Archive for December, 2011

December 23, 2011

Boxing Day: A Festive Experiment in Gratitude

I realise that the proverbial partying, frenzied gift buying or making and stocking up on traditional food items to mark the occasion is still going on in anticipation of Christmas day.  But in the last post before Christmas I wanted to take a moment to mention the following day, Boxing Day: because it offers a unique opportunity to anyone interested in the dynamics of service.

Boxing day is traditionally the day when householders give small gifts or money called a christmas box to people who provide a service to them during the year.  In days of old that might have been housemaids, stable boys and coachmen.  Nowadays it is more likely to be given to the people who provide a service to us during the year but often are not paid by us directly, including the lads and lasses who empty our bins, deliver our mail and bring the Sunday papers.  And it is generally given before Christmas since not many of these services operate on Boxing Day itself.

A Christmas box  is a small gift that recognises and acknowledges the service  these people provide throughout the year and is often given to people we rarely see but whose labour is a valued service and whom we fund through our local or central taxes.  

If it isn’t something you normally do, perhaps because you so rarely see these people, I wonder if you might give it a try this year?

Here’s why.  And let’s take the bin-men as an example.

1.  It communicates appreciation  

The bin-men may be paid by the taxes collected from us for all the services needed to keep our environment safe and clean, but the relationship between us is somewhat remote.  Despite benefiting from the services they provide, we are not their direct employers and I would hazard a guess that we don’t all rush out to give feedback on the quality of the job and a personal thank you each time we put out our bins.   

read more »

December 8, 2011

Why Aren’t You Helping Me, You Half-Witted, Time-Wasting, Rip-Off Merchant?

Speaking on the BBC this week, Guy Winch, psychologist and complaining expert, (or rather, expert on complaining) talked about the contradiction between our need to let off steam when we have experienced poor service, and our drive to resolve the problem.

Guy Winch points out that although we really want to vent our feelings when we have been let down by an organisation, if we do this vociferously to an innocent call centre representative, and then expect them to pull out all the stops to rectify the problem, we are simply barking up the wrong tree.

A recurrent theme here on Customer Service Psychology is how the failure to appreciate the emotions involved in customer service underlies and explains many of the problems that both organisations and customers have with service relationships and outcomes.   (http://bit.ly/reScVChttp://bit.ly/vMm9A8 etc.).

Once we lose sight of the fact that our own responses to disappointment in both personal and business relationships are emotional, as are the responses of any customer service employee, we are much less likely to get a satisfactory result.   Of course, that is not to say that by understanding and acting on this knowledge we will definitely secure what we want, but simply that it will give us the best chance of achieving it.  

Guy Winch suggests that we think clearly about what we want to achieve with a complaint.  We should pick our battles carefully, complaining when and only when it is important and using a technique he calls the “complaint sandwich”.  In other words, we should sandwich the meat of the complaint between two pieces of positive bread.  An example might go something like:

“I was really pleased to receive a delivery from you this morning as I love your products, but when I opened it I was really disappointed to see that there were 2 items missing.  This hasn’t happened before and I know that you work really hard to deliver everything to time and specification.  I wonder if you can resolve this issue for me?”

This “sandwich” metaphor will be familiar to many HR and line managers who have had training in how to deliver performance feedback to their staff where it is often known as the “feedback sandwich”.  Tell someone what they are really good at, tell them something they could improve and then feed back something else you have noticed that they are great at. This makes the point but lowers defensiveness by making it clear that strengths and effort have been recognised too.  Importantly, the conversation covers more good than bad.

Simply put, we find criticism difficult, but if it is wrapped up in an extolment of our many virtues and presented as a tiny little improvement that could make a huge difference, we can usually accept it. 

The principle stands in every relationship we have in life: with our children, our partners, our families, our friends, our colleagues, our neighbours, our bosses and our employees.  People will try harder if we are mostly positive, and at some level we probably all know that this is the case.

So why is it that we don’t use the complaint sandwich every time? 

Why do we often rant and rave?  Why do we launch into a vehement catalogue of complaints when we have been let down by a company, taken time away from other things we should be doing, kept on hold for 20 minutes and then put through to a call centre representative whose command of English means we have little chance of a productive conversation.  Well naturally because we are human:  an emotional, irrational and currently fuming human.  And, arguably, sometimes what we actually need most is to let off steam.  The effort involved in containing a basic emotional response to injustice and betrayal (which as previous posts have explored are often the emotions we are feeling, however much of a rational, sophisticated gloss we put on them) is just too much.  The need to restore balance and be heard is top of the list, and resolving the issue has to take second place.

A really intelligent company will understand this, and its representatives will be trained and supported in understanding and dealing with the emotions customers bring to their interactions with a company representative.  But most don’t, and crucially don’t invest in the recruitment, training, management and reward processes which enable front line customer-facing employees to cope with this.  So unfortunately, bubbling frustrations, obvious and unhelpful scripts, raised voices and terminations of calls are standard fare in the hubbub of service conversations around the world.

In fact, it became clear to me that there is a line of training provided to customer service staff that actively encourages customer service representatives to find reasons to terminate a customer interaction specifically as a result of the expression of emotions.  A snippet from the middle of a conversation I overheard between an irritated customer and a very uncomfortable car parts front desk clerk will demonstrate I hope.

Customer  “…so it just isn’t good enough to say you won’t provide a courtesy car while you repair my brand new car for the fourth time since I bought it two months ago.  I will need a courtesy car.”

Desk Clerk “If you raise your voice, Mrs Parker, I will terminate this conversation”

Customer  “I am not raising my voice, I am asking you to find me a car.”

Desk Clerk  “Right, OK.  Well I can’t do that, we don’t have one available.”

Customer “Yes you can.  It is utterly unacceptable to sell me a car that is falling apart when I made it clear I wanted a reliable car and then to leave me carless for a week. Do you think that is acceptable?

Desk Clerk (backing off)  “If you are insulting I am entitled to end this conversation right now”

Customer “ Fine.  Tell me where I have been insulting and we can agree to end it”  Pause  “Good, now you can try to find me a courtesy car.”

The front desk clerk was searching for the “legitimate reason” given to him in training that would enable him to walk away from the customer’s problem and associated emotion.  How much better it would have been to train him in listening to, acknowledging and sympathising with the customer’s perspective whilst not taking the emotions personally.   No additional investment required – just a simple change of approach which would demonstrate customer-centricity and result in improved customer loyalty. 

Guy Winch has teamed up with a call centre to experimentally examine the effect of training call centre employees in improved “emotional validation” behaviour.  Do call centre agents who listen and acknowledge emotions leave customers more satisfied with the service they have received?  It seems obvious when you think about it – people who are genuinely heard and acknowledged will feel better about the situation.  Yet there is little hard evidence out there from real life customer interactions and so Guy Winch’s results, whatever they show, will be welcome.   

Organisations work hard to deliver excellent products and services to their customers.  Perhaps they could work a little harder to understand how problems with them can influence the emotions of their customers.   They already do a great job in appreciating how emotions influence decisions to purchase, so it would complete the circle.

You’ve got it.  Feedback sandwich anyone?

 

Links

Guy Winch, author of “The Squeaky Wheel”.   More at http://www.guywinch.com

December 2, 2011

Is There Really Nothing That Can be Improved with John Lewis’s Customer Service?

Simon Goodley writing recently in the Guardian on the collapse of Carphone Warehouse’s Bestbuy venture with US partners, reports that Andy Street, the MD of John Lewis, believes the endeavour was doomed from the start.  He is reported as saying “The US model is keen prices combined with high service. The truth of the matter is that prices were already extremely keen and high service is being provided by us … Put that together and there was not a gap in the market.”

Well now this is interesting.  We know that John Lewis are consistently voted as having the highest customer service ratings on the high street.  But is Andy Street suggesting that the service John Lewis provides is so good that there is nothing more that customers could want?  (Read more here http://bit.ly/sy16Eu )  Or is he implying that John Lewis have understood the price that customers are willing to pay for the higher level of service provided as compared to the cheapest retailers?

If it’s the latter, and John Lewis knows the precise formula for the link between service level and the price customers are prepared to pay then there will be no stopping them and we can expect to see to see John Lewis achieving total high street domination in the next few years.  But this would be pretty miraculous.  The variables are too complex and dynamic to be completely confident that you know exactly what people will, and will continue to, pay as a premium for “high service”.

So perhaps he means that John Lewis sets the standard for “high service” and there was nowhere for Bestbuy to go with improved service levels.  But it’s a dangerous game to assume that the service levels you provide – good as they are – are the best that customers want or will come to expect in the future.  The gap in the market may not exist in the current market place but there is no reason whatsoever that other companies couldn’t raise the game.  John Lewis’s figures for customer satisfaction are high, but only marginally higher than its nearest competitors and a good way off 100% satisfaction.

This tells us that customers know there is more that can be done to improve the service they receive.  Customers are able to tell you who is best now, but this best isn’t the best it could be.  Aside from death and taxes, the only certainty is change, and any day now no gap in the market could become the gap that, by resting on comfortable and incomplete laurels, John Lewis didn’t see coming.