I'm going to start by relating a recent set of customer service interactions. Please understand that everything I say is my interpretation of things. This is opinion, not objective facts (but that's the whole issue.)
Jogo Canada a Winnipeg games store that I frequent. I probably go in there 4 to 5 times a year, and I'll spend between $40 and $200 a visit. A couple of weeks ago I'd stopped in to pick up a birthday gift for a friend. I grabbed the latest Settlers of Catan expansion, knowing she was a fan of the original game. Unfortunately her husband had the same great idea. No problem, I decided to keep it, and inquired if she'd tried Starfarers of Catan. She was intrigued, so I promised to pick it up for her in replacement. The weekend before last, JP and I returned to Jogo to do just that. When we walked in the door, the clerk sitting behind the desk asked us if he could help us find anything. In my opinion it didn't sound like he was happy to see us, so I declined, indicating I knew what I wanted. I walked over to the section where the Catan games were, but could not see it. At this point I said that I was looking for Starfarers, but I didn't see a copy. The clerk, brusquely (again, in my opinion) informed me that it was there. I replied that I saw two copies of the expansion to Starfarers, but no copies of the actual game. His reply was something to the effect of "Oh, that's all we've got." By now I was very displeased with the whole interaction. I felt that the service was completely unfriendly. I made one last attempt, asking if they had any coming in. The clerk stated that they were concentrating on other areas, but that I should try the Explore Store in the mall. At that point I left. For good. I won't be going back to Jogo.
Fast Forward one week. Having not had time the Saturday of the Jogo visit, JP and I hied off to the Explore store. There were two clerks behind the counter, neither of whom said a thing to me as I entered. I walked over to the strategy games section, grabbed a copy of Starfarers, and went to the till. The one clerk asked if I found everything, and rang up my purchase while the other clerk bagged it. I probably exchanged no more than 20 words with them but both were friendly. I'll go back to the Explore Store.
So why did I start by saying that "Perfect Service Quality Loses Customers"? Well, based on a 'Quality checklist' approach, I will bet that the Jogo clerk would score much higher than either of the Explore Store Clerks. Let's look at the objective facts. He greeted his customer when they entered and offered assistance. He never said 'no' or 'can't' but rather phrased things in more positive wording. He offered alternatives. These are exactly the type of objective behaviours that end up on Quality Checklists.
He followed the process of customer service, and lost a customer.
The clerks in the Explore Store barely interacted with me but they left me willing to return. I don't know if they had any steps they were supposed to take, but they were friendly.
Process is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if you do the right things, if those right things don't have the desired result. I'm guessing that the Jogo clerk was taking the steps he'd been taught to serve a customer. However the result was a very bad taste in my mouth. I went away displeased, so I won't return.
I spent a few years as a Quality Analyst. I know why the industry creates checklists and focuses on behaviours that can be objectively rated. I also know that none of that creates good customer service.
So what's the answer?
Toss out the checklist.
Ignore the score.
Talk about results!
Tuesday, 19 August 2008
Saturday, 9 August 2008
Manage by the Same Numbers?
Becky Carroll over at Customers Rock! posted an article about marketing and customer service that got me thinking. Now her main point is about the impact that both marketing and customer service have on a brand, especially if each communicates a different message (think about the difference between your ISP's ads and what you experience when you call them).
However, the comment that got me thinking was when she noted:
But do we think of these subsets as having the same product? Think about your Line Managers and your Training Department? Both groups share employee satisfaction and productivity as metrics. Yet Training will often be judged based on units delivered, pass rates, and often 'customer' satisfaction surveys (I could do a whole post about the wholly ineffective ways that training groups 'survey' learners to determine how 'good' their training is.) Line Managers will be judged by productivity, attrition, employee satisfaction, and so on (and don't think the way these numbers are 'created' wouldn't be worthy of a few posts as well).
I think an organization that measured its operational and support groups with the same scorecards would have some very interesting results.
However, the comment that got me thinking was when she noted:
Yet too often, marketing and customer service are managed separately in a company or organization, they don’t speak to each other, and they don’t have common metrics (you know, those things that drive the behaviors?).In the context of my previous post on managing by the numbers, this is an important addition. When subsets of an organization have the same outputs, both groups need to be managed by numbers that are based on solid and consistent methodology, clear definitions and common understanding.
But do we think of these subsets as having the same product? Think about your Line Managers and your Training Department? Both groups share employee satisfaction and productivity as metrics. Yet Training will often be judged based on units delivered, pass rates, and often 'customer' satisfaction surveys (I could do a whole post about the wholly ineffective ways that training groups 'survey' learners to determine how 'good' their training is.) Line Managers will be judged by productivity, attrition, employee satisfaction, and so on (and don't think the way these numbers are 'created' wouldn't be worthy of a few posts as well).
I think an organization that measured its operational and support groups with the same scorecards would have some very interesting results.
Wednesday, 6 August 2008
Manage by the Numbers
About a year ago, I made a post decrying the way people ascribe meaning to numbers. Well it seems Tom Vander Well over at QAQnA thinks along similar lines. He is specifically looking at the world of call quality, but in my experience the flaws he points out are epidemic in today's business world.
People want to hear the number. "What's our market share percentage?" "What's our employee satisfaction index?" "What is our customer satisfaction score?" But businesses really need to know the meaning behind that number. Saying you have 100% of the market doesn't mean much if your market is for left-handed tent stake hammers. Having an employee satisfaction index of 5 is useless if the survey was conducted by managers walking around and asking employee's if they are satisfied with the company. Believing that 95% of your customers are satisfied doesn't mean much if your churn rate is 50% a month.
I believe that companies desperately need to learn to use business intelligence more effectively. The first step of that process, though, is to understand that a number only has meaning when it is arrived at by a solid and consistent methodology, is based on clear definitions that bear some relation to common sense, and when everyone using that number understands the methodology and definitions.
Otherwise, you might as well take Tom's suggestion and just use the same report forever.
People want to hear the number. "What's our market share percentage?" "What's our employee satisfaction index?" "What is our customer satisfaction score?" But businesses really need to know the meaning behind that number. Saying you have 100% of the market doesn't mean much if your market is for left-handed tent stake hammers. Having an employee satisfaction index of 5 is useless if the survey was conducted by managers walking around and asking employee's if they are satisfied with the company. Believing that 95% of your customers are satisfied doesn't mean much if your churn rate is 50% a month.
I believe that companies desperately need to learn to use business intelligence more effectively. The first step of that process, though, is to understand that a number only has meaning when it is arrived at by a solid and consistent methodology, is based on clear definitions that bear some relation to common sense, and when everyone using that number understands the methodology and definitions.
Otherwise, you might as well take Tom's suggestion and just use the same report forever.
Saturday, 26 July 2008
Playing By My Own Rules
You often hear that phrase applied to people who are breaking rules - seeming anarchists who gain fame or infamy by 'playing by their own rules.' But really these people are simply playing without rules.
Lately I've spent a great deal of time thinking about some of my own rules. I believe I do exactly that. I play by my own rules. That doesn't mean I do whatever I feel like. Rather it means that I hold myself to certain standards based on my own moral, ethical, and logical code. Well two out of three perhaps.
One of those rules has impacted my posting. I tend to post about concepts that have fired my imagination. I post about my passions. Lately however everything that has driven me to write out my thoughts has been very specific to my work environment. One of my ethical rules is that I won't post anything specific about my work. Now I have said a few times that work prompts many of my posts, but I've always been able to talk generally about concepts rather than revealing anything specific. Of late, that's simply not been possible.
The worst part of all this is that I've had some of the most interesting realizations. I'd love to share them, but at present I don't seem to be able to put them in a context that doesn't break my own rule, and I won't do that.
But that, in itself, becomes a topic of discussion. What are my rules? I've never taken the time to write them all down, and I'm not going to do so now, but I thought I'd list a few. Here, in no particular order, are David's Rules:
Lately I've spent a great deal of time thinking about some of my own rules. I believe I do exactly that. I play by my own rules. That doesn't mean I do whatever I feel like. Rather it means that I hold myself to certain standards based on my own moral, ethical, and logical code. Well two out of three perhaps.
One of those rules has impacted my posting. I tend to post about concepts that have fired my imagination. I post about my passions. Lately however everything that has driven me to write out my thoughts has been very specific to my work environment. One of my ethical rules is that I won't post anything specific about my work. Now I have said a few times that work prompts many of my posts, but I've always been able to talk generally about concepts rather than revealing anything specific. Of late, that's simply not been possible.
The worst part of all this is that I've had some of the most interesting realizations. I'd love to share them, but at present I don't seem to be able to put them in a context that doesn't break my own rule, and I won't do that.
But that, in itself, becomes a topic of discussion. What are my rules? I've never taken the time to write them all down, and I'm not going to do so now, but I thought I'd list a few. Here, in no particular order, are David's Rules:
- Pay attention to other people's convenience. Don't make people wait for me.
- What is said in confidence is kept in confidence. Always.
- Don't fight the weather.
- Perfection is unattainable, unless I work harder and smarter.
- Don't get involved with someone with whom I work. Relationships and work don't mix.
- People judge me as much by how I communicate as by the content of my communication.
- Slow and steady doesn't win the race, but I always finish.
Tuesday, 13 November 2007
But I've always done it that way!
Today I caught myself. I'm out on an audit, working with a peer I haven't worked with before. With the holiday weekend we were behind my normal timing for an audit. I was lamenting the fact that, with the managers schedules, we were having further timing issues and that we were not going to be able to have the meetings we need to have when I usually would have them.
He commented that we could rearrange some things and still get fully back on track. I started to protest, and then I really thought about it. I caught myself holding on to a way of doing something that was solely based on habit. There was no reason I couldn't rearrange my meeting order, and his plan was simply more efficient.
It amazes me how often we do things because we've always done them that way. There is an old business fable about this very topic.
I've decided to set a new guideline for myself. If I become frustrated with something, the very first question I'm going to ask myself is why I'm doing it in a way that frustrates me. If the only reason I come up with is because I've always done it that way, I'm changing things!
He commented that we could rearrange some things and still get fully back on track. I started to protest, and then I really thought about it. I caught myself holding on to a way of doing something that was solely based on habit. There was no reason I couldn't rearrange my meeting order, and his plan was simply more efficient.
It amazes me how often we do things because we've always done them that way. There is an old business fable about this very topic.
I've decided to set a new guideline for myself. If I become frustrated with something, the very first question I'm going to ask myself is why I'm doing it in a way that frustrates me. If the only reason I come up with is because I've always done it that way, I'm changing things!
Saturday, 20 October 2007
Servant Leadership
One of the key characteristics I am striving for as a leader is service. I believe that, to be a great leader, one must serve others. Recently though I've been feeling a bit like a doormat.
I think there is an interesting tension between service and surrender. When I forgo my own wants and likes to accommodate another's wants and desires, I think that I am serving them. However there comes a point where I no longer am fulfilling my own needs.
Lately I think that's been preying on me more and more. I want to be a servant to others, but it is beginning to feel like I am surrendering who and what I am to them.
This came to a head recently when a peer I was working with was very tense and began to take it out on me. The right thing to do was probably to remain calm and recognize that her tension was the source of the abuse. Instead, I bit her head off, and reflected the very behaviour that I was receiving. This was about the least productive thing I could have done. I knew it at the time. I certainly know it now.
Now I need to figure out how to serve and stand my ground.
I think there is an interesting tension between service and surrender. When I forgo my own wants and likes to accommodate another's wants and desires, I think that I am serving them. However there comes a point where I no longer am fulfilling my own needs.
Lately I think that's been preying on me more and more. I want to be a servant to others, but it is beginning to feel like I am surrendering who and what I am to them.
This came to a head recently when a peer I was working with was very tense and began to take it out on me. The right thing to do was probably to remain calm and recognize that her tension was the source of the abuse. Instead, I bit her head off, and reflected the very behaviour that I was receiving. This was about the least productive thing I could have done. I knew it at the time. I certainly know it now.
Now I need to figure out how to serve and stand my ground.
Friday, 28 September 2007
The Brutal Facts - Part 2
I know I've drawn a number of posts from Jim Collins' Good to Great, however I think it is one of the most thought provoking books I've read in a long time. I want to revisit the concept he calls Confronting the Brutal Facts. Collins posits that one of the key characteristics of the organizations that were able to make the leap from Good to Great was that they were able to confront the brutal facts.
Back in March, I wrote a post about how companies seem filled with people who want things spun rather than being willing to face the brutal facts. At that time I was working as a quality analyst and had contact with some peers in other organizations who were able to validate my perceptions based on their own experiences.
I'm now an internal auditor for the same company, which brings this whole issue home again. Yet I now begin to recognize the critical nature of the duality inherent in what Collins calls the Stockdale paradox. The Stockdale paradox is based on the story of Admiral Jim Stockdale. Stockdale was captured in the Vietnam War, and was tortured numerous times during his incarceration. He never deluded himself with false hope, yet he retained a faith that he would survive. That faith, coupled with the stark acceptance of reality allowed him to survive the horror in which he found himself. It also allowed him to lead others in a way that enabled them to survive as well.
So what does that have to do with auditing? I think a key characteristic needed to be a successful auditor is to face the realities I find as I audit. But I also have to retain the faith that all the problems will be overcome and we will make this a truly great organization.
I will confront the Brutal Facts so that I can help build the company to be all it can be.
Back in March, I wrote a post about how companies seem filled with people who want things spun rather than being willing to face the brutal facts. At that time I was working as a quality analyst and had contact with some peers in other organizations who were able to validate my perceptions based on their own experiences.
I'm now an internal auditor for the same company, which brings this whole issue home again. Yet I now begin to recognize the critical nature of the duality inherent in what Collins calls the Stockdale paradox. The Stockdale paradox is based on the story of Admiral Jim Stockdale. Stockdale was captured in the Vietnam War, and was tortured numerous times during his incarceration. He never deluded himself with false hope, yet he retained a faith that he would survive. That faith, coupled with the stark acceptance of reality allowed him to survive the horror in which he found himself. It also allowed him to lead others in a way that enabled them to survive as well.
So what does that have to do with auditing? I think a key characteristic needed to be a successful auditor is to face the realities I find as I audit. But I also have to retain the faith that all the problems will be overcome and we will make this a truly great organization.
I will confront the Brutal Facts so that I can help build the company to be all it can be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)