Inspiring Cultures

Battered customer service people

I've just spoken with a supervisor in the Customer Complaints area of ANZ, following my experience over the last few weeks reported here.

Margaret listened while I explained the litany of poor interactions I'd had with staff. She then proceeded to dispassionately explain the bank took customer complaints seriously and feedback is generally provided to relevant supervisors. In short, she was feeding me the 'party line'.

What struck me was her absolute inability to connect with the problems I'd experienced. She seemed to be operating in automatic pilot mode.

After I put the phone down, it occurred to me there's one of two explanations for this dispassionate response:

• She's not the right person for the job

• She is bashed by customers every day to the point where she has to turn off and is incapable of connecting with the emotions that customers experience from problem encounters

I suspect Margaret is afflicted by the latter of the above. I'd guess complaints are almost out of control (want evidence? - it took two weeks for one of her people to get back to me), so I'd also guess that Margaret and her colleagues are themselves feeling swamped and unloved.

Such a shame.

Why leaders compromise

It happens every time I go for a run. At around 20 minutes into my 30 minute regime, my mind takes on two different personalities. One part of my mind is telling me that despite it being hard, I should continue to push hard at the same pace, or even faster. The other part of my brain is telling me that it’s OK to ease up - and I can find rational reasons to justify not going the full 30 minutes. For the remaining time, I continue to have an argument with myself!

In the book ‘The Logic of Life’ (Random House), author Tim Harford explains that this split personality is not unique to me. Apparently, we all have a ‘dopamine system’ of the brain which is focused on instant pleasure. When we see something we desire, this part of our brain kicks in and says ‘take it’! In a situation when pain is being experienced, the dopamine is saying ‘let up’.

Another part of our brain is focused on long term benefits - and it’s called the ‘cognitive system’. This is the part of the brain that tells us it’s probably not a good idea, for health reasons, to get stuck into a large amount of chocolate.

I recently met with a senior manager, and over the course of our discussion we talked about the extent to which senior people in the organisation were committed to creating a better culture.

This senior manager explained that there were a number of pressures on leaders. Many of these had short time frames, and in the context of this ‘busyness’, culture was put to one side in many cases.

So while these pressures created behaviours that managers knew they probably shouldn’t sanction, the context created a rationale for them to justify their actions intellectually (and perhaps emotionally). In other words, the dopamine system kicks in.

It occurred to me that this happens every day in the vast majority of organisations. In the interests of ‘expedience’, people compromise. And the justification for this can be externalised to outside pressures.

Sometimes the thinking that goes behind these compromises goes like this ‘This is a one-off occasion - I’ll make sure this doesn’t happen again’.

If we dig a little deeper in these instances, what we must conclude is that the creation of a positive, productive culture is less of a priority than the outcomes associated with meeting external pressures. Put another way, the team or organisational culture is less important than short-term objectives. It’s ‘expedient compromise’, if you like.

This is especially the case when people do not have a grounded, practical understanding of culture and/or how to manage it.

If people see culture as an esoteric, soft, side-issue, then it’s unlikely to gain high priority points.

Of course, that’s where I believe the concept of unwritten ground rules (UGRs^®) has huge potential. In gaining an understanding of UGRs, people (leaders and non-leaders alike) gain a practical understanding of how their actions impact on team and organisational culture.

Maybe it’s time to question expedient compromises!

Why cultures go awry

When a financial protocol is breached in an organisation, it is highly likely actions will follow immediately. In most organisations, people are clear about what constitutes appropriate behaviour when it comes to finances. People are also clear that there are immediate consequences for failing to comply with proper financial procedures.

It’s interesting that one never hears people complaining (maybe other than the finance people) about the need to comply with financial procedures. It’s taken as a given that rules and procedures apply, and people must conform to these. From time to time, people may need to be reminded or updated on what’s required, but compliance is rarely an issue.

When it comes to organisational culture, things can be very different however.

Most managers I work with admit to the fact that their people display behaviours they (the managers) think are inappropriate. More often than not, these behaviours are left unchallenged.

Ironically, this happens in organisations that have Values Statements which the leadership claims are important.

When I work with organisations, an integral part of my early work involves working with the leadership team. It’s not uncommon for some of the team to be a little wary, and perhaps cynical about the value of focusing on the organisation’s culture. Typically, if there are any doubters, the CFO or equivalent will be leading the pack. The reasons for this are not hard to find.

Finance matters are tangible, cultural issue are not. Financial issues are relatively easy to track, cultural issues are not. When financial procedures are breached, there are procedures that kick in - when culture goes awry, there are no conventional procedures.

A clear implication that emerges from these issues is that leadership teams need to understand culture and develop protocols to manage and sustain it.

In the absence of a management team doing this, staff undertake this anyway. This is achieved by observing what is allowed to occur without there being any consequences.

Let me explain.

If people treat each other with a lack of respect, and there are no consequences for that behaviour, then we have a culture that allows this.

If customers are treated badly and there are no consequences, then that’s the culture in relation to customers.

If people speak about other departments in disparaging terms, and there are no consequences for such negativity, then the culture encourages this.

Cultures are self sustaining largely through what is left unchecked.

If poor financial ethics are allowed without consequence, then poor financial ethics will continue.

If poor cultural attributes are allowed to continue, then that’s what will prevail. It’s time for managers to get clear on the culture required for the organisation’s future success - and to make that non-negotiable for everyone.

Why claims of 'customer service' are wrong

On January 18th, we received a letter from our bank, the ANZ, telling us there had been an unauthorised attempt to access one of our accounts. The letter provided a code that represented the entity that had tried to debit the account.

Mystified, we rang the bank using a number on the letter.

This number was the bank's regular call centre. The person I contacted redirected me to another person. That's when a really 'interesting' conversion took place.

For the sake of brevity (I was on the phone a total of 40 long minutes!), let me explain the essence of the feedback this gentleman (coincidentally named Steve) provided. He said he couldn't work out what the code was referring to, and he couldn't refer me to his supervisor and wouldn't refer me to someone else. Yes, you read correctly, he wouldn't pass me on to anyone else.

In stunned disbelief, I then asked to be put through to a formal customer complaint area. Steve said he would do this, but in fact he decided to redirect me to another person (named Anthony) who had more knowledge of the issue. After finishing my conversation with Anthony, I informed him I wanted to make a complaint about Steve's attitude and lack of willingness to help.

Today - 1st February - I received a call from James in the customer complaints area of ANZ. That's TWO WEEKS since the incident. I asked James why the call had taken so long - he explained there was a big backlog of calls they needed to get through.

So what can organisations learn from this experience? Try these:

• Don't contact customers if you can't back up and support the issue that is the reason for the contact
• Take ownership of the customer's problem - even if you don't have the required skills/knowledge, make sure you put the customer in the safe hands of someone who will see things through
• If you receive a complaint - act quickly to get back to the customer. Never, never wait two weeks!If your customer complaints area is getting behind in responding to complaints, then provide additional resources to that work area!

I asked James whether I could speak with Steve's supervisor. He said no. I asked if I could get a copy of the email that apparently would be sent to Steve's supervisor. He said no. When I explained to James I was not happy with HIS response, he said, 'Well, we're the customer complaints area and there's nothing else we can do'.

So that's customer service?

Culture breaking point

Below is an article from our latest Cultural Intelligence newsletter, available here

We’re lucky enough to live in a beautiful part of the world in the Gold Coast, Australia. We’re in a home that’s part of a Body Corporate - for international readers who might not use this term, this means that along with others who live in the precinct, we pay a monthly fee for various services including 24 hour security and maintenance. A private company is contracted to manage and administer these services, and a Body Corporate committee represents the residents.

In recent times there has been an increasing degree of unhappiness with the company that has been contracted to provide these services. This has resulted in a growing number of emails circulating among residents airing their concerns, along with email responses sharing an opposing view.

These rumblings started quietly but have gained huge momentum, to a point where lawyers have become involved.

In the last few weeks, some residents got together to call for an Extraordinary General Meeting with a view to putting a vote of no confidence in the current Body Corporate Chairman and others on the committee.

That action caused another bout of emails to circulate - many of which abandoned rules of civility and became personal vilifications for all to see.

Now, according to some of the emails, relationships have been damaged to the extent that some neighbours will not speak with others. Each of us risks being labelled as being on one side or the other.

Of course, what’s happened here is that ‘relationship breaking points’ have been reached. What might once have been private and confidential concerns about the character or behaviours of others have now become public. Once these things become public, they are impossible to rescind.

Workplaces can sometimes become like this. I’m aware of a number of organisations where the internal factions and politics have reached a breaking point, where relationships are so fractured that people are literally unable to communicate other than via ‘self-enforced civility’.

Cultures don’t need to reach this point for them to be counterproductive however.

There are a number of telling signs that can indicate a culture is moving steadily towards this breaking point.

It’s not uncommon for us to see these signs in the UGRs (unwritten ground rules) work we do.

We see for example how departments talk about other departments. We hear the humour that for example a sales department might engage in when talking about marketing people. We hear in some organisations how the HR people are derided in their absence.

These privately held views about other work areas are maybe the first signs of an impending slippery slope towards breakdown.

Once again, the UGRs  in a team and the organisation have a huge part to play here. 

If derision and humour at the expense of other people is tolerated and promoted, there’s very little chance it will cease.

Recently, I was talking to a group of people where their cynicism was being championed by a middle manager. Again, if left unchecked, a ‘breaking point’ will soon be reached.

Time to Expel Leaders?

In my home State of Queensland in Australia, it has been reported there will now be published a list of the total numbers of school suspensions and expulsions, by school across the State. Previously, this information has not been publicly available at the detail of specific schools.

This got me thinking about the circumstances that lead up to a student being suspended or expelled. In a sense, it’s a school’s last resort to expel them – it’s an admission that the school has exhausted all avenues and cannot deal with the inappropriate behaviour displayed by a student.

I’d guess that in most cases, the student or their parent(s) are mostly at fault for the circumstances leading to an expulsion. I’d be prepared to bet however, that in some cases, the student’s poor behaviour is as a consequence of poor staff behaviour.

When I was a teacher a very long time ago, I gradually became aware of some very poor teachers with whom I shared the staff room. Of course, I was unaware of the actions that took place between the school leaders and teachers involved to remedy that poor teaching, but one thing I do know is that if there was any action, it didn’t work.

Poor teachers stayed poor teachers for the duration. And the children suffered – either silently or in a more rebellious, inappropriate way.

Despite the existence of these poor teachers, leaders in those schools could be heard to publicly praise and defend all their staff. The audiences for this praise were parents and staff and in some cases the school’s students.

In a sense, this context is mirrored in organisations. Leaders often publicly praise their people - including their managers. Yet in these very same organisations, staff suffer under poor, and in some instances extremely poor managers.

We know this to be true from the UGRs® Stock Takes we’ve done for organisations across the globe – and the picture often is very, very bad!. As an example, here’s one response we received from a large Stock Take - Around here, being open and honest gets you... Nowhere! You will be labelled a 'trouble maker', get poor reviews, gossiped about between management and left to drive your own career. Gone are the days where hard work and honesty are praised. You must kiss ass and backstab for promotions!

Another responded, Around here, people get treated... like they aren’t very smart, especially in my area. This is so the boss makes herself look smart and avoids any lower level employees going above her head. She also limits contact to her line manager so he only gets one side of the story
 

If I were to make another guess here, I’d bet that some of these poor managers bemoan the lack of engagement of some of their people.

In an educational context, there has been a long standing debate about the responsibilities of teachers and the extent to which they are responsible for student behaviours. Interestingly, this debate is not likely to diminish in its intensity.

In contrast, leaders in organisations other than educational ones have not seriously pondered the extent to which their behaviours contribute to lack of engagement of their people. Maybe, just maybe, this is a debate worth having.

Joy from Misfortune

I like to observe people interacting with their work colleagues, as I think that these interactions can point to some of the UGRs® (unwritten ground rules) that might be prevailing within an organisation.

I’ve noticed that when the topic of conversation turns to negative things about known people (ie bosses or colleagues), individuals tend to get more animated. It often seems that the more negative the gossip that can be shared, the more animated people become.

It turns out that, although not in common usage, there is a word for this phenomenon, which I discovered while watching an episode of Boston Legal (one of my favourite series, but I digress!).

‘Schadenfreude’ is a word of German origins which means ‘satisfaction or pleasure felt at someone else's misfortune’ (schaden meaning ‘damage’, freude meaning ‘joy’).

This is played out in various ways. Some people are drawn to watch violent acts, others literally get ‘joy’ out of hearing about the misfortunes of others.

Maybe ‘schadenfraude’ is a word that needs to be added to the mix of discussions within teams.

Climategate, UqTs and Leadership

An article from the latest edition of 'Cultural Intelligence'

In November 2009, a monumental incident shook the climate science world and subsequently the broader community. Over 1000 emails were hacked from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in the UK.

Termed ‘Climategate’, the emails contained some startling revelations of issues including data manipulation, collusion to prevent opposing views in peer review processes and deletion of raw climate data in the face of  threats of access to that data through Freedom of Information.


The reverberations of Climategate are still being felt - do a Google search on the term and you’ll get more than 25 million links.

Since the release of these emails, I’ve taken a keen interest in following the commentary on it. For those of you watching this unfold, you’ll know there is a growing group of climate skeptics who argue the change in climate is due largely to natural, not man-made forces. Arguing this case for example is Lord Christopher Monckton who served as an adviser to Margaret Thatcher’s policy unit in the 1980s. A 90 minute video of a presentation by Lord Monckton can be seen on YouTube here.

Since exploring these issues in more depth, I’ve come to realise that the more you learn about climate change, the more you realise you don’t know. Lord Monckton’s video for example, provides scientific evidence that is as equally compelling (although less polished) as the alternative case put forward by Al Gore in ‘An Inconvenient Truth’.

The fact is that the scientific terrain is so diverse and so complex that coming to a view on one ‘simple’ issue of the extent to which the globe is warming is difficult to decipher. Put simply, most of us are baffled by the science.

Understanding all the issues becomes virtually impossible (I’d guess that most scientists would also not understand the whole domain as they’d specialise in aspects of climate science). That means we non-scientific mortals are left to trust the judgement of people we respect and/or follow the lead of the majority view. Yet this is a very precarious position to take.
In the last edition of Cultural Intelligence, I shared an acronym concept I’ve created called UqTs - or ‘Unquestioned Truths’. UqTs are people’s perceptions of the truth based on there being a sufficient number of senior people who publicly say the same thing. In an organisational context, if enough senior leaders say ‘Our customers are driven by price’, then most of us would come to the conclusion that this MUST be the truth.

Despite some leadership commentators creating an illusion of the alternative, leadership is an incredibly complex task. As I’ve noted in previous writings, leaders must juggle tensions at many levels: Do we cut costs of service delivery or improve customer service? Do we market differently or stay with the tried and tested methods? Do I follow the advice of this person or that person? And so on.

A natural human response to complexity is to attempt to create order and simplicity. That’s where the risk of UqTs comes into play.

The global warming debate has taken a really interesting turn post Climategate. People on each of the opposing sides are attacking the other side viciously and personally, and it seems they are polarising. This is something leaders must actively work against for those who dare to challenge the UqTs.

Wow Awards - A Great Initiative!

My good friend in the UK, Derek Williams, has established a wonderful initiative called 'The Wow Awards'. In essence, this is a system that recognises the quiet service achievers within an organisation - you can read more about it here.

The Gala Ceremony was held recently, and a video of the award presentations is just too good to go unnoticed. Stick with this - and make sure you watch about two minutes in when the main award is announced.

Great stuff Derek!!

By the way - Derek is looking to set up Wow Awards in other parts of the world. Contact him for further details.

Why great service isn't noticed

An article from our upcoming Cultural Intelligence newsletter - available here

Last week, I gave a keynote presentation to a great group of around 600 people at an aged care conference in Melbourne.

The conference was staged at the new and impressive Melbourne Convention Exhibition Centre. This is a striking facility, and I learned after talking with the technical support people that the facility is equipped with the latest state-of-the-art technology.

As is my practice, I arrived at the venue with plenty of time to get the technical issues sorted. I set up my laptop and connected to the sound system without a problem. Around 30 minutes prior to the start of the session, I reminded the technical people I’d need a lapel microphone.

15 minutes passed and I still didn’t have my microphone. I was starting to feel a little edgy so I spoke to another technical person who promised to follow this up with the original staffer with whom I’d first spoken.

Five minutes prior to the beginning of the session, the technical support supervisor approached me and explained I wouldn’t be able to have a lapel microphone. Apparently, the conference organiser had not informed the technical people of my request for this microphone. And because this order had not been placed, they could not set one up for me because their radio frequency was too narrow (this is where he started to lose me!!). Bemused and frustrated, I proceeded with my presentation without the use of a lapel microphone.

This experience taught me a lesson that applies to service and to leadership, and it’s this - great service and great leadership often go unnoticed because of lack of problems.

Had these technical people been service-focused, they might have considered setting up a lapel microphone on the chance that a speaker might ask for one - despite the conference organiser not requesting one (it was after all, a large conference staged over two days). Had they done this, I would not have been overwhelmed at their great service (lapel microphones are provided in the vast majority of conferences at which I speak). But the absence of this service-thinking resulted in an experience I wouldn’t describe as positive.

My point here is that it’s often the absence of problems that reflects good service.

Now, this raises a huge question about the trusty old chestnut ‘You can’t manage what you don’t measure’. How is it possible to know (let alone measure) what might have occurred in the absence of great service?

Of course the notion of an ‘absence of problems’ applies to leadership as well. Organisations have no way of really knowing what problems might have arisen if a less competent leader was at the helm.

I’ve noted in a previous edition of Cultural Intelligence that the greatest of leaders still have their range of challenges, issues and problem people. So it’s not the quantity or spread of problems that separates good from ordinary leaders.

A distinguishing feature of great leaders is their capacity to foresee potential problems and issues and to do something to ensure these don’t occur - or if they do, to minimise harm. The way I see things, there’s no way of measuring that.

The people at the Melbourne Convention Exhibition Centre would do well to show leadership in their service excellence. I figure the state-of-the-art technology would be a nice back-up.