Have Scam Callers Created More Security Headaches for Banks?
At times banks or your credit card company needs to call to check information, usually if you’ve initiated a transaction that they think may be “suspicious”.
This arises from their fear that an unauthorised party may have obtained your security credentials and be using them.
Up till now, we’ve been happy to accept that the person on the other end of the phone claiming to be calling from Bank X or credit card company Y is indeed calling from that institution.
My question: how do we actually know this? The banks have several security questions that they can ask genuine customers to verify the customer's bona fides, but customers have nothing with which to verify that the caller claiming to be calling from their bank/credit card company initiates the call is indeed calling from that institution.
I’ve actually brought conversations to a quick halt when asking the caller, “How do I know you’re calling from (name of institution)?”
The short answer is, they can’t convince you and this is my point. There are so many potential scammers out there that people receiving genuine calls from their bank or card company may well be suspicious.
To get round this, we get emails from the institutions saying that they'll never ask us for our security code or other “personally identifiable data” but if we’re to be honest, there should be a system that works just as well on the customer’s side as on the institution’s for verifying caller identities.
Some have now started to get around this by using a smart phone app or system. As long as the customer is within range of Wi-Fi or is on 4G Internet, then things should still work. If they aren’t, there’s a problem.
Thanks to scammers, we're facing more fraud than ever and customers are rightly becoming more suspicious even where genuine calls are concerned.
I don’t see any easy way around this other than to continue examining how smart phone apps can be leveraged to reduce potential problems.
Thanks to scammers, the “direct call” from the bank will, I suspect, become a thing of the past.
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
Are Websites “Out of Fashion”?
I find myself asking this a lot in the market in which I work.
To explain: the population of the country in which I’m living and working is around 460,000. There are very few “large enterprises” employing 50 people or more.
Most businesses are in the MSME (Micro/Small/Medium Enterprise) category.
Designing and maintaining a website cost money. I’ve designed one myself using a provider that offered templates, etc, so that all I needed to do was produce the text and pictures, set the order in which I wanted pages to appear and then load them up for public view. I still had to pay an annual fee to keep it online...
Every month, I diarised to update certain pages with news, events, whatever I felt important or noteworthy.
This was for a one-person business. Now apply that to a large organisation with 100+ employees actively promoting different lines of business, events, newsworthy activities and so on and you find you need to employ at least one person to make sure the website stays up to date.
Add to that the increasing legal and regulatory demands on businesses that handle personal data belonging to their customers and you may need legal and specialised technical expertise to ensure that everything “as it should be”.
Small wonder than that many small businesses living “hand to mouth” don’t do it. It’s uneconomical and demands time perhaps better spent selling product.
Instead, they use Facebook, Instagram and any of the other instant messaging services to promote themselves. These may well appeal to the younger generation who are far more tech-savvy and tend to use this type of service far more than the “traditional” internet.
The constraint with such services is that they offer much less flexibility on how you promote yourself. Whilst a website allows you to have any number of pages you like (provided you pay for them!), many of the social media services limit you to posting photos. I’ve had quite a few problems checking to see if a business provided certain products and have been faced with a “wall” of pictures of different products, forcing me to “doom scroll” to see if they have what I need. I usually look elsewhere as a result.
Going back to the point I made about increasing regulation: how do you handle this on social media? The very fact that you might have a “Broadcast List” on WhatsApp, for example, means that you have personal data stored on a device that can be lost, stolen or otherwise tampered with.
The same could apply to a website. We’ve heard before of “Distributed Denial of Service” (DDS) attacks on organisations who have managed to displease some group or other as well as the “hacking“ of mainframes that contain customer information.
Technology provides a degree of flexibility and increased ability to reach out to a larger potential customer base but comes with its risks.
Back to the question of are websites “going out of fashion?” I’d say that, for large organisations with thousands of customers and a heavier regulatory load to bear, they’ll remain. Interestingly though, the younger generation tend not to think of checking to see if a website exists but rather goes straight to social media. In this sense, maybe they are going “out of fashion” but they still provide a comprehensive guide to a business, its values and service.
In short, a website does have its place and can add more value. The question is now: Will people think to look for one?
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
Answering Matters
These days, we’re under more pressure than ever and I suspect that the advent of AI is only going to make things worse!
Most workers, particularly in the “knowledge” industry are under pressure to do more in the same amount of time thanks to so-called “labour saving” methods that are constantly being introduced.
Unfortunately, you can’t pour more into a glass than that glass will hold.
One thing that I’ve noticed is the increasing number of complaints from applicants for jobs, customers emailing suppliers/service providers and others that they aren’t getting responses, let alone in a “timely” manner.
As I said above, people are under more pressure than ever before. In this case, what “gives” is their ability to respond to messages in a “timely” manner (if at all). It’s very possible that a message from one person may quickly get “buried” under the messages that come in after it.
The person handling those messages has only 24 hours in a day to handle those messages. In those same 24 hours, they have to do their “day job” as well, eat, sleep, attend meetings, help children with homework, support elderly relatives - the list is endless.
That said, what’s the solution to the “no answer issue”? Most of the time, my questions, queries and requests aren’t what I’d call “time – sensitive”, meaning that they don’t require an instant response. I don’t need (or want to) make a call every time something pops up. It’s unnecessary, maybe expensive as well if I’m calling overseas, and like as not I’ll get an automated response mechanism or an AI “chatbot” that’s incapable of making the intuitive leaps that are needed when dealing with humans.
How do we feel when we don’t get a response? Basically, that we “don’t matter” or “aren’t important enough” to deserve one.
We remain at the impasse of no response from what are probably “overloaded” workers. Just as the client waiting for a response feels “unimportant”, no doubt the workers tasked with responding feel “pressured”, “undervalued”, “misunderstood”, “unappreciated”.
Statistically speaking, the more a business grows, the more it can expect questions and queries from its customers. Dedicated phone lines and AI chatbots, however, can’t handle the volumes and yet employing “real humans” to deal with them increases costs…
This problem isn’t going to go away soon. We do need to be aware of its potential for reputational damage and lots of business, though, if we are to continue keeping our customers happy and, therefore, coming back for more.
We can start by asking questions such as:
- What are the typical queries we get?
- RR processes set up to handle them in a timely manner?
- What are the obstacles preventing a timely response from going out?
- Are we losing business as a result?
- What are Customer Services and surveys telling us?
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, Strategy, Teamwork
Not Everyone Has Access…
… all of the time!
I’m talking about being able to access the internet, whether through a 5G connection or Wi-Fi.
Has anyone else noticed how many organisations now development apps that rely on A 24/7 internet connection?
It’s great whilst it works but, as the “automation paradox” tells us, the more we rely on technology, the more we struggle when it fails.
Another problem is that some of the mobile banking apps that I’ve encountered require authentication through a phone call to the user’s mobile. When that user is travelling and using a different country’s SIM for service in that country, it’s highly unlikely that they’ll be available on the phone number linked to their “home SIM”. Unfortunately, some developers don’t seem to consider this a possibility…
There’s no doubt that the internet has significantly changed and improved our lives. We can access information, services, financial transactions all with the press of a button or the tap of an icon. What I find myself wondering, though, is whether the developers consider that there may be instances where internet won’t be available either because of blackouts, poor mobile service or other conditions.
It’s not going to stop developers developing apps that take advantage of the power of the internet. Hopefully, though, they’ve worked out that if anyone has a smart phone on which they can download the app, they will have internet access at least some of the time.
Where we as businesses rely on an “app” or internet connection to service our customers, should we be considering what happens when they can’t access our services? If so, what can we do in those (hopefully rare) cases?
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, Strategy
“Decluttering”
Have you ever stopped to ask how much “clutter” we carry daily?
By this, I don’t mean mental clutter but rather the bits and pieces that we think are vital to our day-to-day existence.
The problem is, we may need different things at different times, in different place or for different purposes in our lives. For example, if I commute from home by train to my place of work, I might need different things for a train trip than for a 10-minute car journey.
Equally, going out shopping at the weekend again needs different stuff.
Personal experience tells me that I need to declutter at least once a year. This means taking a good hard look at everything in the messenger bag I take to work every day and asking myself, “is this still necessary for my daily needs, or am I just packing it for something that’s unlikely to happen?”
I’ve watched countless “EDC” videos on YouTube where different presenters show the different stuff they carry as part of their Everyday Carry (hence the initials “EDC”). I’ve no doubt that some of these are genuinely necessary, but if we all went down the proverbial “YouTube rabbit hole”, we’d end up spending huge amounts of money on stuff that we might never actually have a use for but is there “Just in case”.
So, back to basics: I need to constantly ask myself, “Does this have a place in my bag or pocket?” Remember: the more you think you need, the more space you need to carry it, the more weight you’re carrying and the larger the bag/pack you need.
At present, there are only two items I like to have in my pocket at any time and in any place (my iPhone and a Swiss Army knife, if you must know). These respond to 98% (if not 99%) of my day-to-day, minute to minute needs.
If I step out of the house, I’ll add my sunglasses, money clip with “minimal” cash, house and car keys. I have a “MagSafe” wallet attached to my iPhone in which I keep my debit, credit and identity cards, so that’s always with my iPhone.
That’s it. Whether I’m at home or stepping out quickly, 90% of my needs are covered. My life is simple because I live in an urbanised area where stores, restaurants and other conveniences are usually close to hand and I don’t need supplies of snacks or liquids to keep going.
If, however, I lived in an extremely rural setting and the nearest town was 5 miles away, from the items mentioned above, I might well need to take water, snacks, perhaps a lighter and even extra clothing to cope with changes in the weather when going out, particularly if I was going far from any other habitation. In this case, it makes sense to take more.
The point is, depending on the situation, what we really need is going to change. There’s no point in continuing to carry something if it’s no longer needed 90% of the time we’re out.
What could you get rid of to make your life simpler, lighter (and perhaps less expensive)?
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: Leisure, Productivity
Customer Experience 102
In an earlier article, I attempted to define the difference between “Customer Service” and “Customer Experience” (CX).
Many organisations face problems on different levels when it comes to improving customer experience. Among these are the typical attitudes of:
- “We’ve always done it this way...”
- “We’re no worse than the competition!”
- It’ll cost too much…”
None of the above holds water except maybe in organisations that are “monopoly providers” and therefore don’t need to worry as nobody has any choice but to deal with them. Even then, I personally have noticed an improvement in how I’m handled by certain institutions compared with, say, 10 to 20 years ago.
A second level on which organisations find it hard to deliver consistently excellent experiences is their own internal mechanisms. They generally design their processes and systems to suit themselves (and the law (see below). This inward-looking attitude fails to consider that those very processes and systems that the organisation’s staff are so diligently trained to use don’t apply to their customers who aren’t trained at all.
The third level on which the problems arise is that our world is becoming increasingly regulated. Businesses may have to deal with any number of laws regarding confidentiality, transfer of data, provision of certain kinds of service (financial or health for example), advertising standards, product description… the list is endless. If all regulations are obeyed and followed to the letter, no business is likely to be able to deliver excellent customer experience consistently. Yet some manage to do it…
Certain industries, however, almost consistently get a “bad rap”. Among these are financial services, credit cards and telecoms.
Bernoff, Manning and Bodine suggest that every organisation should have a CX programme headed by a Chief Customer Officer (CCO). The job of the latter is to advocate on behalf of customers rather than the business.
Even if we have such a person and program in place, we need to measure its effectiveness. We need feedback of consistent quality and timeliness to know where things need improvement. For this to be successful and result in “high marks”, we need to understand our customers, their needs and how they interact with our business at every possible touch point. There’s no point in having highly trained, highly skilled and excellent frontline staff if back-office workers lack interpersonal skills and empathy!
The benefits of a successful CX programme and happy customers are:
- Happy customers (first and foremost).
- Happy customers buy more.
- Happy customers tell other others about how well we look after them.
- Happy customers are more willing to forgive us when we get it wrong.
- Happy customers will leave us last during hard times and finally…
- Happy customers will return to us first when times improve.
The finance director or CEO who doesn’t see the value of a structured and focused CX program in an organisation that depends on customers buying that organisation’s products or services will be the cause of its ruin.
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, Leadership, Productivity, Selling, Teamwork
Missing the Menu
A friend sent me a funny video of an elderly person who went to his local pub for a pint and a pie and, instead of ordering at the bar as he was accustomed to do, was told to “scan the QR code”.
The story’s narrated as a song and proceeds to detail the problems that this gentleman had: an old Nokia “dumb phone” and no ability to log on via QR code. In the end he gives up in disgust and goes home for dinner instead.
Why he chose to go and eat at his local pub instead of with his wife is neither here nor there, but what it does highlight is the trend amongst restaurants to ask patrons to scan a QR code rather than providing a menu. I realise that this may well be okay for the younger “tech savvy’ generations but some of us (me included!) still prefer a “traditional” menu as it’s easier to read than it is on a “smartphone”.
The “traditional” menu allows us to scan multiple dishes at a time and pick the combination that suits best. The downside with many menus viewed on a smart phone is that one may see only one or, at most, two choices at a time.
Result: it takes longer to order and there’s a risk that people may make a mistake or duplicate a dish due to clumsy fingers or other factors.
Some say that the QR process makes things “more efficient”. My question is: “For whom?” For those of us who pay to go out to eat, efficiency is about serving staff who know the menu, can provide advice, repeat one’s order back and can be summoned if things are slow to come or there’s something wrong with the meal. Generally, restaurant staff are still available, but part of the dining experience is interacting with others and this is now being taken away in the interests of “efficiency”.
One has two choices: either accept the inevitability of “technological progress” in what has been until now a social interaction or to patronise only restaurants that offer a “physical” menu, provide working experience to young people whilst teaching them customer service and other life skills.
Another option for restaurants might be to have boards on which favourite or best-selling dishes are displayed for those who don’t want to use technology. Not only would it retain business, but it would also help shift popular dishes or even “low-moving” ones if the restaurant so wished!
Question: is going out to eat a social experience for diners and restaurant staff or is it becoming a “commodity” where diners go in, eat, and leave in the shortest possible time?
Are we, in our efforts to make our businesses or staff more “efficient”, driving our best customers away?
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, Social
Stop the Scripts?
It seems increasingly that the operators in Help or Call Centres are being obliged to follow a set script when dealing with customers.
This may be to ensure that they don’t say anything that might compromise their employer; hence no deviation from the “approved wording”.
The flip side is that this makes customer interactions longer than necessary. For customers whose time may be limited, the process of allowing the “conversation” to run its course can be frustrating and result (as it has for me!) in loss of patience as some poor operator is obliged to read out pages of legalese, statutory warnings or cautions.
It’s not their fault. If they don’t do it, they could land their employer in trouble. The world is becoming more regulated and proscriptive (no pun intended) at the expense of satisfactory customer experiences.
Some businesses may have no choice (particularly in the financial services sector where a slip could cost an institution millions). There must come a time, however, when the customer’s needs matter more than potential corporate liability.
Equally, if the problem in question doesn’t fall under the “standard script”, operators are often left not knowing what to do. This is especially the case where there seems to be no escalation procedure for them to hand the customer over to a more experienced colleague (although in some cases I believe this is improving).
What’s the solution? First of all, if we can, hire staff with the right “qualifications”. Yes, they may be more expensive, but in the long run if there’s increased customer satisfaction when dealing with our businesses, isn’t that worth it?
Another solution might be to provide proper training on call handling rather than simply putting them at a desk with a phone. I suspect this does happen, but that the training simply involves using the “approved scripts”.
I’m sure some people will suggest that AI is the way to go. In the future, it may well be but at present my experience of AI “chatbot” is uniformly poor. The AI needs to be trained a lot more before it can successfully handle a customer interaction, especially in cases where escalation is needed.
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, Strategy
I Dumped the Games
Since I got my first Apple device (an iPod Touch) in 2011, I’ve always had some kind of game or games on my iPhone and tablet.
These were normally the more cerebral or strategy games, not Mario Kart, Candy Crush Saga, Grand Theft Auto, etc and I enjoyed playing them. From time to time, I tried out new games (Sudoku and different variations of Solitaire) but I found that I grew tired of them at an increasingly rapid pace.
So, this year, without making any New Year’s Resolution, I ditched my games. The result was interesting to say the least. I suddenly found that I had more time on my hands. My ToDo list began to shrink. I actually started to plan a lot more and in a lot more detail. I read.
I come from “that generation” who didn’t grow up with smart devices as the current Gen. Z, Alphas and now Betas are. I didn’t have to undergo the “withdrawal symptoms” that teenagers in some countries are feeling now as their governments ban social media accounts for under 16s or under 13s as they deem appropriate.
When my generation wanted diversion, we read books (paper ones), went outside and played with our siblings or friends if we lived in a neighbourhood (of course, it was safer at that time). We drew things, we played with that wonderful toy Lego, inventing aeroplanes, space ships and anything else that caught our imagination.
We developed the ability to think and create. There’s now some concern that technology (especially with the advent of AI) is destroying the human creative genius. Whether that’s the case or not, I don’t know. However, if Hollywood’s anything to go by, there are fewer “original” films being produced and what we’re seeing now are mostly “reboots” of films produced in the 70s and 80s before CGI became as advanced as it is.
Back to what I was saying: I don’t miss the games. They’re still sitting there on my iPhone and iPad, but if I make it through to the end of this year without touching them, I’m deleting them altogether. I think this’ll probably make me a more thoughtful and productive person (at least I hope so!)
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: Leisure, Productivity
iPads Over the Years
Since 2011, I’ve had four different iPads.
I started in 2011 with the 9” iPad. To be honest, I love my gadgets and this was a great-looking gadget to try out. That said, I quickly became “hooked” on the potential this device offered for portable computing rather than lugging around a laptop.
In something like 2016 or so I bought the iPad 13” when it first came out in the 1TB only version. Having more “Screen Real Estate” was great but, being the first 13“ iPad, it weighed a ton and was extremely difficult to hold in one hand for more than about five minutes.
So later on, I naturally downsized to the iPad 11”! It seemed at the time like the ideal compromise between the heavy and large 13” version and carrying a laptop. This was also the first iPad I combined with a touchpad keyboard for greater flexibility (and let me tell you now, whatever they say about the price, the iPad “Magic Keyboard” is a dream to use).
You’d have thought that by now I’d finally have found my “Goldilocks iPad”.
Far from it.
I still felt that the 11” version was too heavy to hold for long periods of time.
No guesses as to what happened next: I bought the updated iPad Mini (V.7) - without cellular - when it came out and have been using that since 2024.
I have to admit this is the most flexible iPad I’ve ever owned. It’s highly portable (I can just squeeze it into a trouser pocket, although it looks slightly peculiar!) It’s light and does most of what I need it to which is essentially content consumption, internet browsing and a bit of email. I can also use it to read/sign documents with my Apple Pencil and I’m generally very happy with it.
Now, whilst it’s light and highly portable, it still has its downsides. For some strange reason, Apple saw fit not to include Face ID in the iPad Mini package. Quite why I don’t know as I don’t think this would have taken anything away from it. It’s larger cousins have it, but that was Apple‘s decision.
Another compromise I’ve had to make is that at 8.3 inches, the “screen real estate” is lacking and therefore I’m usually forced to “zoom in” to be able to read certain sizes of text. It also makes working with drop-down menus far more “fiddly” and I often end up hitting the wrong choice.
Battery life is also compromised as, with a smaller device, one naturally has a smaller battery. Whether it’s my usage or something else, I've noticed that the battery has already lost something like 13% of capacity in about 1.5 years of use (I also have the “charge limit” set to 80% to preserve battery life, so I can’t charge beyond this amount which means I’ll obviously get shorter battery life). As I’m usually moving between home and office, topping up the battery isn’t a problem: I just have to do it more often. What this means in practical terms is that if, say, I go on a trip, I need a power bank with me and on a long flight from Asia to the UK (roughly 13 - 14 hours), I’ll probably charge the iPad at least once from the in-aircraft power system.
As a content consumption device, however, it’s without equal in my eyes. Instead of carrying a laptop, iPad and Kindle reader, I can now manage on extended business travel (anything over five days) with my laptop and iPad Mini which doubles as a Kindle with the Kindle app installed.
It’ll also handle simple emailing with its soft keyboard, although the latter tends to take up a lot of screen space and I find I constantly have to use the “remove keyboard" button to check what I’ve actually typed. This is easily fixed by using any of the numerous bluetooth keyboards out there that can be connected to the iPad. An even simpler solution is to use the voice recognition capability of the device to dictate emails and reports as I did to start this article!
The one thing none of the iPads I’ve earned can do is completely replace a laptop. They can do a lot of “at a pinch“ work (like reading and sending a quick response to an email, reading/signing a document and creating a simple Word or Excel or Powerpoint document) but for people like me who are heavy users of Microsoft office programs, the simple formatting and creative solutions offered on the iPad simply don’t meet my needs. The odd edit? Yes. Creating something with animations, etc? No.
For those, I’ll still turn to my trusty MacBook - and that's probably just what Apple want...
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: Productivity
"I Don’t Do Clocks…"
A contact who invigilates exams for school-age children told me that, during an exam, a student who needed to know how much time was left said “I don’t do clocks,” when the clock on the wall of the exam hall was pointed out to them.
The “boomers” are coming up to retirement or have already retired. I’m guessing that the student in question was doing at least their GCSEs and would therefore have been from the end of the “Gen. Z” era or perhaps even “Alpha” generation.
What fascinated me was that this student is clearly of “that generation” that grew up with more exposure to digital timekeeping and, possibly, don’t wear a watch as their smart phone has a clock! This tells us more about how we ‘re developing as humans rather than that the younger generation are somehow “deficient” because they can’t read a 12-hour clock.
Is this a typically “first world problem”? How many students of the same age in what are called the “developing” countries of the world are lucky enough to have a smart device in their home, let alone own an analogue (12-hour) watch?
I see plenty of jokes about how to confuse this age’s children by putting them in a room with a rotary dial phone and provide instructions how to use it in cursive writing. Yes, there’s a degree of fun or irony in such humour, but it nonetheless illustrates that society has moved on. How many of my generation would know what a “mangle” is (for those interested, it’s a device that was used to squeeze water out of clothes that had just been washed before the invention of the tumble dryer)?
Equally who knows what a “dumb waiter” is? The answer: a miniature lift that communicated between the basement kitchen and the dining room of wealthier houses “back in the day”.
Society will continue to develop with time. If it didn’t, we’d still probably be living in caves and wearing animal skins.
Yes, it’s sad to see that young people these days may not know how to use a 12-hour watch or clock, but I bet they could ring run rings round many of us on social media and ChatGPT usage!
Conclusion: understand (even if you don’t like it) that they’re different and that they have skills that “our generation” will never fully master.
Much has been said, written and discussed about the “generation gaps” present in our society. We have the “Silent Generation” (those who survived WWII), the “Baby Boomers” (those born between 1946 - 1964). After them came “Gen. X” (1965 - 1979), “Gen. Y” (1980 - 1994), “Gen. Z” (1995 - 2009), “Alpha” (2010 - 2024) and last, but not least, “Beta” (2025 - 2039). Each has its own characteristics which were the subject of two articles in February and March 2024.
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, Social
Start As You Intend to Continue
Something my colleagues and I noticed in one of the organisations in which I worked was that, if somebody was “difficult” during the onboarding process, they were likely to be difficult throughout the relationship.
I can’t say if this was a case of “correlation” as opposed to “causation”, but what I can say is that we very often found this to be the case.
We all understand that different organisations have their own “way of doing things” and that, if we really wish to deal with them then we have no choice but to accept. There may become a point in time, though, when the phrase “enough is enough” springs to mind when we realise that the amount of effort involved to begin or continue that relationship is simply not worth the returns.
This applies whether one is the organisation “onboarding” someone or the one being “onboarded”.
Sometimes, we may have no choice, especially if dealing with monopoly providers, governments or other regulatory bodies on whom we depend for the continuation of our business or some service that no other organisation can provide. There have come points in time, though, when we decided in various organisations in which I worked that it was better to terminate the relationship than face the increasing costs of dealing with that counterparty.
Everybody needs their “bureaucracy”, especially where processing high volumes of material to deliver uniform services across a large body of customers. In the end though, such complexity costs the organisation in terms of money and resources to manage it as well as its clients or counter parties. At a time when business conditions are becoming increasingly challenging there’s a risk that we may lose business to bureaucracy. As business leaders, we need, where possible, to ensure that our process it:
- Result in the service we say they should.
- Are easy to use.
- Provide an enjoyable if not fun experience.
Doing this will result in increased productivity from our own people as well as growing and repeat customer satisfaction.
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, Leadership, Productivity, Selling, Teamwork
“We Can’t Afford to Lose…”
Do you have one of those “amazing people” who just seems to know everything, do it all, work long hours, never say no to anything, is vital to the business?
If so, how much falls on their shoulders?
How “vital” are they to the organisation in terms of their institutional knowledge, their customer knowledge, the trust that organisation leaders place in them, being a “backbone” of their function or the organisation?
If you can name someone like this in your organisation, you have a potential leadership issue coming up. This doesn’t mean there’s competition for the top slot (far from it!) The problem is that this person may be rapidly burning out and will leave at the worst possible time simply because they can’t “take any more”.
Laurie DeSalvo suggests several remedies in LinkedIn to make sure that:
The organisation retains that person and their knowledge/abilities.
Reduce the number of hours they work.
Build relief into the team.
Give that person space to lead instead of always “firefighting”.
Reduce risk.
Improve decision-making.
If leaders are “drowning”, they don’t need extra “coaching” or to be told to “prioritise better”, let alone “push more for just a little longer”. DeSalvo points out that the descriptions given above are not about performance, they’re about capacity. To quote the famous line from the film Avatar, “It is hard to fill a cup which is already full.”
As leaders, it’s our job to spot these “critical people” and to ensure they have the real support that they need. Yes, there’s a cost in hiring an additional person to support them. The question to ask, however, is, “if we don’t do this now and pay the price, what will the cost be to us if this person leaves?”
Different people have different limits; as leaders, we need to be able to spot them.
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: Leadership, Productivity, Teamwork
My Word is my Bond
In the “Old Days”, deals were sealed with a handshake. If you didn’t do what you said you would do when you said you would do it and at the price you had agreed, you quickly earned a reputation of an unreliable business partner.
Fast forward to the modern era of contracts where now no business deal can be sealed without a contract equal in thickness to the Encyclopaedia Britannica or some other weighty volume. Although these days we have the advantage of “soft copies” on computers, they must nevertheless be validated and may often still be printed out.
Contracts aside, as business owners and leaders, we undertake to do certain things for others: our staff, our business partners, our friends and family. Although these aren’t “written agreements”, and certainly can’t be enforced in a court of law, when we say that we’ll do something for someone, we’re undertaking something and building an expectation that we can be relied upon to do it.
Too often, however, the excuses start here: “It was a bad day for me!”, “I was busy.” (a favourite against which there is no real argument in theory), “We had an emergency.” (yes, these happen, but did we contact the other person to say it had happened and that we’d be delayed?) or “X, Y or Z got in the way).
In the case of verbal undertakings, our word is still our bond and people judge us on whether we keep our promises or not. There are certain individuals whom I have classified as “unreliable” and “easily distracted”. In fact, in the latter case, I know that I can manipulate them simply by creating a “distraction” if I want them to forget that I’ve undertaken something for them!
Not to deliver on one’s undertakings is, in some people’s opinion, an egregious illustration of “moral bankruptcy”. Everyone understands that emergencies can and do arise, or that something may distract us, but we still need to remember that we’ve undertaken to do something for someone by a certain time and that, if we find ourselves unable to do it because of unforeseen and uncontrollable external circumstances that have suddenly risen, the least we can do is contact the other person to explain the situation and that we’ll get back on it.
If we find that people start to avoid us, not deal with us or not be prepared to provide references for us, this could be the reason. For some, “once is enough”; others may be more patient but still after one or two more instances of failure to deliver, they’ll label that person as “unreliable”.
With all the alternatives out there, keeping our “word” is more important than ever.
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: Leadership, Productivity, Social
Some Employees Aren’t Easy to Replace…
Yes, you can replace the body, but not someone who’s dependable, hard-working, dedicated, knows the systems and customers.
Unless we’re running a sole proprietorship, we depend on people to make and/or to deliver the products/services that our business provides to its customers.
Not every one of these people will be a “high-flyer” destined for the “C-Suite” or chairmanship. Many more will simply be, as already mentioned, dependable, hard-working, dedicated, good with their customers and “good at their job”. It makes little sense to destroy this value - how much does it cost us to replace someone in terms of lost goodwill, knowledge (both of the business, its products and systems and of its customers)?
Some organisations are said to take the view that they should be removing the lowest tier of performers on an annual basis. Part of the reason is to give the “up-and-coming high-flyers” a chance to move up the ladder (until they’re finally promoted as far as they can go) or perhaps to encourage all employees to perform at the highest level (but there'll still be "lower-performing" people). Whilst admirable in its own right, the risk of such a policy is to promote unhealthy competition, back-stabbing, resentment, low morale and loss of systems and customer knowledge.
We don’t want people to feel complacent because they’re “indispensable” but we do need to maintain a balance between “removing dead wood” and simply promoting a toxic climate of fear.
In our own business, experience is what counts the most in the advice we give. We’re lucky enough to have people who are dedicated and hard-working when needed, but the only time we would ask someone to leave is if they’re being “carried” by the rest of the team. Mercifully, this has happened only once. The only other occasion has been when the member of staff concerned destroyed morale in the team. The day after they had left, the change in atmosphere and attitude amongst the team was incredible!
People management is never easy. However, we need to be aware of the “move out the low performers” attitude dominating our business and distracting us from our true purpose: serving our customers.
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, Leadership, Productivity, Strategy
“We’re Experiencing High Call Volumes”
How many times have we been faced with this message or similar from a service provider saying that they are unable to respond promptly to our query?
As we move further along the digital path, service and product providers are increasingly moving toward digital platforms and artificial intelligence (AI) to cope with customer enquiries. In some cases, they’re also using “live” call centres but the problem with the latter is that, at times, they don’t seem to be sufficiently manned.
This is understandable, perhaps, in an age where part-time employment is becoming more common and people work shifts. To control costs, providers put a certain number of “agents” in their call centres at any one time to handle predicted volumes.
Things break down, however, when there are insufficient agents to handle high numbers of incoming calls. One would expect this to be around the end of the month (when salaries are paid), the end of the quarter and the end of the year.
There will be other times, of course, such as when there is a “service outage” in a provider’s online system. These can’t be predicted and it will hardly surprise anyone to receive either a text warning or a recorded message that “All of our agents are busy…”.
The question is: are these providers investing sufficiently in “human” resources? People still tend to trust other people more than online services to solve certain problems and we shouldn’t be surprised in turn if, when there’s an emergency in a highly-charged emotional situation, their reaction is to pick up the phone.
AI’s still in its infancy when it comes to answering queries and we’ve probably all experienced occasions when “the system” simply can’t answer our question (usually because it can’t understand it!). The better systems in this case will transfer the customer to a “live” agent. Others will simply give up.
The debate between “insufficient investment and people” and “cost-control” will continue to rage for the foreseeable future. No doubt, providers do their best to cater for most situations but they still have a fair way to go.
As businesses, we can only monitor the rate, volume and timing of incoming request requests and calls and on a statistical basis do our best to predict when things will go wrong. It would be even better if we could have a “reserve pool” of operators who could be summoned at a moment’s notice to help out in times of unexpectedly high volumes of calls.
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, Customer Care, Productivity
