Relationships with insurance company personnel play a strong role in agents' overall opinion of the carrier. Sometimes, they ascribe a kind of personality to a company itself, reflecting the people they deal with, and tend to personify companies in thought and conversation. One striking finding of the 2009 PIA Company Performance Survey was pervasive evidence of this unofficial “branding” process, sometimes referred to by agents as a company's “culture” or “attitude.”

“Treatment of agents” scores. The survey included four items that directly affect agents' perceived treatment in interactions with the company. For “clear, honest communication,” companies scored an average of 7.5 (on a 10-point scale), better than the survey's overall average performance score (7.3). However, “listens and responds,” and “competitive compensation,” both at 7.2, scored below average. At 7.7, “dedicated to agency system” scored above average, snaring the highest rating in the “Treatment of agents” category.

Benchmark “importance” rankings. Not surprisingly, all four items scored above-average in their importance to agents. A preliminary study, the PIA Company Benchmark Survey, was done to help select 2009 performance items, where agents ranked the importance of 35 items when evaluating a company relationship.

Agent comments. Agents were asked on the Company Performance Survey to provide comments naming:

• a company's “main strength;” and
• something they would like the company to improve.

PIA views agents' comments as a good window on what's uppermost in their thoughts, regarding a specific company. The survey prompted comments immediately following the performance rating procedure. During rating, the agent had looked at 20 different areas of the company's performance, scoring it on each.

Topics relating to the “Treatment of agents” performance category accounted for 11 percent of all agent comments. Of these, 8 percent dealt with some aspect of company communication or agent relations. These were mainly positive in nature. Only 2 percent dealt with compensation and 1 percent with loyalty to agents and the agency system. These comments were mainly negative.

Relationships and communication. When speaking about relationships and communication, “strength” comments far outweigh desired “improvements” (a 65/35 strength-to-improvement ratio). This broad category accounts for 9 percent of all “strength” comments, but only 6 percent of what agents want improved. We see slightly more compliments for commercial lines (a 56/44 strength-to-improvement ratio), but slightly more dissatisfaction in personal lines (47/53).

It's striking how many comments praise staff at the carrier. Except for underwriting “knowledge and experience,” no performance item on the survey asked directly about the quality of employees. But, many “strength” comments spontaneously express some compliment to the people working at the company.

Two examples reflect some themes typical of this topic category:

“You always get to talk to a person when you call and they are willing to listen to any concerns or problems you have. They may not always give you the answer you want to hear but they will let you state your case and give you an informed, honest answer.”

“Everyone in the company speaks to you with a ‘smile on their faces' and genuinely want to partner with the agency force.”

Compensation and dedication. Overall, relatively few agents chose to comment on compensation or dedication to the agency system, even though both items were rated above-average in “importance” on the Benchmark Survey. So, low comment volume doesn't mean agents are indifferent. Rather, it's likely that most companies satisfy most agents most of the time. When these topics do spring to agents' minds, it's likely to be in a negative context.

“Strength” comments are outweighed by “improvement” comments for the “dedication/loyalty” topic by about 2-to-3 (41/59). For compensation, the strength-to-improvement ratio is less than 1-to-3 (23/77). For both these topics, comments definitely attach more to certain companies than others. “Dedication” comments tilt positive for commercial-lines operations (strength-to-improvement ratio 63/37), but distinctly negative for personal lines (27/73).

When agents comment on their compensation, they're likely to ask for better pay, whether for commercial lines (29/79 strength-to-improvement) or personal lines (25/75).

What agents say. Although each comment is directed toward a specific company, they contain common themes providing valuable insights for anyone working in the independent agency system. We'll look at a small sample from 6,079 comments, selected for their insights into treatment of agents.

Relationships and “the personal touch.” Agents endow their companies with quasi-human traits and personalities (this is an important “branding” issue for companies): “Straightforward company to deal with.” “Fair and honest.”

Agents frequently call a company “they” rather than “it.” “They” often seems to mean both a personified company and people who work there: “They really care about their agents.” “Friendly, they understand people.” “They are right up front about everything.”

Many, many agents refer positively to their relationships: “Strength of personal relationships.” “Tremendous rapport with agencies.” Agents frequently praise the quality of companies' personnel: “Their staff is so nice to work with.” “Very friendly and helpful; very dedicated staff.”

Communication with agents. Agents want to be listened to: “Relationships and response—they still listen.” “Openness to ideas.”

Marketing reps can play an important role in maintaining communication: “Presence in our agency on a regular basis.” “Establish better communication with agents. We have not had a visit from a marketing rep in over a year.”

Some companies make it hard to communicate: “Really tough getting someone by phone—you end up chasing your tail and [it] makes you want to jump ship and go to another carrier.”

Conclusion. Companies' treatment of their agents—it definitely affects where business flows. Treatment issues involving compensation and perceptions about companies' loyalty to agents are rare and, when mentioned, tend to evoke negative comments and attach disproportionately to a minority of companies.

Agents are much more likely to comment on communication/relationship issues. The “relationships” agents seek aren't social—they want a good, effective business partnership. (Example: “They will listen and work with [our] agency to write an account.”) Relationships and the quality of company personnel are frequently seen as its main strength. In fact, employees' interaction with agents may shape the company's perceived “brand” in powerful but not fully-controlled ways, as their personal qualities are generalized into a kind of “personality” or “culture” and attributed to the company itself.

Companies are better at outgoing messages (“clear, honest communication”) than at two-way dialogue (“listens and responds”). Thus, a low-cost opportunity for improved relations may consist just in reaching out sincerely for agent input. Because most companies are viewed positively, companies flout this baseline expectation of personal respect and rapport at their peril.—Kiehl