|
|
|
In My Opinion
Technically, We Can Do the Job
by Paul LackoAs actuaries, we take pride in our technical skills. We are born with above-average abilities in mathematics, logical analysis, and pattern recogni-tion, but we know it takes much more than native ability to become an actuary. Our training process may be less demanding than that of a world-class athlete, but not by much. For five to ten years after college, we work full time and devote 25 percent of our non-work hours to mastering (more or less) that grueling CAS Exam syllabus. With perseverance and good fortune, we become qualified experts. Most of us can make a good living doing what we do well.
Insurance executives sometimes complain that actuaries are "too technical" when they present their analyses and recommendations to nonactuarial decision-makers. This might seem unfair—we have been thoroughly trained to be "technical," so what's the problem? Nobody complains that the other employees are only as good as they were trained to be. (When was the last time you heard a senior insurance executive criticize the marketing staff for being unable to fit a three-parameter distribution to a database of truncated losses? Or compile a simple set of rate indications?)
We actuaries are too sensitive to criticism that we are only average at nontechnical business skills. It's because we handle the technical portion of the program so well that the "business people" can judge the odds, make decisions, and take action. Is it any surprise that actuaries are not always astute "business people?" It shouldn't be. Was anyone shocked by Michael Jordan's mediocre performance on the baseball field? Of course not.
On the other hand, we all know actuaries who are good business people, and we all know actuaries who are good communicators. And while we can't all be good at everything, we can all develop additional business skills. In particular, we can improve our effectiveness as communicators. Most of the people we work with (and work for) are not trained in statistical, mathematical, and actuarial tech-speak. They depend on us to communicate in language they understand.
Executives and other coworkers will judge our communication skills by the grammar, spelling, and punctuation they see in our writing. We should assume that these people know the difference between "you're" and "your," "its" and "it's," "affect" and "effect." We need to make sure that we do, too.
Most of us have a dictionary handy and maybe a thesaurus, as well. These are useful when we need words, but we doubtless know enough words already. Instead, we need to use words more effectively. Let me suggest two short, entertaining (really!) books that contain all the practical information you will ever need about writing in English: The Elements of Style by William Strunk Jr. and E. B. White, and Bryson's Dictionary of Troublesome Words: A Writer's Guide to Getting It Right by Bill Bryson. Buy them. Read them. Keep them within arm's reach.
As an editor for The Actuarial Review, I read a lot of nontechnical material written by actuaries. Actuaries generally do write well, I find, when it comes to nontechnical subject matter. Like most writers, actuaries, including me, when producing written communications, tend to insert too many needless, unnecessary and redundant words in a vain endeavor to strengthen their impact. And, they, often, use too many commas, besides. (If these last two sentences strike you as really bad, that's good; go directly to the next paragraph. If they seem really good, then return to the previous paragraph and do as instructed.)
While senior executives occasionally criticize our shortcomings, they are at the same time paying us a huge compliment. They believe we can meet new challenges and assume greater responsibility. They believe we can lead and motivate other people to set goals and achieve them. They believe we can act competently and decisively in the real world, not just in the world of actuarial models.
I believe they're right.