I think you covered it well, Rob. Regret avoidance is a big deal in an industry that already has proven paths to success. And like you mentioned, performance tends to be judged using short-term metrics that are very unforgiving of the truly innovative long-term, long-shot initiatives.
One barrier I might add is the impact of the level of turnover: you need stability so people can see their ideas through, but companies that have a lot of stability can also have a tendency to favor that "proven path" vs the cutting edge (if it ain't broke...).
In my short career I have seen major multi-year initiatives get scrapped after a change in leadership.
I agree that the one barrier that can be changed is culture and mindset, but it sure is no easy feat, especially in a world of unprecedented levels of employee turnover in all ranks and industries! Maybe you should write an article on that :).
Thanks for the thought - provoking articles. Keep'em coming!
Really appreciate your thoughts Hervey. I do feel that in the past, USAA had a competitive advantage because there was a lot of stability in the leadership and workforce but that has eroded over time. We can debate why, but it likely would have happened regardless as it’s never been easier to find “greener grass” particularly with the rise of remote work.
I do want to explore in a future newsletter this phenomenon whereby some changes can rally and motivate an organization while others tend to “die on the vine” through lack of buy-in, even when it is not openly expressed. I also talk a lot with companies how innovation efforts in insurance often become “pet projects” where each leader has their own ideas they pursue, but they aren’t connected across departments and priorities radically change with each new leader.
Thanks for taking the time to read and comment Hervey!
I think you covered it well, Rob. Regret avoidance is a big deal in an industry that already has proven paths to success. And like you mentioned, performance tends to be judged using short-term metrics that are very unforgiving of the truly innovative long-term, long-shot initiatives.
One barrier I might add is the impact of the level of turnover: you need stability so people can see their ideas through, but companies that have a lot of stability can also have a tendency to favor that "proven path" vs the cutting edge (if it ain't broke...).
In my short career I have seen major multi-year initiatives get scrapped after a change in leadership.
I agree that the one barrier that can be changed is culture and mindset, but it sure is no easy feat, especially in a world of unprecedented levels of employee turnover in all ranks and industries! Maybe you should write an article on that :).
Thanks for the thought - provoking articles. Keep'em coming!
Really appreciate your thoughts Hervey. I do feel that in the past, USAA had a competitive advantage because there was a lot of stability in the leadership and workforce but that has eroded over time. We can debate why, but it likely would have happened regardless as it’s never been easier to find “greener grass” particularly with the rise of remote work.
I do want to explore in a future newsletter this phenomenon whereby some changes can rally and motivate an organization while others tend to “die on the vine” through lack of buy-in, even when it is not openly expressed. I also talk a lot with companies how innovation efforts in insurance often become “pet projects” where each leader has their own ideas they pursue, but they aren’t connected across departments and priorities radically change with each new leader.
Thanks for taking the time to read and comment Hervey!