workplace may be two of your biggest risks. Whether you are trying to convey policies, proper methodologies, expectations, or coaching, the ability to communicate effectively often proves to be a limiting factor for many people – especially managers and supervisors. If you are a great communicator, then you can develop broad influence and deep impact. If you struggle to be engaging, compelling and memorable, then you will likely experience and cause a lot of frustration for yourself and the people with whom you work.

If there is unresolved conflict within your team or between one or more of your team members, or between one or more of your external customers – whoever that may be – this too can cause a significant loss of productivity, create a hostile environment, and in some cases, result in various kinds of elevated risks.

Here are some tips to help you become a better communicator. First, be a better listener. If you do not listen, you should not consider yourself a great communicator, regardless of how prolific you may be at presenting your ideas. Moreover, when I say listen, I do not simply mean to be physically present, and hear another person talking. Listening is active. It requires you to be patient, and give your best energy to understanding their perspective. It means remaining in receiving mode until they are completely finished with their statement, without trying to interrupt them with your response. You have to process what the other person is saying, evaluate whether you understand and/or agree with them, and consider how you are going to apply the information you got from them.

Secondly, stop being a “teller of information” and become a “seller of ideas”. Many people get frustrated in the communication process because they believe they have done an adequate job of explaining “the facts”, when the reality is no one was listening. Though others may have heard what they said, they were not really listening and grabbing the pertinent information. Consider what the information will mean to your audience and how they will use it. Why do they need the information and what difference is it going to make. Present it in a way that engages them first, informs them second, and directs them appropriately.

Third and final tip: If conflict exists, whether you are directly involved with it or not, you have to realize that it will not resolve itself. Figure out who is involved, and eliminate the cheerleaders. Focus on the point of conflict, listen to both sides, and determine your strategy. Make sure you do not confuse personality or personal preference with the facts. When it is time to “sit down and talk it out”, make sure you maintain a professional tone and a conversational volume level. Once it is over, try to get everyone to move on. A running scoreboard is not good for anyone.

By increasing your communication effectiveness and resolving conflict when it arises, your team members will be more engaged in their work. They will learn more from the training/coaching that is provided to them and they will be much more likely to work together as a team. As a result, productivity and customer retention will both increase, and accidents and problems that arise from disengagement will dramatically decrease.

With increasing frequency, the world of risk and insurance is facing challenges that are leading to disruptive interventions from a variety of sources, the aggregate of which portends some significant shifts in an industry often viewed as being stuck in a lower gear. Well-known and understood among underwriters is the challenge of the investment environment, which has been disrupted continuously since the recession beginning 2008 with returns being artificially suppressed by the federal government’s economic strategy. This fact only exacerbates the reality of the conservative investment limitations already imposed on the industry by regulators.

In the healthcare world, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), aka Obamacare, has surely disrupted medical benefit plans. Most Americans have been accustomed to leveraging their benefits to protect their assets from catastrophic health events and perhaps to an even greater degree, manage their day-to-day medical costs. While one of the few clear benefits of the ACA is the catastrophe protection enabled by the removal of aggregate expense caps (previously the lifetime maximum was $1 million in many plans), many other changes brought about by the ACA have been at a minimum, disruptive. You cannot expand an exposure and constrain an underwriter’s ability to charge the appropriate premium for risk underwritten, without a significant negative impact on premiums. Underwriting disrupted.

Further, we find ourselves inexplicably surprised that the $2,500 average savings promised by the administration has been anything but the reality. In fact, just the opposite is emerging for many who are not eligible for subsidies (estimated by the CBO to be over $300B in 2016). Corporate medical/benefits budgets and planning continue to be disrupted while benefit levels are reduced and/or premium increases are increasingly common.

In the property casualty world, two new exposures in particular are fanning the flames of the unknown for underwriters. First, cyber risk continues to expand its profile as “social media” risk emerges as a potentially more damaging source of loss than even more well-known and better understood exposure to hacking. The latest example is hot off the press with Kalobios filing for chapter 11 after its CEO used both regular and social media to trumpet his decision to exploit the pricing of a newly deregulated drug to the detriment of the customer. This rapidly led to disclosures of alleged criminal (yet unrelated) conduct, leading to the CEO’s firing and now the demise of another potentially great company. Total elapsed time from first negative media to bankruptcy – three months. Another emerging exposure of growing concern is “domestic” terrorism. Since Ft. Hood, San Bernardino, the Boston Marathon and other assorted instances of targeted violence in recent years, domestic terrorism is becoming more “expected” than one would have hoped, yet the industry’s ability to predict the impact or severity remains limited.

Assessing and pricing exposures accurately where there is insufficient historical data to support conclusions is a challenge for an industry so heavily reliant on data to accurately price risk. Disruption looks to be evolving into a more frequent and accelerating characteristic of this industry. While challenging, disruption nevertheless has the potential to drive innovation and improve the industry for the better as players are forced to respond to new entrants with ideas and solutions that are often outside the typical considerations of an industry constrained by regulation and the vagaries of new and often poorly understood exposures. Accordingly, I see disruption as a necessary sign of likely progress ahead.

1 Wall Street Journal, “The Biggest PR Headaches of 2015,” December 29, 2015.

I recently had the opportunity to mingle with public entity risk managers from across the country at the national PRIMA conference in Atlanta. I took the opportunity to ask those I met (as often as I could, while trying not to be too annoying), “How can we reduce law enforcement auto accidents?” And while my data collection would not stand up to scientific scrutiny, I am confident it is a fair reflection of the situation. Two conclusions are clear:

• Law enforcement officers have a lot of auto accidents; and
• Law enforcement officers generally are immune from receiving traffic citations.

I found the answers to be very diverse, but all of them included some type of accountability, such as rewards or punishments for the officers. The most controversial suggestion was to enforce giving traffic tickets to law enforcement officers when appropriate (meaning that a citation would be given to officers, in any situation where a citation would be given to a citizen).

A few agencies I discussed this idea with claimed that their officers receive the same tickets as anyone else for breaking a traffic law. Most claimed just the opposite, saying even with other agencies investigating law enforcement officers’ accidents, citations are seldom issued. A recently retired deputy admitted that the risk of a traffic citation for law enforcement officers was remote. He believed that citations would not have any effect on the number of accidents involving officers, but rather indirect personnel incentives (e.g. promotions and pay raises) would have the best chance of affecting behavior changes, which would in turn reduce accidents.

A survey done by PoliceOne.com asking if officers would ticket an off-duty officer had these results:

• 3% said yes
• 38% said no
• 59% said it depended on the severity.[i]

Risk managers as a group held the belief that the threat of citations, would over time, change behavior and reduce accidents. The minority of agencies that give traffic citations to their law enforcement officers also claimed to have good accident records; this gives further credence to the idea that officers being “at-risk” for citations can help reduce accidents.

The group as a whole was very empathetic towards law enforcement officers and agreed that the two main causes of their poor vehicle accident records are, first, constant driving and, second, all the distractions inherent to the job (computers, radios, etc.).

Using an enterprise-wide risk management (ERM) approach may help bring a broader perspective. With the current misgivings in the news about law enforcement, whether justified or not, it is important to protect the agency’s reputation. If known by the public, police immunity from citations may do more damage to the agency’s objectives than the vehicle accidents.

My conclusion – all public entities with law enforcement should be providing some measure of accountability for officers’ vehicle accidents to help inculcate safe driving. I recommend officers receive citations when merited, especially if the violation causes an accident.

[i] PoliceOne.com. 2009 “Ticketing off duty officers: P1 Members speak out”

(https://www.policeone.com/patrol-issues/articles/1839312-Ticketing-off-d...)

Municipal insurance pools are an excellent example of local governments working together to create efficiencies, preserve resources, and create value.

As a manager for a municipal pool, I offer my Top 10 Trending Issues for Pools:

1. Coverages. Pools seek to provide the best coverages at the best price. To meet the needs of members, pools are examining additional coverages and how to price them. Two non-traditional coverages trending among pools are cyber-liability coverage and drone coverage.
2. Products. Pools are leaders in introducing loss control and risk management products to members. Currently, a few pools have mobile loss control apps. Such apps provide inspection tools, in-field related safety information and resources, root cause information and analysis, and claims assistance. Pools also offer comprehensive learning management systems with online courses and videos.
3. Services. Pools offer services in the areas of risk management and loss control. Public officials training is now trending with pools. Another service many pools offer is emergency preparedness and response. Pools are monitoring the services needed by members and are working on meeting those needs comprehensively and cost-efficiently.
4. Best Practices. A current trend of pools is providing best practices to members in the areas of employment, risk management, finance, technology, training, and many others. School pools are leaders in head injury prevention and gender identity best practices. Many pools offer incentives, bonuses, or reduced contribution for implementing best practices.
5. Surplus Capital. Pool directors and administrators are always thinking about how to determine the right amount of surplus capital to maintain. A popular trend now is to model surplus capital needs using enterprise risk management. Other popular techniques to model capital needs include ratios such as the IRIS or Risk-based capital (RBC) that are common in the insurance industry.
6. Data Analytics. Pools have a large amount of claims and exposure data. Several pools are combining data to improve analytics. Using cloud technology, advanced data mining tools, and algorithms, pools are able to do more analytics and predictive modeling than ever before. The latest trend is to employ staff or consultants to provide advanced analytics to members.
7. Enterprise Risk Management (ERM). A current trend with pools is how to use ERM in their own operations — and how to push it out to members. ERM examines uncertainties, good and bad, and aligns uncertainties with the strategies of the organization. Many pools see the valuable management features of ERM and are studying ways to implement it.
8. Succession Planning. Pool administrators are being asked by boards to plan for their aging workforce. Pool administrators are identifying those in the organization to train as the next generation of pool administrators.
9. Competition. When pools were formed, there was far less competition than now. Commercial insurance — and other municipal pools — compete for the limited supply of local government agencies. Pools must be different and better to attract and retain membership.
10. Problem Claims. Pools are being hammered by large claims: employment, law enforcement, firefighters, concussion, gender identity, Title 9, etc. Federal lawsuits that come with very high legal costs now outpace state claims. Also, the aging workforce is increasing the cost of workers’ compensation. State legislatures are giving away benefits to public safety, while juries are giving away local government dollars via large verdicts. And, in the meantime, immunities are eroding.

The exciting part of being a manager for a pool is the ever-present opportunity to handle change. Ironically, change is the trend that never changes.

Virtually all public entities have an elected board of directors, council or commissioners who enact the policies that the agency uses daily. Unfortunately, only a few elected officials think of risk management when making decisions. And when they do, it is usually after there has been a loss or when they have to pay their insurance premium. In fact, many think that their decisions only apply to a single department, not the entire organization.

When elected officials truly incorporate risk management as a way of conducting business, property claims are reduced, lawsuits don’t get filed against the agency, and employees are safer. When risk management is not a component of every decision, bad things can happen.

Public entities are vulnerable to many risks beyond the common, insurable losses such as property damage from fires, natural hazards, auto accidents, lawsuits, and workers’ compensation. Some of the non-tradtional risks are:

• Loss of tax revenue
• Responding to public records requests
• Reduction in bond rating
• Major employer leaving your municipality
• Aging workforce
• Replacement of specialized vehicles
• Changes in weather and climate
• Computer hacking or ransomware attack
• Violation of the open public meetings act
• Changes in statutes, and regulations

Do the elected understand these risks? Have they even identified with many of them? Probably not. Risk management is more than buying insurance.

So what can you do to help your elected officials transition into policymaking risk managers? Here are some suggestions:

1. Incorporate risk management concepts into your staff reports. Here’s an example. Your entity is sponsoring an event that will include a bounce house. Your staff report could include something like, “Board, although many citizens consider bounce houses as safe activities, annually there are over 37,000 emergency room visits related to bounce houses. We can transfer the risk from the ABC agency, by hiring a vendor who will operate the bounce house and meet our insurance requirements.”
2. Use facts. Elected officials make fact-based decisions.
3. Provide training for elected officials on their roles and responsibilities, budget process, and employment practices. All are probably different than what the elected are used to in the private sector.
4. When the council, board or commission proposes a course of action, ask, “What are the risks?” and then lead them through a quick risk identification discussion; or “How can we reduce the risks?” which gives you the opportunity to talk about loss prevention. Always try to phrase things in a positive tone that the elected will relate to. In the bounce house example, you could say, “Council, this is about the kids having a fun and safe activity” which will resonate well with the elected. Remember they are always seeking public approval.
5. For staff reports where action is requested, attach the risk management matrix. The report should identify those high risk/low frequency, high risk/high frequency events. And offer solutions, other than “No we can’t do that.”
6. Finally, and this is critical, treat all elected with respect and don’t play favorites.

With tragedies striking almost daily, it is important to think about how your community would respond. Who would help you manage a major disaster? How could something of that magnitude affect your entity’s bottom line? What insurance policies, protocols, and plans will you need to respond effectively? For risk management professionals, these are pertinent questions on how their public entity would react in the event of a crisis.

As insurance professionals, we often receive questions about how our clients' policies would respond in the event of a terroristic attack. Insureds may think that if a policy references ‘terrorism’ it means that any type of terrorist event would be covered, but that is seldom the case. The Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA) coverage is very specific; however there are policies available that provide broader coverage. For example, Lloyd’s of London offers such policies that do not rely on the Federal Government certification process. If there is a religious, political, or ideological motivation behind it, standalone terrorism policies will cover the financial impact of the attack. However, if the motive for the attack is unclear such as the theater shooting in Lafayette, LA, then a standalone policy may not provide enough coverage. Fortunately, there are policies that will respond and we recommend that you ask your broker or agent for specific options.

More often than not, an emergency situation arises outside of an entity’s owned locations. Whether the tragedy happens at a shopping mall, a movie theater, or even a local restaurant, the municipality and/or county must be involved when it comes to crisis response. This can lead to lots of unbudgeted overtime and internal resources. Generally, the financial impact is not covered by your insurance policies as your owned buildings are not directly impacted. We know that previous terrorist attacks have cost public entities many millions of dollars in loss of tax revenue and expenses – and they did not even occur at the entity’s owned buildings.

The financial impact of these attacks can be extensive, but often the most neglected part in major catastrophes is the human element. Who is going to take care of the families of the victims, the traumatized employees and first responders, the surviving victims themselves? When the media is swarming and the public information requests are coming in by the hundreds, it can be difficult at best to stay on top of the situation especially when you still have your day job to do. Planning for such eventualities is crucial. Having additional resources to call upon when needed can help tremendously. We’ve seen it time and again: how you respond, how you treat the families, and how you handle the media can have long lasting consequences for your reputation as an entity.

The recent tragedy in Orlando serves as a harsh reminder that we are all vulnerable to acts of terror. With news from just about every major news source that ISIS is encouraging more attacks on the West, we as insurance and risk management professionals need to consider how we will respond to such events. Insurers and brokers have solutions to help manage the unthinkable.

I am fairly new to risk management – just started in this position 2 ½ years ago – but I am not new to the public sector. I have been working for the City & Borough of Juneau, Alaska for most of my adult life, more than 25 years. My previous experience with our risk manager was limited to review of contract insurance terms. I felt very confident in that area, so how much more could there be?

Then came the realization that I didn’t know all that I needed to. That’s a scary place to be, and it translates to a really steep learning curve! Juneau is a community of about 33,000 residents, and because of our geographic isolation (you cannot drive to Juneau – you must fly or take a ferry), our community and local government need to be self-sustaining. What this means is that risk management is involved in a broad range of operations, including the city government, hospital, school district, airport, port/harbors, and the ski area. In a small organization like ours, my duties range from claims adjusting to contract insurance review to advocating for risk and safety engagement at all levels, just to name a few. I have learned so much in a relatively short time, so I wanted to share some insights – from a newbie’s perspective.

• Risk management and safety management are dependent on each other. You cannot focus on just one. While we work towards implementing an enterprise risk management framework, I see enterprise safety management as an integral piece of that.
• The law department is my friend! Communicating with our attorneys early and often when dealing with a challenging claim is a really great way to go.
• Change can’t happen overnight. We have a lot of employees who have worked here for a long time. With that comes great institutional knowledge, but it sometimes means resistance to change. The burden is on risk management to identify areas that need improvement and then work hard to make the case for that change – sell it to those who like “the way it’s always been done”.
• Visit worksites as frequently as possible. I know I don’t get out in the field enough, but when I do, there is a genuine appreciation from work groups. It is one thing to express an interest over email or by phone, but showing up in person demonstrates a commitment to learning about operations, and it builds relationships in the process. I must give credit to Marilyn Rivers for emphasizing this at my first PRIMA Institute when I was in my first week on the job!
• PRIMA Talk is our friend! I know I said the law department is our friend, but, really, the more friends the better. Learning how others do things and finding common practices is extremely helpful. Also it’s a good way to find out new, better ways of doing things. It is a great support for our efforts to change and improve our approach to risk and safety.
• Finally, what I’ve realized over and over is that just when I think I know how to handle a certain situation, something comes up that is different and new and unlike anything I’ve ever had to deal with. It keeps my days interesting, and I continue to learn new things all the time!

Looking forward to learning more from everyone at the PRIMA Conference!

According to the National Safety Council’s Injury Facts 2016, the top three causes of fatalities on the road are drunk driving, speeding and distracted driving. It is estimated that distracted driving accounts for approximately 26% of those deaths, while drunk driving is the top cause and accounts for roughly 31% of road fatalities. It is certainly reasonable to think that distracted driving could be higher. As the stigma on distracted driving (especially cell phone usage) has changed over the years, fewer people are admitting to police officers that they were, in fact, distracted. As a result, it has become challenging to record accurate numbers.

Public entities have a high volume of drivers on the road. This exposure is greatly amplified by emergency response personnel who, when on a call, can easily fit the definition of “distracted”. Not only do we have to guard against employees driving distracted, but we also have to consider that the general public could be distracted when driving through our work areas.

Distractions come in all forms, ranging from the unavoidable (school zones, construction, accident scenes, road conditions) to the avoidable (cell phone usage, eating, drinking, talking to passengers, operating internal equipment). Whether labeled as avoidable or unavoidable, all of these instances amount to valid distractions that impair drivers, and this is important for our employees to understand.

Distractions can be categorized into three main areas:

1. Manual – Anything that requires us to remove our hands from the steering wheel.
2. Visual – Anything that requires us to take our eyes off of the road.
3. Cognitive – Anything that requires us to take our mind off the task of driving.

Meeting any one of these three criteria constitutes a distracted driver. Can you think of a scenario that meets all three? The most common answer here is cell phone usage because cell phones require manual, visual and cognitive application. Studies have shown the impairments by talking on a cell phone (hands-free or handheld) while driving can be as profound as those associated with driving while intoxicated. These studies found that drivers talking on cell phones were:

1. More oblivious to changing conditions.
2. Unable to stay in the center lane.
3. More likely to miss exits.

Researchers also noted a decrease in brain activity in both the parietal and occipital lobes. Operating a vehicle while distracted can lead to a condition called “inattention blindness”, which is essentially when you “look but do not see”. This is largely due to the fact that your brain has dedicated too many resources elsewhere and cannot fully process the pertinent information at hand.

There are many things we can do to reduce our exposure to distracted driving, but it all starts with a strong written policy, employee training and management commitment. The National Safety Council has some good materials on distracted driving. You can also check with your insurance partners on resources that they have available.

6. Encourage Active Participation – Most workshops have one or two people that are hesitant to be involved because they are uncomfortable expressing themselves in a group setting. However, history has shown that many major discoveries and advances in human knowledge have come from introverts, so make every effort to help them join the discussion. Be careful that your efforts do not lead to embarrassment; kindly and respectfully invite participation and warmly commend responsiveness.
7. Ask Questions – Effective questions stimulate discussion, provide valuable feedback to the facilitator, encourage innovative thinking, and lead to important risk and opportunity discoveries. Use them often and judiciously.
8. Foster Communication – One of the major benefits of effective implementation of ERM using ISO 31000 is the enhancement of intradepartmental and interdepartmental communication. Such communication breaks down silos and leads to enterprise efficiencies and cooperation. Highlight this point emphatically and regularly.
9. Keep Focused – The great thing about an effective workshop is that it gets creative juices flowing. However, if creativity is not properly focused it will become an obstacle by bogging down the workshop with too much extraneous discussion. Your job as the facilitator is to encourage creative discussion but also to redirect the discussion if it veers too far off course.
10. Emphasize ISO 31000 Principles – If you are conducting an ISO 31000 risk workshop, consider yourself a pioneer in the field of risk management! Be proud of your passion for and knowledge of the standard and direct your participants’ attention to it as often as possible!

Do you host risk workshops at your entity? If so, what are some of the techniques you employ to make sure that they are successful?

Do you have integrity? Of course you do. Everyone has integrity. Have you ever met anyone who doesn’t believe he or she “has integrity”?

So, here’s the question: if everyone possesses integrity, why do we see all around us evidence of integrity breaches – in business, sports, academia, even in the clergy and certainly in our world of government?

This is hardly a purely academic question to professional risk managers. Your life depends on making tough decisions affecting the lives of many. So, even if you are sure that you “have integrity”, wouldn’t it be worthwhile to question whether there might be ways to “practice” integrity better?

You might wonder what it means to practice integrity. Most people don’t view integrity as a practice, the way someone practices law or medicine. In fact, most people believe that integrity is something you have or you don’t; it can’t be learned. If that were the case, the outlook would be pretty dismal for the state of our institutions and our nation because there would be no way to teach people how to make decisions with integrity.

The belief that integrity can’t be taught is just one of many common beliefs about integrity that simply aren’t accurate. Here are some others:

• Integrity is the bold assertion of conviction
• Integrity is built on a strong belief system
• The right thing is obvious and something you just do
• Integrity is a matter of instinct and will, not practice and habit
• Breaches of integrity are usually the product of corrupt intent
• Integrity is synonymous with ethics

Integrity is not a state of being, or a permanent achievement of character. Decision making is not based on innate and unerring judgment, but developed as a “practice” by working on it over and over again until habit displaces instinct. That’s integrity.

One of the reasons why everyone believes they “have it” but others lack it, is because they trust their instincts. Instinct is just another word for self-interest and self-interest is often invisible. For instance, 98 percent of people polled believe they are above average judges of character. Corporate presidents believe they are the source of all positive developments yet blame all bad ones on the economy. Political parties really believe they are the exclusive guardians of virtue.

As individuals we believe we “have integrity” even though we tell white lies, fail to get back to people timely, accepts dinners on our friends’ company expense accounts, breach copyright protections, gossip, shade the truth on taxes, own stock in corporations committing illegal acts and buy hot goods on big city street corners, to name just a few.

Our task as committed risk managers is to start looking at integrity as a body of skills, the same way we manage our finances with a budget and navigate using a GPS, so we can maximize the effectiveness of our decision making and reduce risk to the public.

------

In an upcoming series sponsored by PRIMA, Stuart Brody, a teacher and consultant who speaks nationwide on this subject of integrity and decision-making, will challenge common assumptions that impair our effectiveness as risk managers.