Thirty-one years following the relationship into its next responsibility.

Mandate

Connect client growth with the scope, ownership and capacity of continuing brokerage service.

Outcomes

• Examined 120 newly placed clients:82 agreed service calendars, 26 next-action accounts and 12 scope-clarification accounts, with US$420,000 preparation expense.
• Corrected a supplier comparison from US$2.8 million headline price to US$3.7 million recurring cost including retained specialist support.
• Accepted 24 immediate onboardings and deferred 16 while retaining US$260,000 preparatory expense and the commercial risk.

Decisions in context

The COO role required me to bring continuing service into the same conversation as commercial growth. New relationships could enter the account before their recurring responsibilities had an equally clear owner. I worked with the commercial and service leaders to distinguish agreed calendars, next actions and unresolved scope. The supplier comparison extended the same discipline to the cost of work that would remain inside the brokerage even if a contract moved outside it. Deferring sixteen onboardings was another consequence of making the receiving responsibility explicit. I own the operating organisation and its expense delegation, not a carrier’s claims decision or every specialist judgement involved in placement. My contribution is most useful when the institution wants the service behind its growth account examined before an attractive date becomes a commitment nobody has properly accepted.

Reason for the move

Current appointment; a future handover would preserve ownership of ongoing client-service commitments and unresolved integration work.

Mandate

Build a coherent receiving account for service responsibilities across established and acquired offices.

Outcomes

• Separated legal transaction close from the practical transfer of nine service responsibilities across three acquired offices.
• Transferred six responsibilities by the original date and retained three local owners for eight additional weeks.
• Recorded US$680,000 dual-operation and cover expense separately from acquisition consideration.

Decisions in context

The network appointment exposed differences that an integration timetable could easily compress. An acquired office might have a familiar set of tasks while retaining distinctive relationships, permissions and practical knowledge. I wanted the receiving teams to understand those conditions before taking responsibility. In the three-office integration, six responsibilities moved on the original date and three needed a longer local arrangement. Defending the additional weeks required me to explain why a partially completed transfer should remain visibly partial. The expense was real and belonged in the programme. Director described my functional management role; it did not mean I held a statutory board seat. This period strengthened my view that an organisation change should leave a client’s continuing service with a credible owner, rather than rely on the transaction announcement to establish a working relationship that had not yet been formed.

Reason for the move

Appointed COO to connect network service with the wider commercial and operating agenda.

Mandate

Coordinate service across three offices while preparing selected account work for a shared arrangement.

Outcomes

• Owned an overoptimistic transfer plan for twenty-four account groups.
• Moved seventeen groups on the intended date while seven retained local support until receiving conditions were ready.
• Funded US$190,000 in correction and cover and changed the method used to establish later handover readiness.

Decisions in context

Joining Orlaven gave me a larger service organisation and an early opportunity to support shared working. I believed a common description of the tasks would make transfer straightforward. The twenty-four-group plan exposed the limits of that belief. Seven groups still depended on context the receiving team had not adequately understood. I had approved the sequence and needed to own the correction, including the cost of retaining local support. The useful discussion was not whether central or local work was inherently better. It concerned the actual knowledge, authority and relationships needed for each responsibility. I learned to ask a receiving colleague to explain the work back before calling a handover ready. That experience later helped me distinguish the completion of a corporate transaction from the practical acceptance of its continuing service obligations.

Reason for the move

Promoted to network service responsibility after six years of regional operating work.

Mandate

Give account teams a shared view of recurring client-service responsibilities and outstanding decisions.

Outcomes

• Introduced agreed service calendars that identified owners rather than relying on one colleague’s memory.
• Separated routine follow-up from questions needing an appropriately authorised specialist.
• Made changes in account responsibility explicit when colleagues were absent or moved to another role.

Decisions in context

The management role changed the unit of work I was responsible for. I could no longer judge the service account solely by whether one coordinator had completed a task. A client relationship continued across people, dates and specialist decisions. I wanted a shared calendar that showed who would carry the next agreed responsibility and what remained unresolved. The work also taught me that a helpful operating system can become misleading if it labels a specialist question as routine follow-up. I kept those referrals distinct and made sure the appropriate people remained responsible for their judgement. My authority concerned the servicing team and its approved expense. It did not extend to changing an insurer’s terms or deciding a client’s entitlement. This appointment established the continuing-service perspective that I later brought to office integrations and larger growth proposals.

Reason for the move

Joined Orlaven to take a regional operating remit across a larger brokerage network.

Mandate

Organise account information and follow up agreed tasks under the servicing manager’s direction.

Outcomes

• Maintained a visible account of the next task and its owner for the relationships assigned to me.
• Learned to refer insurance and contractual questions rather than treat every request as an administrative instruction.
• Developed a practical understanding of what another colleague needed when work passed between account teams.

Decisions in context

I joined after completing my business degree in May 1995. The appointment required careful organisation and follow-up, not independent advice or authority over the insurance arrangement. I learned to ask what a colleague needed to continue an account and to distinguish an outstanding administrative item from a decision that belonged with a specialist. A placement could look complete in the commercial discussion while leaving practical service questions for the team afterward. Those questions were often resolved through personal knowledge, which made the operation vulnerable when the person was absent. I began keeping the next responsibility explicit within the process available to me. I do not retrospectively describe this as an enterprise transformation. It was the early work through which I learned why a relationship needs a service account that can be understood by more than the individual who first handled it.

Reason for the move

Promoted to client servicing manager after five years of coordination experience and broader team responsibilities.