Career Impact

Razzie Awards for Customer Service

The 2008 Razzie Awards for the film industry were recently announced. Also known as the Golden Raspberry Awards, these parodies of the Golden Globe (Tony) Awards include nominations and selections of worst picture, worst actor, etc.

This got me thinking... what if there were Razzie Awards for  customer service?

I know which company I'd nominate. For sure! It's a major US air carrier, the same one I wrote about before. This time, they have done something even more absurd and un-customer friendly. I am dismayed, disgusted, and out-of-pocket over $400. They dont' seem to care....

Here's what happened.

I paid this airline a hefty fee ($751) to be flown from Portland, Maine to Parkersburg, WVA on the evening of January 14th. Because there are no direct flights, the flight included a connection at Washington Dulles Airport.

The trip started on time, but when I arrived at Dulles, my connecting flight was showing as two hours delayed. Soon thereafter, that flight was cancelled.  I went to a customer service agent. I was told that the next avaiable flight to Parkersburg would get me there mid-morning of the following day. I said that this was too late for my meeting, and the meeting was the only reason I was going to Parkersburg. The agent then advised me that there was a flight going back to Portland in a half-hour and that I should get on it. Once I arrived in Portland, I was told, I could go back to the ticket counter and get a refund.

So, I got a return ticket and boarded the plane. It was after midnight when I landed; the ticket counter was closed. So, next day I dutifully drove back to the airport to get my refund. The agent at the ticket counter gave me a partial refund of $326. I asked where the remaining $425 was. She said, "We can't refund that because you flew two legs of the trip." I wasn't sure I heard her right.

I said, "What do you think I did that for... my health? For the joy of spending my evening hours in your gate areas? Or, perhpas for the comfort of your spacious coach seats? The ambience of your friendly skies?"

"No," I said. "The only reason I flew that first leg was to get to the destination which you failed to deliver me to. And I flew the leg home in order, at least, to get to my starting point." This did not persuade her.

"I'm sorry," she said. You'll have to talk to a telephone agent in customer service."

I did. And guess what? I was told that they could not refund the balance, either, and that I would have to go to the ticket counter to do that. So, next day I drove back to the airport for a second time. Still no results. This time I was told that I now had to call a different number.

Since this aborted trip, in addition to spending 7 hours one evening on airplanes and at airports for no reason, I have twice more driven back to the airport, and have spent an additional three hours on the phone with various representatives of this company. None of them will consider agreeing that I am due a refund. Customer service says that I have to call refunds; refunds say that I have to call customer service. Meanwhile, I cannot get anyone there to give me a person's name and phone number that I can reach directly. And each time I call, I must wade through the most onerous IVR system I have ever encountered, only to wait ten to fifteen minutes each time before speaking to a rep, who does not help me at all.

This airline lost money in the 4th quarter of 2007. They say it is because of soaring fuel prices. That is not the reason. The reason they are losing money is that this airline has totally lost sight of its purpose for being in business, which is to fly passengers to their destinations. They are certainly going to get less of my money.

If they treat a frequent flier (me) this way, and I have flown over 250,000 miles with this airline over the years, what are they thinking? Are they really this clueless?

Anyway, this airline has my nomination for the Golden Raspberry Awards for customer service. Who are your nominees?

Razzie Awards for Customer Service

The 2008 Razzie Awards for the film industry were recently announced. Also known as the Golden Raspberry Awards, these parodies of the Golden Globe (Tony) Awards include nominations and selections of worst picture, worst actor, etc.

This got me thinking... what if there were Razzie Awards for  customer service?

I know which company I'd nominate. For sure! It's a major US air carrier, the same one I wrote about before. This time, they have done something even more absurd and un-customer friendly. I am dismayed, disgusted, and out-of-pocket over $400. They dont' seem to care....

Here's what happened.

I paid this airline a hefty fee ($751) to be flown from Portland, Maine to Parkersburg, WVA on the evening of January 14th. Because there are no direct flights, the flight included a connection at Washington Dulles Airport.

The trip started on time, but when I arrived at Dulles, my connecting flight was showing as two hours delayed. Soon thereafter, that flight was cancelled.  I went to a customer service agent. I was told that the next avaiable flight to Parkersburg would get me there mid-morning of the following day. I said that this was too late for my meeting, and the meeting was the only reason I was going to Parkersburg. The agent then advised me that there was a flight going back to Portland in a half-hour and that I should get on it. Once I arrived in Portland, I was told, I could go back to the ticket counter and get a refund.

So, I got a return ticket and boarded the plane. It was after midnight when I landed; the ticket counter was closed. So, next day I dutifully drove back to the airport to get my refund. The agent at the ticket counter gave me a partial refund of $326. I asked where the remaining $425 was. She said, "We can't refund that because you flew two legs of the trip." I wasn't sure I heard her right.

I said, "What do you think I did that for... my health? For the joy of spending my evening hours in your gate areas? Or, perhpas for the comfort of your spacious coach seats? The ambience of your friendly skies?"

"No," I said. "The only reason I flew that first leg was to get to the destination which you failed to deliver me to. And I flew the leg home in order, at least, to get to my starting point." This did not persuade her.

"I'm sorry," she said. You'll have to talk to a telephone agent in customer service."

I did. And guess what? I was told that they could not refund the balance, either, and that I would have to go to the ticket counter to do that. So, next day I drove back to the airport for a second time. Still no results. This time I was told that I now had to call a different number.

Since this aborted trip, in addition to spending 7 hours one evening on airplanes and at airports for no reason, I have twice more driven back to the airport, and have spent an additional three hours on the phone with various representatives of this company. None of them will consider agreeing that I am due a refund. Customer service says that I have to call refunds; refunds say that I have to call customer service. Meanwhile, I cannot get anyone there to give me a person's name and phone number that I can reach directly. And each time I call, I must wade through the most onerous IVR system I have ever encountered, only to wait ten to fifteen minutes each time before speaking to a rep, who does not help me at all.

This airline lost money in the 4th quarter of 2007. They say it is because of soaring fuel prices. That is not the reason. The reason they are losing money is that this airline has totally lost sight of its purpose for being in business, which is to fly passengers to their destinations. They are certainly going to get less of my money.

If they treat a frequent flier (me) this way, and I have flown over 250,000 miles with this airline over the years, what are they thinking? Are they really this clueless?

Anyway, this airline has my nomination for the Golden Raspberry Awards for customer service. Who are your nominees?

A Season for Letting Go

     It's early December. As I write this, a blustery northwest wind is blowing through Maine. Each gust shakes a few more of the  remaining leaves off of the trees surrounding our home. The oak leaves, it seems, always stay on the longest. Even they are finally letting go today.

    It's a good thing, really. Forecasters are predicting our first snow of the seasaon on Monday, a storm that will birng as much as a foot of snow. That's a lot for a first snow around here. We're going to have an abrupt transition from one season to the next.

    As I watch all this going on outside the window of my study, I realize that we humans have a lesson to learn from the oak trees. Their "letting go"  of this year's leaves is part of nature's preparation for the trees' growth next spring. So it ought to be for us, too.

    Ask yourself, what are the things that you ought to let go of in order to prepare for your next stage of growth?  What does your company need to let go of? What products, processes, or practices should your organization discontinue? What should you, personally, let go of to make room to grow?

    I let go of a cherished sailboat this year to make room in my calendar and in my pocketbook to continue my graduate studies. I let go of a professional relationship to develop and advocate a new model of quality monitoring in the call center industry. And, in developing this new model, I have had to let go of several lof my own long-held views about the best way to do business in call centers.

    Let me warn you that it can feel pretty naked to let go like this. But I know, thanks to our oak trees, that this is but one phase in continual growth. The onset of winter is but a harbinger of the coming spring. 

A "Quick" Idea from an Industry Conference

I attended the Annual Call Center Conference and Exhibition in San Diego last month. Here's a summary of the highlights of it for me :

1. This was truly an international Expo. Delegates from 30 countries were present. I even bumped into two people from the UAE whom I had met last winter at the Middle East Call Center Conference. It truly is a small world.

2. The post-conference workshop that I delivered on the subject of: "It's not what you say, but how you say it, that counts", was really well received. Participants were each given a copy of my book, The Voice of Your Company, which includes  a chapter on the sound of your voice, on which this workshop was based.

3. I had an opportunity to present publicly at this conference, for the first time, a new model for quality monitoring, which I have been developing over the past couple of years. If you weren't able to be there, but would like a copy of the PowerPoint slides I used, and some accompanying notes, let me know via email and I'll send them to you. Write me at: cliff@careerimpact.net.

3. One of the most interesting presentations I attended was the concluding one. It was called "Sixty Ideas in Sixty Minutes." A group of four panelists took turns offering their best ideas about things to think about or do. And they had no more than sixty seconds to describe each idea and its importance. This ensured rapid-fire delivery. 

This panel got me thinking. What would be the single most valuable idea Ithat  could offer an audience of call center executives and managers if given only one minute to get my point across? After much mulling of it over, I decided it would be this....

Don't mistake common practices for best practices. Several consulting firms and publishers conduct a number of surveys in our industry. Their results carry a lot of authority. These surveys can go a long way towards helping harried managers feel that they are not alone in their practices.  "See? Everyone else is doing much the same thing, so our practices must be okay." But,  remember.... Just because everybody is doing it doesn't mean that it is a best practice. It is only a common practice.

For instance, common practices in quality monitoring are to observe 4 to 6 calls per agent per month. If you are thinking, "Well, then we'll do 8 calls per agent per month; that will make us best in class," you are mistaken. It won't. That's because no matter how many calls per agent you monitor, you will not get a reliable measure of how well the call center, as a whole is doing, unless and until you sample a random and statistically valid number of calls. That's one of the industry practices that I advocate re-thinking in this New Model for Getting Quality Right. Call or e-mail me if you want to talk about this more. 

The Importance of Starting Conditions

Do you remember the scene in Jurassic Park when Dr. Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum) tries explaining complexity theory? He says something like, "A butterfly flapping its wings in the Amazon can determine the severity of a snowstorm in Kansas." It seems pretty far-fetched. But the principle illustrated by the oft-told butterfly story is not so far-fetched at all.

Here's how it plays out in call centers.

The following experience happened to me just last week. As you read about it, ask yourself, "What was the root cause of this incident?"

What Happened

Here's my situation.... I fly a lot, on about half-a-dozen airlines. This means I earn frequent flier awards from various carriers from time-to-time. I have enough points right now to take a free trip with one of those airlines, one which brags about the quality of its frequent flier program. Problem is, I haven't been able to redeem those points.  It seems that they allot very few seats to award travel; and charge premium award points for most of those. When they do have seats available, the routing is not very direct. I find this annoying.

But I don't give up. After all, I have earned those points and want to redeem them before they expire. So, I called last week for a third try. A simple request. I wanted to fly from Maine to Baltimore three months from now. I was told they could do that via a two-hour layover in Chicago... if I took a 6:00 a.m. flight. Ugh!

I told the rep that this was not what I was looking for. I continued, "I know that this is not your doing, but will you please pass along to your management that I--as a customer--am increasingly frustrated with how difficult it is to redeem miles on your airline?" The rep agreed that he would pass this along. Then he said, "Of course, that's one person's opinion."

"Of course, that's one person's opinion...."

He ought not to have said that. it was inappropriate and dismissive. If you had been monitoring that call, surely you would have cringed. You would rightly have marked him with a low score in some category such as professionalism, rapport, or courtesy. I am sure that this airline does not want its reps talking that way to customers, and that it probably has some form of call monitoring in place.

But, still, it happened. And that got me thinking. What's going on here? is this rep simply a "bad apple?" Was he poorly trained? Was he deliberately trying to be insulting? I doubt it.

What Should Be Done?

Should he be pulled off the phones and sent home without pay? Given an oral or written warning? Would that prevent other reps from repeating the same? I doubt it.

This brings us back to the butterfly effect. One of the precepts of systems theory is that outcomes in a complex system are highly dependent upon starting conditions. This means, let's not be too quick to place all the blame on the rep for his rudeness.

If, as call center professionals, our goal is to improve quality through call monitoring, then we must pay attention to starting conditions. What do you suppose were the starting conditions for this rep a the time of my call? I don't know, but can conjecture.

What Were the Starting Conditions?

First, since I was in queue for more than two minutes, do you think it is likely that this rep has been taking call after call without a breather? I'd say it is very likely.

Is it likely that I was the first customer that day to complain about the difficulty of redeeming awards? Unlikely. (Theirs was exclusively an award redemption reservation line.)

Is it likely that this rep has been through training and has been subjected to varoius sorts of company propaganda about how splendid their frequent flier program is... even when such training directly contradicts his own experiences with customers? Probably.

Do you think that this incongruence created some level of cognitive dissonance within him that added to his stress? Probably.

Do you think that he consciously, deliberately, intended to respond to me the way he did? I doubt it.

I am willing to bet that he said what he said simply because he was stressed out by being caught between a rock and a hard place all day long, day after day.

Looking in the Mirror

So, if management's goal is to improve quality through monitoring, what should be the primary outcome of evaluating that call? I argue that the primary outcome ought to be for management to look in the mirror and ask themselves, what can we do to improve the initial starting conditions of this and of similar calls in the future?

Feedback to the rep should be very much secondary. Also, think carefully about how that feedback should be given. Ask yourself, if that feedback is one-way, or comes across as punitive, what good will it serve? Do you think that this rep will feel motivated to "do better next time" if called on the carpet this time? I doubt it. Do you think that he will be grateful to his supervisor for jumping up from the monitoring booth, striding a beeline to his cubicle, and giving him immediate feedback on this call? I don't think so. I think he will feel, "Gotcha!" One more whammy in an already rough day.

Then, why is feedback so often given this way? It is because, as an industry, we don't "get" the power of starting conditions, nor do we fully comprehend the value of root cause analysis. We aren't in the habit of "looking first in the mirror" at the systems we create or the processes and policies we invoke. But isn't this exactly where we should start when we implement a call monitoring practice?

One Piece of the Puzzle

These are just  a few of the points I will be making when I introduce a new model of call monitoring to the industry at the ACCE Conference next month. The topic of my talk is: "Getting Quality Right."

This new model re-defines the purpose of call monitoring in our industry. It creates an opportunity to make real, measurable improvements through QA. It encourages agent buy-in to those things that they, themselves, can do to improve the quality of their calls, and it gives management the data needed to make meaningful decisions about quality improvement. If you are able to attend ACCE, please join me for this presentation. For details, and to register for the ACCE Conference, visit: www.ACCEicmi.com.

If you cannot make the conference, let me know if you are interested in receiving a series of white papers afterwards that summarize the key points of this new model.

Do You Want to be on the Leading Edge?

Since this is a brand new concept, if you would like to nominate your call center to be one of the first in the industry to adopt this new model in its entirety, please let me know. I am looking right now to identify and select three client partners who want to be among the first to pioneer this new approach to getting quality right. To talk about this, call me at: 207-499-0141 or e-mail to: cliff@careerimpact.net.

Cliff

Control Processes; Grow People

I believe this is how we ought to manage... by controlling processes and growing people. In practice, managers too often get this rather backwards... they strive to control people and ignore processes.

Where does this strong, and apparently universal, desire by managers to seek to control people come from? I am not sure. But I believe it is largely a habit of mind. it is certainly not a fact. As the academics would say, it is a "socially constructed" view of reality, not reality itself. I have labored, myself, under a false construction of the primary role of management for quite a while.

Today I see things differently. Here's how I've gradually come to a change of mind:

In my workshops with managers, I often begin by asking, "What is the biggest management challenge you face in your work today?" The most frequent answer I hear is usually expressed in the form of another question. That question is: "How do we hold people accountable for results?" I've come to call this the universal managers' lament.

In fact, I used to like hearing that lament because I had many good ideas about how to instill accountability in people. You see, the lens through which I was comprehending that question disguised from me the deeper meaning of it.  Upon hearing, "How do we hold people accountable for results?" I used to think that the operative word in that question was "accountable". Now I see it otherwise.

Today, I believe that the most revealing words in that question are "hold people".  How can we expect people to accept responsibility when our view is that we have to "hold" them to do it? It reveals an unspoken, and most likely unexamined, habit of mind that says, in effect, that a manager's job is to control people.

Today, I advocate that a manager's role is entirely different. If anything needs to be controlled, it is work processes, but not people. In order to accept accountability, people need the freedom to grow. This requires freedom from excessive controls. It requires what systems theorists call the concept of minimum specifications.  In order to assume accountability, people need some wiggle room to bring their own uniqueness to the task at hand, to try new things, to make mistakes, to experiment, to put their best foot forward. Too many controls drain the life force out of people's work, eroding their willingness to assume accountability.

Next time you ask yourself, "How can I hold my people accountable for results?" question your own question and the thinking that lies behind it. You may be amazed at the difference re-framing the question can make. As Virginia Satir once wrote, "The hardest thing is to see that we do not see."

Cliff

Notes from the Incongruity Department

Ever wonder why employee engagement is so difficult to achieve and to maintain? One of the reasons, I was just vividly reminded, is that managers sure do tend to give mixed messages. Here's an example that just came across my desk that may well be the king of all incongruities.

One of several email newsletters that I subscribe to is called Managing HR Today. It offers a lot of timely, succinct essays, opinion pieces, and news related to HR. Check it out at www.managinghrtoday.com

The current issue contained two articles that were so incongruous with each other that I feel compelled to comment on them.

One of them is a decent article about how to build ethics into a company's culture "one decency at a time." Nothing earth shattering in it, but an effective reminder to treat people with respect, to get to know them as individuals, and to act kindly.

In the same issue, though, is a second article about the mother of all "big brother" management techniques. The article hawks a product known as the Spector 360. That is "spector"  as in Inspector, or more likely, as in "spectre." This handy snooping device records employees' emails, chats and instant messages, web sites visited, keystrokes typed, files transferred and printed, and network activity. It includes a screen scrape function "so that there is a visual record of what the employee is doing on the computer, much like a surveillance tape." This article, which I will suppose was taken from a press release, goes on to brag that "The level of detail is so precise that an employer can see what an employee does each and every second."

Wow! Where do you think that falls on the decency scale? How would you like to be monitored every second of your workday? Would you be engaged?

How could any manager possibly embrace such a totalitarian workplace? How could any employee stand to work there? I'll vote for decency over this sort of ultra-control any day, thank you very much.

Cliff

The Art of Feedback

In my previous post, I mentioned how much I have been learning about quality and performance measurement and management in call centers. The learning continues.

Since that post, I have traveled to Florida, Washington, DC, the Middle East, and am writing this from Anchorage. Wherever I go, I am reminded of the importance to leaders everywhere of figuring out how to give and receive performance feedback.

I am blessed to be able to study in my doctoral program with one of the world's leaders in this subject, Charlie Seashore. He is my faculty mentor at Fielding Graduate University and also my assessor for a course in systems thinking.

I strongly recommend to any call center manager who is responsible for agent development through coaching to read Charlie's book, "What Did You Say? The Art of Giving and Receiving FeedBack." It already is having a strong impact on how I comprehend and teach call coaching.

An excellent article about Charlie and Edie Seashore recently appeared in the business publication, Strategy and Business.  It's in the Spring 2007 edition. You can check it out at: www.strategy-business.com

Cliff

The More I Learn the Less I Know

I believe it was William Blake who once said, "The larger grows the island of my knowledge, the longer stretch the shores of my ignorance." I know how he felt.

Five years ago, I would have told you that I knew all that I needed to know about performance measurement, performance management, and performance feedback at work. The past six months, I've been delving more deeply into those topics as part of my grad studies. And the more I learn, the more I realize how little I know. I am beginning to grasp, though, some important issues around these subjects. I spoke about my new learning at an industry conference for the first time just last week. This is going to be important. Stay tuned! I'll make posts here from time to time about new developments.

Call Monitoring and Management Control

Last fall I decided to undertake a "big step" in my personal and professional development. I enrolled in a PhD program in Human and Organization Development. I am really enjoying it, and thought I'd share in this space from time-to-time ideas that have caught my attention.

I have been thinking a lot about performance evaluation in general and quality call monitoring in particular. Why do we monitor calls? How well do we do it? Does doing it serve its intended purposes? Do we, in fact, deliver higher quality services as a result? Or, do we just irritate our reps by doing it?

In studying systems theory, I came across this passage by Gareth Morgan, writing in Images of Organization:

The central idea here is that if a system is to have the freedom to self-organize it must possess a ceretain degree of 'space' or autonomy that allows appropriate innovation to occur. This seems to be stating the obvious. But the reality is that in many organizations the reverse occurs because management has a tendency to overdefine and overcontrol instead of just focusing on the critical variables that need to be specified, leaving others to find their own form.

This passage makes me wonder. Why dont' we allow our reps more autonomy in what to say and how to say it? Why do our monitoring forms drift into lengthier and more detailed versions over time? What if we reduced them to the few critical variables that need to be specified and leave our reps free to have a true conversation with customers without further impedance from management? How sure are we, anyway, that the items we monitor are, in fact, correlated to customer satisfaction or other important measures of call performance?

I believe that, as an industry, we have a lot of work to do here. I invite anyone reading this to engage in dialogue with me with your comments and suggestions as to what we can do to improve quality monitoring practices.