Share this
Mister Wong
Digg
Del.icio.us
Slashdot
Furl
Yahoo
Technorati
Newsvine
Googlize this
Blinklist
Facebook
Wikio
Hear this text
Print
E-mail
When I first joined the life insurance industry, more than forty years ago, in what was then known as the ‘Pensions Department’ (now most probably known as the Employee Benefits Division) I was allocated a desk, a number of pension funds and a ‘tutor’.
In those days all insurance companies in South Africa followed a system of teaching new (and in our case, young) staff using a hands-on method, later facetiously known as ‘sitting next to Nellie’! In my case ‘Nellie’ was Anne, who had been with the company for a number of years and knew exactly how to do the various jobs.
She would show me how to fill in membership cards, calculate a brand new concept known as ‘age next birthday’, normal retirement date, etc. Anne taught me all I needed to do, even how to operate the hitherto unknown futuristic item called a Facit calculator.
If neither Anne nor my supervisor could, a gent called Jan was to answer my questions of “Why is it done this way?” or “What if I do not do this?’”
They both knew exactly how any given task had to be done but not why it was being done, nor why it was done that specific way! In other words they had the skills to perform the tasks, but not the knowledge of why the task was performed that specific way.
To me it made sense to know why things are done the way they are and the consequences of doing them differently, because if I understand and agree with something, it is that much easier to remember and do. When I, as an inquisitive young clerk, asked those impossible questions I was told, after a while, to go and ask Mr G. because he had an ‘ACII’!
Big deal, what is an ‘ACII’? I learnt that those in management had an ACII because they had studied insurance (then still referred to as ‘assurance’, because we were a ‘Life Assurance Society’) and therefore knew a lot more. And Anne and Jan were so right. Mr G would explain why we did things the way we did and what would happen if we did it differently, or not at all.
On occasion, even Mr G could not satisfy my never-ending questions and then we would go to Mr E. I learnt that Mr E was an FCII, which meant he had even more knowledge.
On some very rare occasions, I would even be referred to Mr C, who, I was told, was an actuary and a most clever man who had not only studied insurance, but also mathematics! (For the record I should mention that all these wise gentlemen wore suits, smoked pipes and were members of the Rand Club! The ladies in the office were secretaries and typists and fellow clerks, with the odd one having risen to that hallowed position of ‘supervisor’.)
After a while I could do the tasks required of me so well that one day I was given the task of teaching a new young aspiring lady clerk how to do the tasks required of her, except I could now often explain to her why it was done ‘that way’ and she made fewer mistakes than some of the other newly acquired staff members.
I was subsequently told that maybe I should consider ‘doing an ACII’. I did enrol with the CII and IISA and even got my books, but being young and inconsiderate, my private life got in the way, and I got married, took transfers to other departments and even went to distant shores.
Then, one day, I found that although I had all the experience and training, I could not secure another promotion unless I got a ‘qualification’. I suddenly learnt the difference between training and having the ability to perform tasks and education, having studied my field of interest and operation.
I, at first dutifully, commenced my studies under some duress and suddenly a whole new vista opened up for me. Suddenly I found out not only why things were done in a certain way, but also the sequence, the alternatives, the pros and cons of the different ways of doing them, the background and historical development and so much more. The studies were not easy, but then anything of value must be earned.
After completion of my studies, when I was also now a FCII (and later Fellow of the Insurance Institute of South Africa) I realised that what I had achieved was to not only know how a task is done and have the skills to perform them, but also what, why, when, by whom and where (the now famous Tunslow five Ws and one H). I found that there was a balance between skills and knowledge.
Looking at the approach to staff development (human resource development as it is so often referred to) today, I unfortunately recognise so much of what I experienced so many years ago.
The insurance industry is more often than not totally fixated on the training of staff – on having them acquire and develop the ‘skills’ deemed to be required and often only to satisfy the demand for compliance credits, irrespective of whether the training the staff is subjected to actually contributes to their development.
Even the legislative environment seems to have developed tunnel vision and often only seems to recognise the need to develop skills. Governments and industry leaders continually tell all and sundry that we have a shortage of skills and that there is a need to train more staff.
The insurance industry is, however, a knowledge industry first and foremost. Irrespective of your role in this industry of ours – whether you want to be a good underwriter, claims handler, intermediary, administrator, or whatever – you will need both skills and knowledge.
You will need to undergo training and develop ability to perform tasks. You will also, however, need to acquire knowledge and insight and understanding of the various components of the industry, the considerations that have a direct bearing on the approach to be followed.
You will need to study the historical development of the types of cover provided, the perils insured against, and the case law that formed and shaped the body of knowledge. Through the experiences and mistakes of others, you will gain the knowledge which develops the ability to make sound rulings and decisions and recommendations or advice. This part of our marvellous industry and the ability to ensure that both the insured and the insurer are mutually content requires knowledge first, supplemented by skill, personality, honesty and integrity.
We need to ensure that there is a fine balance between the training and development of skills and the provision of facilities and opportunities to allow staff and especially the younger members of our industry to study insurance and acquire the knowledge needed to make sound decisions and to understand the consequences of those.
Let us not concentrate on one type of development only, but let us finely balance the training and education for the benefit of not only the staff concerned, but also our companies and organisations and ultimately our insuring public and the insurance industry, which is so very vital to the sustained economic growth of our country.
(Frank van der Meer is head of the IISA Unit of Unisa’s Centre for Business Management)
