Skip to main content

Your face; our face | company perception is a narrow view


Top promoter score, my ass proclaimed Anal Arnold;  explain to me why Chaotic Chris, who basically looks like an adult version of Pig Pen, consistently gets the highest overall scores where as Kempt Ken gets mediocre scores from his clients.  Admittedly, while Chris looks like he just took a bath in bong water, his customers absolutely love him.  Ken on the other hand, is a bit of an arrogant ass and turns off even the most accepting of customers. 

Legendary Lee had always rambled on about how your company is always only as good as the employee which touches the customer.  Think about the bank teller, many financial institutions are similar; however, most people will go to banks where they like the tellers (your face, our face).  As organizations get larger and workers are spread far and wide, the influence we have on our key "money makers" dwindles.  "That is all good and well" said Arnold, but each individual is different and they own their attitudes.   You are partially correct Arnold responded Lee, we can help pave the road to a good experience for the field worker.  Sincere efforts need to be implemented by many within the organization focusing on:

  • Choice. how choice empowers people to make the right decisions and generates the proper attitude
  • Control, when the technician is in control of their own schedule in the field, magical things can happen. Is the business willing to relinquish this past tradition
  • Convergence, do they have the information when they arrive at site, idiosyncrasies and how to get to equipment. Nothing worse than putting the field worker in a no-win situation

Certainly these are logical, yet in some situations not very practical, stated Arnold.  Consider the all-paper company who really does not have the insights to allow them to push more decisions to the field.  How do they know that the worker is always making decisions for the company and not themselves.  Techno Tim, who had been listening all along, offered a slightly different perspective.  While in agreement; Tim suggested that choice, control and convergence are feasible when technology provides the transparency required to insure everyone is in cadence with one another.  Choice without boundaries can create its' own type of chaos.  Control devoid of performance measurement will likely result in individual priorities over organizational priority.  Convergence of knowledge is next to impossible without some form of digital transformation.

The tool, while important, is not the critical path.  You must re-imagine your organization and put the tools in place to make sure that the individuals touching your clients are always compelled to put their best foot forward.  If you believe that the customer experience takes a back seat to performance, than I encourage you to ask yourself how Apple, which has only incrementally improved their product since the passing of Steve Jobs, still finds themselves in a successful position.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

why transform?

Why do I want to change, who said anything was wrong with my stack of papers and sea of Excel files?   We solve problems, that is a key characteristic of any successful service organization, if it isn't broke why fix it?   Often, when discussing a transformation from paper or cobbled together systems to a cohesive digital approach, folks struggle with the gap between what they currently do and how digital tools can help.   You really need to look at where the pain points are in your organization and how these compare to your business objectives.   Consider writing down these points on the whiteboard in no particular order, spend a few days shuffling and consolidating into a prioritized list.   Once you have the "why" and the "what" identified, the old remaining step is "how".   Some of the most popular observations over the years have been; Slipping through the cracks :   you know, not the major muscle movements, instead those little i...

expert at everything...not a problem

Well... I would say sometimes there certainly is a perceived notion that one person is an expert at everything. For the worker "everything" may be defined as the specific area in which you were hired or are constantly scheduled. Our opinions are frequently influenced off of past experience, or information we've received from their coworkers. Unfortunately this only gives us partial insight to that workers expertise and often is limited to their most recent history. Narrowly focused accounting is made of the skills that this individual possess. Come on, can't we figure out a way to leverage all of the skills of a particular worker? One of the challenges has always been that relationship between the activities which need to be accomplished and the myriad skills of individuals within your workforce. In addition, even if you could inventory and get a pretty good handle on the skill sets, they are constantly changing (with any luck) and thus the ineffective process of ...

Digital distance

As influential Irene entered the dispatch department this hot July afternoon all that she heard was the tapping of keyboards.   The energy felt like a controlled, almost clinical environment.   It wasn't that many years ago when the sense of chaos, wrapped in genuine human concern for our clients, filled the room with a much different feeling.   Could it be that our ambitions to become more efficient, by leveraging technology has simply created a reason for us not to communicate verbally with one another?    Hasn't the idea all along been centered around our ability to spend more time with our customers? Making each and every one of them feel as if they are our most important client?   Certainly I'm not suggesting we go back to big chief tablets and number two pencils.   Yet, we need to reflect and strike a balance between digitization and delivery. By pure coincidence, avid Andy was composing a memo attempting to give his opinion, without tr...