Stop Using Scripts
These days, when I call a customer service hotline it often seems that the person who answers is following a set script. There’s a standard greeting followed by something like, “How may I help you?”
So far, so good. However, when the whole conversation sounds scripted from end to end, then there’s a problem. For example:
Operator: “Good morning, you’re through to (name of organisation helpline), this is (name of operator speaking. How may I help you?
Me: “Good morning/afternoon (name of operator) I need help on issue X.”
Operator: “I’m sorry to hear that you seem to be having a problem…” (another stock response – “operator shows empathy”).
In general, this would be perfectly normal and acceptable if you were calling about a genuine problem. In some cases, though, I’ve called to speak to a particular operator who is aware of my case and its history only to have exactly the same formula repeated!
It can get much worse if one’s problem goes “off script”. This means that the operator’s list of standard questions and responses is insufficient to deal with the problem at hand and things grind to a halt.
If a human is involved, they can at least refer you to a colleague, to a more senior person or to somebody with the authority to make things happen. If the scripted responses are combined with AI, things stop there.
I understand and appreciate that organisations are trying to cut costs by replacing staff with either cheaper (less qualified) staff who, instead of proper training, are given the “standard Q&A List” or with AI. What often happens though is that, in their efforts to cut costs, they end up with a sub-standard service.
People will say that “AI needs to be trained. Indeed, it does but at least let this training not be at the expense of quality service. An organisation that has “real humans” answering calls without a script is likely to take business from those who persist in turning to automation as the solution to everything. As an example, think about Dame Judi Dench training Call Centre operators in the film The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel.
No doubt in time to come, AI generated responses will be standard and appropriate to every situation. That time isn’t now however, and if we want to keep our business, we need to keep the “human touch”.
I deliver change in markets ranging from the most developed to “emerging” economies. With a wealth of international experience in international financial services around the world running different operations and lending businesses, I started my own Consultancy to provide solutions for improving performance, productivity and risk management. I work with individuals, small businesses, charities, quoted companies and academic institutions across the world. An international speaker, trainer, author and fund-raiser, I can be contacted by email.
Labels: Customer Care, Productivity, Selling
“I Can’t Agree with Your Complaint”
I recently used the “complaints” email address for a well-known UK commercial bank - not to make an actual complaint, but to suggest they have a dedicated email address for non time-sensitive issues for which customers didn’t need on the spot resolution.
Sometime after I received a response from a “Complaint Manager” which concluded “As we haven’t made any errors, I can’t agree with your complaint”. The only “error” I was pointing out was that the bank in question lacked a dedicated email service for non time-sensitive issues.
To start with, I was forced to use the complaints email address because there was no alternative for customer suggestions. Secondly, whether the bank agrees or not with my “non-complaint”, to say so in such an abrupt manner displays a lack of understanding of the situation.
Customer complaints/suggestions are an opportunity for any service-based organisation to improve its offering or to correct something that has gone wrong once and could go wrong again. No one likes to receive a complaint (suggestions are always more welcome!) but in the end, it’s free feedback from customers on how to do better.
To compound the problem, the “Complaint Manager” proceeded to tell me about alternatives of which I was already aware and had elected not to use as they involved either making a phone call or using an online AI assistant. The latter proved singly incapable of resolving the situation.
Sadly, it appears that this particular bank has succumbed to the AI/direct response route without considering whether this is suitable in all cases and results in overloading of Call Centre operators.
Before we all jump on the “AI bandwagon” to provide services or resolutions to questions, we need to make sure that what is implemented is actually fit for purpose. The latest interpretations I’ve heard for “CRM“ (Customer Relationship Management) AI systems are “Customer Rage Machines” and “Can’t Resolve Much”.
What also didn’t help was that the letter I received in response seemed to contain a great deal of “approved standard phraseology” which served to dehumanise the situation and the person writing it.
In the end, a customer is still a customer and the way we handle them will decide whether they continue to use our services and recommend us to friends.
I deliver change in markets ranging from the most developed to “emerging” economies. With a wealth of international experience in international financial services around the world running different operations and lending businesses, I started my own Consultancy to provide solutions for improving performance, productivity and risk management. I work with individuals, small businesses, charities, quoted companies and academic institutions across the world. An international speaker, trainer, author and fund-raiser, I can be contacted by email.
The Dead Horse Theory: A Simple Lesson for Leaders
Muhammad F reminded me of a great theory in LinkedIn in October last year: “If you realise you’re riding a dead horse, the best thing to do is get off.”
But in many organisations, instead of getting off the horse, people often:
· Use a stronger whip to try to make the horse move.
· Form a team to study the horse.
· Send employees to training on how to ride dead horses.
· Rename the horse to make it sound better, like calling it “energy-challenged”.
· Promote the dead horse to a higher position, hoping it inspires others.
The Lesson:
When something isn’t working any more, whether it’s a plan, project or strategy, we need to stop wasting time and energy on it. It may be an unwillingness to admit we’re wrong to others, an inability to see there’s a problem or other causes.
As leaders, our job is to understand what’s going on, admit that there’s a problem, let it go and focus on something that works.
Happy New Year.
I deliver change in markets ranging from the most developed to “emerging” economies. With a wealth of international experience in international financial services around the world running different operations and lending businesses, I started my own Consultancy to provide solutions for improving performance, productivity and risk management. I work with individuals, small businesses, charities, quoted companies and academic institutions across the world. An international speaker, trainer, author and fund-raiser, I can be contacted by email.
Labels: Crisis Management, Leadership, Productivity, Strategy, Teamwork
“Silo” Helpdesks
How often have we reached out to a “Helpdesk” email address only to receive a response asking us to “Please contact … number”?
I recently received one from the digital banking section of the bank that manages my business’ account. My message provided all the details needed for an inquiry to be instituted, but instead I was told to “call…”
Such a “silo mentality” only serves to increase “friction” between customers and suppliers. With the proliferation of online and remote services through the internet, smart phone apps and now AI, the personal service ethic and customer-centred responses are more critical than ever in maintaining customer satisfaction and revenues.
In this case, I was lucky. I knew a senior manager at the bank concerned and forwarded to him the message I received. He was able to take action with his team to change the process and remove the “friction”. What worried me more though was how many other clients had received similar replies from someone who thought they had “done their job” by redirecting them.
Our customers have more choice than ever in terms of whose services they use and how they use them. Our job is to make sure they keep using ours and that means a “personal touch”.
I deliver change in markets ranging from the most developed to “emerging” economies. With a wealth of international experience in international financial services around the world running different operations and lending businesses, I started my own Consultancy to provide solutions for improving performance, productivity and risk management. I work with individuals, small businesses, charities, quoted companies and academic institutions across the world. An international speaker, trainer, author and fund-raiser, I can be contacted by email.
Labels: Customer Care, Productivity, Teamwork
Leading Through Crisis
Something I’ve discovered through experience is that most of the time, we’re not judged by how we handle “business as usual” but rather by how we respond in a crisis.
My first ever experience as a newly qualified manager in one of the world's global banks was when our bank was asked to absorb the business of another which was being closed for a number of reasons into which I won’t go into here. Our business literally doubled overnight and we had neither the systems, manpower nor infrastructure to cope. We did it because Senior management showed the qualities outlined below.
A “crisis” could be anything:
- A competitor suddenly launching a new product.
- An unfavourable change in legislation.
- War breaking out.
- A customer complaining.
- A pandemic (most of us will remember this!)
“Crisis management” is very different from “business as usual management”. Most of us can probably remember a time when a “crisis” erupted and someone let us through it calmly and successfully.
Harry Karydes identifies seven key qualities of a good “crisis leader”:
They stay calm. Fear is contagious, so is calmness. Some people just seem to remain calm, whatever's happening around them. They're the ones around whom people gather when things get tough. Rudyard Kipling in his poem If sums it up well: “If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you… you’ll be a man, my son!“
They acknowledge that there’s a problem. If you’re the only one pretending everything‘s okay when others can see it isn’t, who do you think they’ll trust? Be honest: point out the challenge but give hope.
They give direction: people are looking for what to do. We need to remind them of what we’re really looking to “get to”, not just what we’re looking to “get through”.
They communicate: if they know something, they share it and also they share what they don’t know! Assumptions fill the place of the confusion caused by silence.
When they make decisions, they do it based on principles rather than because “they must do something”. They base their decisions on values.
When people make an effort or achieve something (however small) they recognise that effort and praise even small wins. They also offer support.
They act as the “thermostat” rather than the “thermometer”. This means they set the tone in the crisis, remaining steady, strong and “human”.
The loudest person in a crisis isn’t a leader - they’re more likely to be a liability. They don’t panic instead, what they do is provide clarity, direction, support and praise.
My own experience has shown me that it’s all too easy to get caught up in “crisis mode”. The pressure to do something can be enormous and everyone is looking at the leader to do that thing. Panic simply breeds more panic, fear and confusion.
Equally, we’re all taught to have “crisis plans” to cater for various contingencies and events. Whilst these are a great framework, as one person so rightly pointed out, “crises don’t come with instructions. Nor do they give any warning.”
What gets us through crisis is “resilience” - that indefinable ability to stay calm, analyse the situation, understand the underlying issue/cause and then be clear about how to go about it.
I deliver change in markets ranging from the most developed to “emerging” economies. With a wealth of international experience in international financial services around the world running different operations and lending businesses, I started my own Consultancy to provide solutions for improving performance, productivity and risk management. I work with individuals, small businesses, charities, quoted companies and academic institutions across the world. An international speaker, trainer, author and fund-raiser, I can be contacted by email.
Labels: Crisis Management, Leadership, Strategy, Teamwork
The “3 CS” of Career Development
The “3 CS” are a concept developed by consultant Gorick Ng to describe three key areas to the land jobs and further one’s professional career.
To summarise, they stand for:
- Competence
- Commitment
- Compatibility
“Competence” is best described as “can you do the job?” Any lob requires a certain amount of experience and skill (even if it’s very little, such as we might find in a fresh graduate).
More important, it requires that hard to define quality: “attitude”. This means a person’s general predisposition towards doing something (or avoiding it). There’s a famous saying, “hire for attitude, train for skills”, meaning that some people are naturally predisposed to certain jobs. Examples may be “customer service” people. They naturally “get” and can empathise with customers and are therefore ideally suited to this role. Others may not have this predisposition; that doesn’t make them “bad people”, it’s simply means they may be better suited to, say, back office operations where they will shine in managing processes and systems. We all have different “attitudes” but it’s important to ensure we have the right “attitude” for the right job as well.
“Commitment” is that blend of energy and enthusiasm for a particular job. How “hungry” are you for it? Will you quote go the extra mile” to make sure something is done and done well (this may also come under “attitude” above)? One of the more interesting ways an employer might test a job applicants’ “commitment” is to ask, “what do you know about our organisation?” If the applicant knows nothing, they clearly weren’t committed enough to do even basic research.
“Compatibility” means “are you someone we can work with?” I’ve seen complaints in our local paper where the writer commented that they couldn’t get a job despite being the “best qualified” candidate out there. Here, the problem may have been that whilst they were indeed the “best qualified”, they weren’t a nice person!
When someone encounters a hold in their career, it may be due to one or more of the Cs above. Experience and anecdotes from others suggest address that it’s mainly around the “commitment” and compatibility” areas. I’ve certainly experienced a case where, once a boss had cause not to believe in somebody’s commitment, that person became incompatible with them.
My view? It ends up being a “two-way street”. Employees and employers use the “3 Cs” as a framework for development of careers and teams.
I deliver change in markets ranging from the most developed to “emerging” economies. With a wealth of international experience in international financial services around the world running different operations and lending businesses, I started my own Consultancy to provide solutions for improving performance, productivity and risk management. I work with individuals, small businesses, charities, quoted companies and academic institutions across the world. An international speaker, trainer, author and fund-raiser, I can be contacted by email.
Labels: Career, Leadership, Strategy
Can "Feedback" be "Bullying"?
I was talking with a diplomat who told me a story about a colleague who had been accused of “bullying” when they provided performance feedback to a junior member of staff.
It made me think: where does the line between constructive feedback and “bullying” actually lie? One of our roles (if not duties) as leaders is to get people to be the best they can to further their careers. If we spot something that may hold them back, we have not only a professional but (some would say) a moral obligation to inform them.
The problem, as I see it, is that certain people don’t like anything that could be construed as “negative” or “hurtful”. Yes, some feedback will, inevitably, fall into one or both categories (the truth sometimes hurts).
The distinction I draw is that bullying can be defined as “offensive, intimidating, malicious or insulting behaviour involving the misuse of power that can make a person feel vulnerable, upset, humiliated, undermined or threatened" (ACAS).
The Australian Human Rights Commission defines bullying as “… when people repeatedly and intentionally use words or actions against someone or a group of people to cause distress and risk to their wellbeing. These actions are usually done by people who have more influence or power over someone else, or who want to make someone else feel less powerful or helpless. They cite the following examples:
- Keeping someone out of a group (online or offline)
- Acting in an unpleasant way near or towards someone
- Giving nasty looks, making rude gestures, calling names, being rude and impolite, and constantly negative teasing.
- Spreading rumours or lies, or misrepresenting someone (i.e. using their Facebook account to post messages as if it were them)
- “Mucking about” that goes too far
- Harassing someone based on their race, sex, religion, gender or a disability
- Intentionally and repeatedly hurting someone physically
- Intentionally stalking someone
- Taking advantage of any power over someone else like a Prefect or a Student Representative.
In general, bullying must contain three elements. It must be:
- Repeated
- Intentional
- Involve a power imbalance
An even simpler definition might be behaviour with “intent to cause harm”, a “single egregious act” or repeated “hostile” behaviour.
We must balance two risks: the risk that a person may get away with “real” bullying of another against the risk that, to avoid an unpleasant conversation, someone may claim they’re being bullied rather than look to improve their performance.
This is likely to mean that businesses and organisations will need to develop internal definitions of “bullying” (and have them reviewed by a legal expert) to ensure that, whilst staff are protected as much as possible, they can be given valid, constructive feedback to improve their performance.
I deliver change in markets ranging from the most developed to “emerging” economies. With a wealth of international experience in international financial services around the world running different operations and lending businesses, I started my own Consultancy to provide solutions for improving performance, productivity and risk management. I work with individuals, small businesses, charities, quoted companies and academic institutions across the world. An international speaker, trainer, author and fund-raiser, I can be contacted by email.
Labels: Career, Leadership, Social, Teamwork
