My older son Mason (who will be four years old this December) is learning about the Golden Rule in his preschool class. It got me thinking about whether claims people believe there is a place for the Golden Rule in claims adjusting? Can you honestly sit and reflect on claims you handle and state definitively that you are treating others how you would like to be treated if you were in their shoes?
State Farm has a link to the 2015 version of its Code of Conduct on the State Farm website. You do not have to read too far into it to see a paraphrase of sorts of the Golden Rule.
On the first page of the Code of Conduct, under the Message from the Chairman, it states:
Message from the Chairman
Every day each of us makes choices where integrity, honesty, and trustworthiness come into play. These are hard-to-measure qualities, but they’re priceless when it comes to customer confidence in what we do and how we do it.
It’s important that we know this about each other and that our customers know this about us:
At State Farm®, not only do we do what is legal, but we also do what is right.
I would call this Golden Rule-like thinking. I hope State Farm means it and follows through with it and has a system for evaluation/discipline in place if folks do not carry out that level of treatment of customers.
It was with this Golden Rule-like thinking in mind that I read Chip Merlin’s Post the other day Why The Tom Brady Decision is Similar to Insurance Altered Engineering and Damage Reports. Neither of those situations—the Tom Brady predicament and the Insurance altered engineering and damage reports—were done with Golden Rule-like thinking.
I am of the mind-set that if you break it down to the simplest of mission statements for claims people of all backgrounds and alliances, it should be the Golden Rule-Like thinking, and consequences should flow from a failure to follow and implement that mission statement.