Final answer:
A loss adjuster prioritizing the reduction of average claim handling time might cause rushed claim investigations, leading to unfair settlements and customer dissatisfaction. Ethical issues may also arise due to misrepresentation of data, with efforts to maintain quantitative goals over qualitative outcomes. In human factors psychology, increased quantitative workload has been shown to decrease decision quality.
Step-by-step explanation:
An example of a loss adjuster's quantitative goal that resulted in qualitative issues for a claims department is one where the adjuster is tasked with reducing the average claim handling time. In pursuit of this goal, the adjuster might rush through claims, leading to inadequate investigation and potentially unfair claim settlements. The focus on quantitative efficiency can compromise the quality of service, resulting in customer dissatisfaction and potential ethical concerns.
Clients who can make connections between quantitative outcomes and qualitative outcomes play a vital role. When they are resourceful and insightful, they can support case managers and help improve the quality of service. For instance, as in Mini-Case Study Fourteen, clients can help avoid ethical difficulties by ensuring data accuracy rather than misrepresenting findings for the sake of a positive appearance.
In the field of human factors psychology, as shown by Bruno & Abrahão (2012), when the volume of operator decisions rises, causing an increase in cognitive effort, there is an increase in errors, such as false positives in security breach identifications. This relates back to how focusing solely on quantitative goals, like the number of decisions made, can lead to a decline in the quality of those decisions, as seen in the information security center study.