While enjoying a fine pub in Ottawa a few weeks ago, two coworkers and I stumbled onto a conversation regarding customer service. The rule of thumb for most, if not all, service oriented positions & companies is “the customer is always right”. Our conversation started to disagree with this law of service and in fact we think (we haven’t concluded) that in order to have the BEST long term & genuine customer service the employee should be a company’s focus, not the customer.
The general philosophy is that if the people serving the customers are not happy and satisfied they will have a hard time making customers feel happy and satisfied. This would then imply that for happy and satisfied customers a company should focus on making their employees happy and satisfied.
Obviously a company can pull off a certain level of customer service with a regular turnover of staff or perhaps a reward plan... Honestly though folks, you can only be the employee of the month so many months before the other staff dislike you.
Comments
Steven Garrity - April 3, 2003 7:04 am
As one of the co-workers mentioned in your post, I obviously agree. I wanted to pick up on your comment that "you can only be the employee of the month so many months before the other staff dislike you". This is absolutely true.
A friend of mine once had a job at phone support center. The staff were always encouraged to keep call times as short as possible. The employee with the shortest average call-time each week was automatically named employee of the week and their photo was posted on the wall.
My friend, through no particular effort, had her photo up on the wall every week until the other staff hated her. She actually ended up intentially extending her call times (making small talk) to try to get her photo off the wall. Classic backfire.
Dave Moses - April 8, 2003 8:57 am
Having been on both sides of the "smiles are free." counter, I'm thinking that much of the problem lies with... the customer. And it's getting worse. There has been a crazy escalation of expection on the part of the customer both in terms of price and service. You simply can't maintain great service at low prices. It can't be done for any length of time. For a little while, sure, when the enterprise is new (for either a business or an employee) but when faced with unreal customer demands*... the bloom fades quickly on the rose. I'm open to the possibility that this might be a short-coming on my part, that the force of Business Evolution may led to my extinction. Bring it on, I say. Then we can get to a place of reasonable service for a reasonable price that will allow for a real smile once in a while.
*as an extreme, but by no means rare, example, a customer who came to a shop I know once a week for months, literally. they bombarded the clerks with questions about the products, then bought finally bought the item (a $1800 item with a margin of $50) at one of the BIG STORES. But that's not the worst of it. They then returned to the shop and ask them for service on the item because the clerks at the BIG STORE had no idea what they were talking about.
Steven Garrity - April 8, 2003 10:03 am
Dave - I think you should take that customers email address, and sign up for the most offensive spam lists you can find.
Interesting you should bring up the blame of the customer. It is odd that the customer has been the power in the relationship. Sure, they are the one paying, but you are the one doing.
The customer is not always right. The customer is often wrong. Any professional should be able to recall a situation where a customer demanded something that was not in their own interest. It’s our job to advise them, strongly sometimes, what our experience and expertise tells us (I've written a bit on this before).
If a customer doesn’t want to hear it – should they really be your customer? I’m not speaking specifically of your situation, Dave. In general though, is it not best to have customers who trust your expertise and understand that you have their best interests in mind? Sound like utopia? Not really – we’ve created a situation like this for ourselves at our workplace. It takes discipline. One way to really turn the tides on the client/provider relationship is to give the provider a financial stake in the success of the client.
Dan James - April 8, 2003 11:47 am
Not surprisingly I agree with Steve. It takes discipline and hard work to create a company that attracts the type of clients it's looking for. Many new companies are so poor when they start off that they chase whatever dollar shows them a little thigh. While this is in some cases necessary, it often leads into a company habit. To be completely fair, a 4 dollar burger combo (or any retail product for that margin) is a little different then a 40K+ websystem.
Anony - April 8, 2003 5:24 pm
Mirror mirror on the wall.
Alan - April 8, 2003 5:39 pm
The customer is not right or wrong. It is the customer. A British industrialist in 1914 was reported to have questioned why his counttry was going to go ahead and kill a great number of his clients. But that is the point. Do you want everyone for your customer. When you are selling milk, pretty much yes. When you are selling Madras curries in Charlottetown, pretty much yes. If you are selling high end custom built anything, probably not. You get the customers your chosen trade picks for you. You can only operate within the rules that work for that set of clients.
Dave Moses - April 9, 2003 7:25 pm
There is that subtle shift that occured in each of your posts... between customer and client. And I think it's a substantive one. This may be an oversimplification but isn't the main difference between them is that: A customer chooses you... and you choose a client.
Alan - April 10, 2003 9:41 am
That may be it, Dave - when we can fire them we call them clients. I have had the rare occassion as a lawyer to give a client the boot and we are fortunate to actually have a rule when it is required - when they no longer take your advice.