Old but good service concept: the Circle of Influence

One of my favorite customer service concepts is the "Circle of Influence". It reminds us that there are things we cannot control, such as our customers, so we should focus on things we can control (like our reaction to our customers).

A story...

My phone rang and I answered it, "Hello, this is Jeff." The person on the other end was a colleague that I had met a few times, but didn't know well. "Hi Jeff, do you have a minute?" she asked.

"Sure," I said.

Silence. Then... "Are you sure you have a minute? You sounded really hesitant. I can call back if this isn't a good time."

Huh?! It took a second to collect my thoughts. "I don't know why you think I sounded hesitant. I said sure. How can I help you?"

Again, awkward silence. Then... "Hey, I didn't mean to cause any conflict or upset you in any way. I'm just calling to ask you for a phone number, but if this isn't a good time or you don't want to give me the number that's OK, just say so.  I'm really not trying to cause any problems."

I gave her the phone number, but I couldn't get off the phone fast enough. That lady was nuts!!

It took me a few minutes afterwards to get over it, but then I reminded myself about the circle of influence. I really felt she was pushing my buttons, but I also realized I had allowed my buttons to be pushed. There was a good chance I'd run into this person again, so I wanted to be sure I was better prepared the next time. Looking at my "circle of influence" I realized what the crucial piece of dialogue should have been. 

Crazy Lady: "Hi Jeff, do you have a minute?"

Me: "Sure."

Crazy Lady: "Are you sure you have a minute? You sounded really hesitant. I can call back if this isn't a good time."

Me: "I'd be happy to speak with you now. How may I help you?"

Epilogue

This little exercise really paid off. I saw Crazy Lady a couple weeks later.  This time there were other people present, so there would be witnesses if I didn't handle it well. Sure enough, she stayed in character and said something crazy and provoking, a classic "button pushing" move. Fortunately, I remembered my little circle of influence self-pep talk and I was ready. I just smiled, shrugged it off, and redirected the conversation to keep it positive. Awkward conflict avoided! 

Gallup finds more reasons to micromanage

A new study from the Gallup Management Journal has discovered that igorning your employees may be even more harmful than focusing on their weaknesses. Not unexpectedly, focusing on employee strengths yields the best results of all.  You may know that I'm an unabashed fan of micromanaging, and this data provides more fuel for my micromanagement fire!

Micromanagement yields the best results.
I define micromanagement as actively managing employees' performance, helping them become successful, and gradually providing them with more and more autonomy as they demonstrate competency and earn trust. This definition is very consistent with a "strengths-based" management philosophy.

In Gallup's study, managers that focus on employee strengths have the most engaged employees (61%) and the fewest actively disengaged employees (1%).

Micro-meddling yields worse results.
Often confused with micromanagement, micro-meddling is a management approach that focuses on employee weaknesses. Micro-meddlers don't set clear expectations and spend their time correcting performance rather than encouraging growth. Unlike micromanagers who loosen the reins over time, micro-meddlers make it impossible for employees to earn trust and autonomy.

In Gallup's study, managers that focus on employee weaknesses engage (on average) 45% of their employees while an average of 22% of their employees are actively disengaged.

Not managing is worst of all.
The hands-off approach is even worse than micro-meddling. Gallup found that only 2% of employees who felt ignored by their managers were engaged compared to 40% who were actively disengaged. Managers who fail to provide clear and consistent direction or any feedback often choose this style because they want to avoid conflict, want to achieve a positive reputation with their employees, or are simply overwhelmed with other responsibilities.  Whatever the cause, this is clearly the worst way to go.

Check out an article on Gallup's study here.

Read my post, "Long Live the Micromanager" for more info.

Back from the "ID10T" brink - wrap-up of the Adobe story

Last Friday, I was finally able to get my technical support problem resolved with Adobe's Connect Pro web-conferencing service.  My goal was to continue using the service, so I'm glad I didn't have to cancel. At the same time, Adobe's customer service was exceptionally poor. This epilogue highlights the costly effects of an "ID10T" customer service philosophy: I'm frustrated, Adobe looks bad, and we've both wasted time and resources.

I'm Frustrated
On Friday, I received a phone call from Rahul, a Technical Support Consultant at Adobe. He asked me a few questions, put me on hold for just a moment, then asked me to try logging in. Shazam! The problem was fixed.  Total time = <5 minutes.  Why am I frustrated? Because it took so much of my time to finally get connected with the person who had the solution.

Adobe Looks Bad
Taking an "ID10T" approach with customers is never a good policy. If you didn't catch my earlier posts on the subject, "ID10T" is technical support slang for user-error (or, the customer is an idiot). Dealing with obstinate service reps who insist on walking through a protocol that takes 30 minutes to complete, but brings us no closer to resolving the issue, is infuriating.  And, furious customers like to share.

Everything else was waste...
Adobe and I both wasted a lot of time on what turned out to be a 5 minute solution once it got to the right person. 

• Six different Adobe employees communicated with me via phone and/or email at some point in time.
• Total phone time = more than 60 minutes (with 4 Adobe employees).
• Total email messages = 7
• Total angry blog and message board posts from me = 7

What can we learn?

This situation highlights a few key lessons for any customer service operation. First, never assume your customer is an idiot. (Although some are -- it's not up to us to point that out.) Second, your customer service operation should rapidly funnel customers to the person who can help, rather than setting up obstacles and roadblocks erected in the name of "efficiency" and "cost containment". Third, make sure the left hand and the right hand get together once in awhile so each knows what the other is doing. While I was on the phone with Rahul getting my problem fixed on Friday, I received an email from Matt that simply said "Are you still experiencing this issue?" Thanks, Matt.  That email was super-helpful... (Insert sarcasm here.)

I found the 4th level of "ID10T" hell

I heard back from my new "friend" at Adobe via email today. His message revealed the 4th level of "ID10T" hell.  To re-cap, here are the first three:

1. Brush off my inquiry with a non-answer so I have to inquire again.
2. Try to prove the problem is a user-error, essentially an "ID10T" problem.
3. Promise to respond, but don't, so the customer has to send a second inquiry.

The fourth level of "ID10T" hell:

Respond to the customer's second message and ask for the customer's login and password. What?! That's right, my "buddy" Deepak at Adobe has informed me that he needs my account login and password to resolve my problem.

I'm surprised nobody threw me a party yesterday to celebrate my birthday. After all, according to Deepak, I was born yesterday!! Is this an ID10T Squared issue?

Seriously, does anyone know anyone at Adobe not named Deepak that can help me with Connect Pro?

Not every technical support issue is an "ID10T"

Technical support people have a term for user-errors: ID 10 T. Mushed together, it spells out ID10T, or idiot. Sometimes, they're even right. A great many computer problems are resolved by simply rebooting, checking to ensure the monitor is actually attached to the computer, or making sure the thing is even plugged in. I get that. What I don't get is the assumption that every problem is the result of a user-ID10T.

I'm spiraling through the depths of Technical Support hell with Adobe at the moment. This isn't a rant on Adobe per se (I generally really like their products), but it's a great example of how so many companies get it wrong.

First level of technical support hell: brush off the inquiry. I emailed their technical support folks to ask about a problem I had experienced with their web-conferencing program, Connect Pro. The gist of my email was I had followed their directions to the letter to set up a web-conferencing template, but it wasn't working. What should I do now?  The brush off came via a long form email that essentially said, "We're so sorry you are experiencing a problem.  Here is a link to our directions on this topic."  Uh, I'm emailing because the directions DON'T WORK!

Second level of technical support hell: try to prove the ID10T theory. I sent a follow-up email today to ask for additional assistance since their first message missed the mark.  I was pleasantly surprised to get a phone call in response to my follow-up email, but soon grew frustrated. The person on the other end of the phone used unfamiliar idioms that made him very hard to understand. Worse, we spent 30 minutes going through a checklist of trouble-shooting ideas that I had already been through. How many times do I have to tell this guy I've already done that?! Finally, we got to the end of his list and he told me he'd have to do some additional research and get back to me. By now, I'm wishing it really was an ID10T issue so I could get on with it already.

Third level of technical support hell: promise to respond, but don't. I'm sure there is some study that shows if you don't call the customer back, he will just give up.  I was promised a follow-up response within about 30 minutes. That was about three hours ago and I'm still waiting.  I'm not giving up though!

Stop the madness!

Admittedly, these technical issues are sometimes difficult to resolve, but there's got to be a better way to handle them. For starters, the strategy of assuming the customer is an idiot has got to go. Secondly, the strategy of having an inexperienced (and presumably low-wage) person wade through an endless checklist before passing the issue along to someone who is actually competent has also got to go. The whole system smacks of their time is more valuable than mine. Meanwhile, I'm frustrated, I'm blogging about it, and my problem isn't resolved.

I'll keep you posted. In the meantime, please let me know if you know a good tech support person at Adobe!

The rules of social media: engaging customers in public forums

Today's post is a quick weigh-in a topic that has drawn a variety of opinions: should you engage customers directly in social media forums? Some people suggest this is a good way to get out in front of issues, and there are numerous success stories where a company has engaged people through Twitter, Get Satisfaction, Yelp, and other forums. Other people have decried this practice as an intrusion, as though the company being discussed should simply sit out the conversation and let the masses decide for themselves.

Here's my opinion: it all depends.

Ultimately, its your customers (not you) that decide whether you picked the right approach. This leaves you with three basic choices:

1. Do whatever you can to understand your customers so you can appropriately respond to their needs. Online, the means knowing whether or not your customers want you to engage them through public forums.
2. Educate your customers to convince them you are working in their best interests. This approach can be highly effective, but it can also backfire if your educational efforts miss the mark.
3. Segment your customer base by those that like to be served the way you like to serve and those that don't. Spend your time, money, and marketing efforts pursuing the customers who like what you have to offer. Spend as little time, money, and effort dealing with customers who want what you don't have.  This approach works great if there are a lot of customers who like you just the way you are. It doesn't work so well if it whittles down your potential customer base to your Mother and your dog, the two "people" who love you unconditionally.

A quick example...

Recently, I posted a recommendation on Yelp for one of my favorite Italian restaurants, Antica Trattoria. I was pleasantly surprised to get a message from the owner thanking me for the review. His outreach made me even more loyal and I can't wait to go back. Here's what he wrote:

"Hi Jeff T.,

I wanted to personally thank you for sharing your positive experience at Antica Trattoria on Yelp.  Our staff works hard to ensure that you enjoy your time here, so it's most rewarding to hear that our restaurant helped to make your dining experience a positive one.

Please feel free to ask for me and when you are next coming in- it would be my pleasure to meet and thank you again in person.  In the meantime, please let me know if you have any suggestions for us, as we are continuously trying to improve.

Best wishes,

Francesco Basile

Chef/Owner Antica Trattoria"

Where do you come out?

The cost of inattentiveness: a brand new "Pepsi Challenge"

Lynne Marek from the National Law Journal reported yesterday that Pepsi had lost a $1.26 billion default judgment to two Wisconsin men. The two plaintiffs alleged that Pepsi used ideas and information stolen from the men to develop their Aquafina brand of bottled water. That's a pretty big verdict, but what's even scarier is it was a default judgement.  That's right - Pepsi lost because they didn't bother showing up to court.

Pepsi's excuse for not coming to court? The secretary who received notification of the lawsuit simply put the letter aside because she was busy preparing for an upcoming Board meeting. I sure hope that Board meeting was full of important, profit-generating agenda items like a presentation on "Fool-proof ways to make $1.26 billion."

Sure, the case is likely to go back to court and the $1.26 billion judgement is unlikely to stick, at least in total. But it does raise the question of inattentiveness and poor prioritization. What important things are we not paying attention to that could cost us money? What are we doing to ensure that a single employee doesn't trivialize something extremely important, whether it is a lawsuit, a customer complaint, or an opportunity to get a-hold of Pepsi's presentation on "Fool-proof ways to make $1.26 billion" from their recent board meeting?

This story motivated me to clean out my inbox today. Hopefully, it creates some good for all of us. Except for Pepsi.  I'm a Coke fan.

Don't let the wolf in your hen house

Last week, my plumber hired a drywall guy to come to my home and patch up some holes from a plumbing repair. After completing the job, the drywall guy handed me his business card and said, "Let me know if you ever want to do any remodeling - I specialize in kitchens and baths." The problem? My plumber also has a remodeling business that specializes in kitchens and baths.

This situation is a modern-day example of sending a wolf to check on your hen house. Sure, the wolf has excellent references and works for a reasonable rate, but the wolf ultimately wants to eat your chickens! Any situation where someone you hire has very different interests than yours can result in unwanted consequences.  Economics fans refer to this as the principal - agent problem: both parties are guided by their own self-interest, so it is important for the principal (the plumber) to create the proper structure so the agent (the dry wall guy) doesn't work against the principal's interests.

Here are some more examples of wolves in the hen house:

• A customer service rep is hired to provide outstanding service. The customer service rep wants a an easy, stress-free job. The result: the customer service rep only provides outstanding service in situations that are stress-free.
• A company hires a salesperson and pays her a commission on gross sales. The sales rep wants to make as much commission as possible, so she offers discounts to make the product more attractive to customers. The company's sales look good, but their margins are so poor there is very little profit.
• A company hires a technician to make house calls and do in-home repairs. The technician loves the technical work, but can't stand dealing with people. The repairs are always done correctly, but the company's customers frequently complain about poor service provided by the technician and often take their business to a competitor.

The solution?

These situations aren't necessarily simple to resolve, but the starting point is deliberate alignment. You can use our simple competency model to work this out for anyone you plan to hire -- before you hire them! Download our competency model.

Your accounting department could be costing you money

Companies routinely allow their Accounts Payable and Accounts Receivable departments to have direct customer contact. Unfortunately, many of these people are programmed to have a "numbers and rules" mindset, and that's exactly how they approach people outside the organization.

The results often include inefficiency, damaged relationships, and a vicious cycle that starts all over again.

Accounts Receivable

Your A/R department can hurt your image and ultimately cost you money in two ways.

The first is through poor billing practices. Earlier this week, I received a bill from a vendor. The job I hired them to do wasn't complete and I was told I would be billed for the entire job once it was finished, but the bill came anyway. To top it off, the bill was dated 13 days earlier and the terms were net 10. Yup - I received an unexpected bill that was already overdue when it arrived.

The second problem comes through poor collections procedures. Every business person knows cash is the lifeblood of the business, but many A/R employees are stubborn, stern, and anti-social. There are certainly many outstanding A/R people out there, but if your company doesn't employ any of them, the net result could be angry customers AND slower payments. Double whammy!

Accounts Payable

It's a time-honored tactic for A/P departments to sit on invoices until they feel like paying them. Some A/P departments have a blanket "net 30" or "net 45" policy, and the time clock usually starts when they receive the invoice (not when the company receives the invoice or the job is done). How can this hurt the company? Let me give you a few examples:

• Upset vendors = declining service. Try asking a vendor for a big favor after you've developed a pattern of paying late, you have aging bills outstanding, or your company's A/P department is just a plain ol' hassle to work with.
• Upset vendors = tightened credit. Poor treatment from your A/P department could lead to stricter credit terms or no credit at all. That means more cash up front for purchases or you'll need to tap into a secondary source of credit to make purchases. (The opposite is often true too - treat your vendors well and they are likely to be more flexible.)
• Late fees aren't assigned to MY cost center. Good ol' cost center accounting ensures that any late fees assessed by your vendors are typically passed along to the department that originated the work, not the A/P department that sat on the bill. This means no incentive for them to change behavior, but it also means your company is paying more than it needs to.
• No pay, no work. Many companies a firm policy of cutting off all business if too many bills are outstanding. It makes sense, doesn't it? We work to get paid, so if we aren't getting paid, we don't work. (Seriously, would you keep coming to work if your company didn't pay you?) The problem here is you may have an urgent need on one hand, but a belligerent A/P department means you also have no credit. Yikes!

The bottom line is your accounting department shouldn't be exempt from treating your customers, vendors, and even your employees with respect, professionalism, and a spirit of cooperation. It's cheaper and easier to work this way, plus you can brag that you have one of the few "cool" accounting departments.

Three Customers You Shouldn't Serve, Part 3 of 3

This post is the third in a three part series on customers you shouldn't serve.

In part one I identified three customers you shouldn't serve:

1. They want what you can't deliver well
2. You can't serve them profitably
3. They are abusive

In part two I outlined a few strategies for handling these customers. Ah, but no strategy is fool proof. Sometimes, you have to part ways. My company has said "No" a few times and fortunately, these situations have generally gone well.

They wanted what I couldn't deliver well

A client of mine wanted me to facilitate our time and priority management workshop for their team. I conducted a needs assessment and discovered that the training program wouldn't yield any results, but a few simple changes to their workflow would increase their productivity by at least 10%. The client insisted we do the training but didn't want to make the changes, so I was left with a dilemma. On one hand, I could accept the paying assignment and conduct a training class that would probably disappoint the client in the long run.  On the other hand, I could walk away from the engagement. 

As a middle ground, I proposed the client make some of the changes first and then I would conduct the training. The client agreed to this change, but procrastinated on making the requested changes because they were "too busy". I continued to check in over time until eventually it became clear we wouldn't move forward. Too bad for me? Not really. Sure, I would have loved to help the client achieve some real results. However, this was the next best thing. We avoided a confrontation and they eventually just faded away. Sometimes, that's the best option.

You can't serve them profitably.

Consulting firms are notorious for charging large fees. Consultants will tell you that companies are notorious for trying to get consultants to provide free services in exchange for PR opportunities. I guess it's a vicious circle.

I've had quite a few potential clients ask me to deliver a complimentary keynote or workshop at a company meeting. The promise is always some variation of "all our division heads will be there and they'll get to see what you can do -- they may even hire you." As a novice consultant, I fell for this line of reasoning a few times until I realized it was unlikely any business would come of it.  Meanwhile, I had spent a day or more of my time preparing, traveling, and delivering the presentation. Not very profitable indeed!

My new strategy is to counteroffer. For example, I referred an alumni group to a speaker who actually went to that school. I gave another client the option of applying my fee to any subsequent business their division heads threw my way (they declined). A third client agreed to pay a smaller fee in exchange for me advising them on creating their own program. In each of these situations, the client was still relatively happy while I didn't engage my firm in an unprofitable activity. Gotta love options!

They are abusive.

I've found that politely offering to end the relationship is an outstanding cure for an abusive client. On a few occasions, I've told a client "I'll give you two options. First, we can treat each other with respect and courtesy or two, we don't have to do business together.  I'll be OK with either choice that you make."

Every time I've given my "two options" speech, the client or customer has picked option one. OK, that may be 5 or fewer times, but I'm still at 100%. My theory is customers are often abusive because they think they can get away with it. Give them two clear choices and their change in demeanor has always been instant. Nobody wants to walk away because they couldn't control themselves!