Movies and Agencies

Did you ever see the movie about the famous ballplayer that did not follow the playbook? How by doing whatever he wanted regardless of the play called, he succeeded and all his teammates were happy? What an inspiring story that makes everyone feel so good about being selfish! Fantastic!

A second movie I recommend is “Karma.” It’s all about thinking good thoughts so that no instructions or leadership is required because through transcendental thought, everyone on a team communicates and has the same exact goals. When the credits rolled, I had goose-bumps as my optimism for life without ever having to have a constructive conversation again seemed possible.

Of course these movies are figments of my imagination. The first likely doesn’t have a sellable plot because who wants to see a movie about a horrible person that succeeds while good people fail? The second might have a sellable plot as a fantasy movie, but it clearly is a fantasy … right?

Benefits the Producer

So why does agency after agency employ and even enable their producers and owners to be so selfish? Everyone knows that a team with a ballplayer who calls plays that only benefit the one player has no future. Yet in agency after agency that I visit, producer behavior benefits the producer far more than the producer benefits the agency.

For example, consider the producer who does not have to follow procedures so he or she doesn’t have to do as much work or the right work. The amount of work required is fixed. Either the producer or the CSR will do it. The producer is paid, at least in theory, to perform specific actions per the agency’s procedures/job descriptions. If they force that work onto CSRs, they are paid more than they are worth and the CSRs are paid less. The agency suffers because the CSRs suffer. If the producers cut corners, they are paid the same regardless of the errors and omissions (E&O) exposures they create (even, most of the time, if the agency eventually incurs a claim). Again, the producer benefits and the agency suffers.

Another example is a producer that sells unethically. The producer makes the same amount of money and if they are already selling unethically, or maybe “questionably” is a nicer word, they likely do not spend much time worrying about their reputation. But the agency owner and staff likely do worry and take pride in their reputation.

Another example is when producers sell small accounts. They make money – however small of the amount it may be (disregarding opportunity cost). But the agency loses actual real dollars. The agency loses but the producer wins.

Another example is the producer who insists on some new broker appointment so they can write a $5,000 premium policy for which they will make $20. Why they go to so much effort to make $20 is beyond me, but still the agency loses and the producer at least nominally wins.

Selfish Behaviors

These are all selfish behaviors. Winning by allowing one player to call the shots, or worse yet and more common, allowing all the players to call their own shots, is not a winning formula. Think about this in a team sport. The result is chaos.

These producers and owners are all about them. They are selfish.

A great example is E&O.

I see producer after producer refusing to use coverage checklists because they’re uncomfortable for many reasons. They “need” to be confident selling and a checklist makes them uncomfortable so they don’t use them. Meanwhile, the agency’s E&O exposure greatly increases. The producer makes their money, the client is not offered the coverages they need, the agency’s E&O exposure increases and possibly their profit is less than $0.

Team Business

The agency business is a team business all the time, not just when a producer wants the team’s support. At least this is the case in the best agencies. The best agencies operate as a full-time team because they have leaders that lead the entire team.

Leading the entire team means using authority to force producers to play by the rules or culling them. A rogue producer rarely benefits an agency unless they have at least $1 million in commission.

I know it is scary to cull a $400,000 producer. My experience though is they are not really $400,000 producers unless they have many good people supporting them. Let them run havoc in another agency if they think they’re so good they can call their own plays.

The solution lies in understanding the fantasy of Karma. Most agency owners do not have the desire to manage people, much less difficult people. They really, really, really just want Karma to seep silently into all their employees’ brains and naturally do what is right without contention or conflict. An appealing fantasy!

Changing people is a fool’s chase. Unless the agency leader wants to change, which often means a willingness to be an inside leader dealing proactively with conflicts (at least to them it appears as conflicts though they may not necessarily be so), the only solution is hiring someone to lead your people internally. This person has to have no interest in narcissists. They have to have no interests in fantasy Karmas. They have to believe they are leading a team and the team will succeed or fail together.

The best agencies already know this and have or are in the process of constructively managing selfishness. What are you doing in your agency?