Critical Thinking, Part III

Whether intended or not, we all use strategies of communication that can be deceptive. A good critical thinker is one who can recognize those deceptive strategies in order to avoid errors in reasoning. Here are some examples which we will go over briefly:
.
Making things too simple. This means making something so simple that it actually becomes
inaccurate. For example, Susan says to you, “We have to put all of these things into claims captioned reports because the Regional Managers want to know everything.” The best way to respond is to point out any error in the logic and provide other evidence for a more complicated reason. You might respond with, “I doubt that they want the information just to be nosey. I’ve
seen where they use it to analyze the complete situation to help determine the correct path
we should take on the claim.”
.

Using facts that are irrelevant. This means using facts that really have no bearing on the issue at hand. For example, Brad says to Angelina, “The new Claims VP is going to change all of our contact standards anyway, so we might as well not bother trying to beat the old standards.” The best way to respond is to point out that the facts have nothing to do with each other. Angelina replies to Brad by saying, “Yes, the new Claims VP might change things, but that doesn’t mean we should abandon what we are doing now. The current standards are still
important.”
.
Making a case based on no facts to the contrary. This means to take a position based
on the fact that it has never been disproved. Sonny says to Cher, “I’ve never seen a better
way to prepare a coverage analysis, so as far as I’m concerned, this is the best process there
is.”
.
The best way to respond is to explain that although part of the statement is true, it does not actually prove the point. Cher might respond, “I understand that you have never seen a better way, but there could still be better that ways we just haven’t seen yet. I think we need to do a little more research.”
.
Making a case for the masses. This means trying to get an agreement simply because it
is the most popular. Phil says to Harry, “We should use that estimating system because most companies use it.” The best way to respond is to show a lack of support for the conclusion. Harry could reply, “That estimating system may be the most popular because it’s the cheapest, or has been around the longest. There may still be other systems that better suit our needs.”
.
Hopefully, these ideas will help you to drill down to the core of what case in point is being presented to you. Also, identifying the presenter's strategy will go a long way helping you decide what is the best way to proceed. Stay tuned for more on this topic.

Critical Thinking, Part II

Decision-Making:

Here is an example of decision-making that may have a negative result.

Your coworker, Jodie, says to you: "If you elect to extend or recommend coverage because of the nuisance value, then you can forget about any promotion. The Claim Executive hates giving in like that. Look what happened to Jill. She's been turned down four times in a row, now."

What is going on here? What questions come to mind about this statement made by your coworker? Here are some additional questions to consider when presented with this comment:

-Does my company (or my client's company) even utilize Nuisance Value determination(s) as a Lowest Ultimate Cost option?

-How much weight should I give this comment before deciding coverage or a recommendation of it?

Is NV an LUC option? Should I accept Jodie's statement and forget about considering NV? Is there a connection between Jill not getting promoted and her past practice of extending coverage for NV? What is Jodie's interest in this? The answers to these scenario questions may surprise you.

A clarifying strategy may be as simple as a phone call to the actual decision maker, to pose the question both directly and informally, before spending valuable time going through and writing the NV determination process.

Critical vs. Non-Critical Thinking

As anyone who has been successful in claim-handling can tell you, the process requires a special ability to make decisions. However, far too many claims people rely a little too much on their intuition to make those decisions and can often go astray due to the lack of critical thinking.

.

In fact, when polled informally, 50 percent of adjusters that I've queried say that they use very little formal critical thinking steps in order to analyze coverage, liability, or even the truthfulness of customer statements. In follow-up questions, 90 percent of adjusters could not even name a single formal critical-thinking step. An incomplete list is as follows:

.

-Make good decisions based on cautious reviews.

-Work through problems in detail to find the best answers.

-Stay focused on the real issues at hand.

-Apply critical thinking to your business writing.

-Apply learned skills to claims situations (e.g., coverage analysis, reporting, etc.).

-Utilize critical thinking when developing plans of action for claims handling.

.

In this multi-part series, I'll attempt to assist the claim professional by outlining some basic concepts when it comes to critical thinking. My goal with this particular article is to give you insight and cause to seriously think about these issues. So, if you find that you are in one of these situations or if you find yourself thinking that you should try to pinpoint the environmental factor(s) that cause these thoughts to arise, then you are correct. Everything begins with our thinking.