Archive for the ‘knowledge’ Category

Why company story-listening is democratic

Wednesday, October 1st, 2008

I’m beginning to spend a lot of time listening to stories within companies, and between companies and their customers. Listening to and understanding these stories can help companies adapt to changing markets and competitors, and help their employees work together better.

It’s democratic, too. What does that mean? you may be wondering. Traci Fenton, head of WorldBlu and the leader of the corporate-democracy movement, asked me the same question a few months ago. I was trying to explain to her the connection between my work helping companies gather and act on stories and her work promoting the creation of democratic processes and institutions within companies.

To me, it makes all the sense in the world.

To be a participant in a democratic venture, you need to be informed. Lots of information, from different viewpoints, even if it can be contradictory or confusing, is essential to you doing your job, which is to participate in your own governance and direction.

You must also have a voice. Sometimes that voice is a statement at the voting booth. Other times, it is the ability to stand up at the borough council meeting and tell the council they need to approve the school-building project once and for all.

Gathering stories from employees and customers gives them a voice. Sharing them throughout the company provides critical information for employees to act on. Training folks to make sense out of them can root out complacency and provide a platform for action.

If you’re a corporate leader who wants your company to be democratic, you better institutionalize the gathering and sharing of stories. From the inside and the outside.

[If you're interested in corporate democracy, you should consider attending WorldBlu Live this month in New York.]

Related Posts:
A Sense of Urgency
Corporate Change Series
Competitive Advantage: Customer-facing Employees

Tags:
, , ,

Customer complaints as a source of business insight

Monday, September 22nd, 2008

We’re taking a brief detour from the corporate change series to discuss customer complaints (every businessperson’s favorite subject) though in truth it is very much in sync with the “letting the outside in” philosophy we’ve been discussing in those other posts. The Wall Street Journal’s occasional Business Insight section prompted the thoughts with today’s article, “Making the Most Of Customer Complaints,” by Stefan Michel and David Bowen of the Thunderbird School of Global Management and Robert Johnston of Warwick Business School.

“Making the Most…” focuses on the relationship between the customer, the front-line rep, and service management, and correctly describes how to manage a complaint to minimize damage to customer satisfaction without “giving away the store,” and to incent behaviors that will result in customers leaving the interactions feeling good (or at least not badly) about their vendor. It’s particularly insightful when describing the conflicts the front-line reps feel when trying to deal with a difficult customer situation:

These workers have the difficult task of dealing with customers who hold them responsible even when the failures in question are completely out of their control. The attitudes of customer-service workers, positive and negative, spill over onto customers.

Yet companies do surprisingly little to support them.

To be successful, these workers need to feel that management is providing the means to deliver successful service recovery on a continuing basis. Alternatively, when employees believe management doesn’t support them, they tend to feel they are being unfairly treated and so treat customers unfairly. They display passive, maladaptive behaviors and can even sabotage service.

This alienation is compounded when the workers believe that management is not improving the service-delivery process, which keeps employees in recurring failure situations. Even though complaining customers represent an opportunity to fix problems and improve satisfaction, alienated employees often see them as the enemy.

In addition to the sound advice to repair the processes, provide appropriate guidance to employees and management, and incent customer-delighting behaviors, there’s a broader value that I see to studying these interactions.

Customer complaints are a window into the customer’s use of the product and perception of the company. Virtually all satisfied customers are silent. Many dissatisfied customers are silent as well–calling customer service is time-consuming and frustrating. The fact that many problems aren’t resolved compounds people’s feeling that engaging with the company is simply not worth the trouble.

This means that any customer complaint reported to the company is a very important piece of data. Taken together, complaints can illuminate patterns pointing to product over-complexity, poor usability, underservicing, poor expectation-setting. The patterns might tell you that the customer-service approach you are so proud of is not working as well as it should. Or that customers are using a product differently from how you expected them to. The patterns serve as marching orders to product management, marketing and customer service for important value-adding projects.

But… you have to collect and sort through the data. It can’t be resigned to the bit bucket because it’s unpleasant or tells you things you’d prefer not to hear. I have started to work with clients to learn from customer-service interactions–the raw material, not just the statistics. And, not surprisingly, we are always surprised by what we learn.

Related posts:
Time to start listening to front-line employees

Tags:
, , , ,

A competitive advantage: employees who "spend most of their day talking to people"

Thursday, August 28th, 2008

I recall a number of years ago dialing 411 (Information) and asking the operator for a phone number for a store a few miles away in Boston. In a thick Dorchester accent, she corrected the name of the store for me. “I think you mean this one,” she said, and she was right.

Old school customer service has been in decline for some time now–pushed out by the costcutting allure of self-service, offshoring, IVRs, etc.

Impersonal customer service works in some cases. Shopping for a known commodity like a book, or CD, for example, or putting a vacation stop on your newspaper delivery. But companies have thrown the baby out with the bathwater, because if it’s really important to understand what a customer needs, a trained, empathetic person is the best resource a company can have. These folks, as John Kotter writes in “A Sense of Urgency,” help “bring the outside in”–in other words, they provide insight from a vital outside constituency–customers–into the organization.

I’ve talked before in this blog about how data about customer interactions will be captured and mined for insights about customer perceptions of products, service and the company that provides them. Today, surveys and focus groups attempt to paint this picture. Tomorrow, the real, raw data will be used. Stories from customers, and the stories from the people who serve them directly.

This will provide a new value proposition for customer service. As opposed to a replaceable part hired at the lowest hourly rate possible, front-line staff will be well-paid and well-trained. Their insights will be carefully collected and utilized, and products (and the customers that buy them) will be better off for them.

Shifting customer service to a different location to save $1.00 a call will be unthinkable.

It’s possible that Best Buy’s Geek Squad is an early prototype of this mindset. In an article in today’s New York Times, Matt Richtel depicts a power struggle between computer manufacturers who install application craplets on their PCs, and retailers, who are responding to customers’ desire to buy a PC free of craplets. This section was notable:

Mr. Stephens of Geek Squad says he agrees with H. P. that the future is in allowing computer buyers to choose and download what they want. But he said he believed Best Buy, not H. P., was in the best position to help people choose what works for them because, he argued, the in-store technicians are in closest contact with them.

“Geek Squad agents have one thing over Apple and Microsoft engineers. We spend most of the day talking to people,” he said.

Related posts:
Businesses need “A Sense of Urgency”
Time to start listening to front-line employees

Tags:
, , , ,

Time to start listening to front-line employees

Wednesday, August 13th, 2008

I have a colleague who runs a small outsourced contact center in the Pacific Northwest. I told him of my project to find and use stories from call centers to get more useful customer input. He said, “It’s a great idea, but nobody listens to the reps.”

Then, as I wrote about last week, a bank that is renowned as a great place to work told me that an idea to have tellers share via internal blogs customer interactions they found interesting was a non-starter: “We just put into place a policy to limit the access our employees have to the internet.”

Well, it’s time to start listening to the reps. It’s time to let tellers blog about what they experience.

We generally accept that having happy employees at the front lines can help revenues, because happy employees convey good feelings to the customers they meet, making those customers feel better about who they’re buying from, etc.

But it’s now clear that in addition to courtesy and helpfulness, front-line employees also know more about what customers want, what they like and don’t like, how they feel about the company, than anyone else. Because “the reps” hear it, every day, direct and unfiltered.

Back in the day, the only way an executive could access this insight would be to visit stores and talk to employees and customers him/herself. This still happens. But with cheap, ubiquitous data-sharing technology like blogs, RSS, wikis, social sites, etc., there’s nothing standing in the way of systematically gathering and immersing oneself in detailed, rich information about customer interactions–even if you’re the CEO.

And don’t you think getting the chance to communicate, and being listened to, might increase the job satisfation of the front-liners?

An executive at a large US insurer told me that at their quarterly management meetings they listen to selected recordings of customer calls. “It’s always a shock when you hear what customers say directly. We’re so far removed from the customer.”

Precisely.

Related post:
Enterprise use of 2.0 collides with restrictive access policies

Tags:
, , , , , , ,

Enterprise use of web2.0 collides with restrictive access policies

Friday, August 1st, 2008

I’ve been talking to a prospective client in the banking industry about a project to have tellers blog about interesting customer encounters they have, as a way to share knowledge on the behaviors of fraudsters and other front-line customer service issues, especially with executives who are removed from most front-line customer communication.

I talked to them yesterday and they said they can’t pursue the project for two reasons. One was a concern about wide sharing of possibly sensitive data, a reasonable concern that can be addressed with standards and practices of data accessibility, and guidelines about appropriate and inappropriate subjects.

The second was a show-stopper. “We just put a policy in place to strictly limit the amount of internet usage by our people. This project would go counter to that by encouraging people to use the internet more to blog and to monitor RSS feeds.”

I went slack-jawed, hearing this. With the potential of web2.0 tools to open up lines of communication, gather and share vivid data, and generally create a stronger, more capable staff, this company was concerned about people spending too much work time on Myspace or eBay.

Under Jeff Thull’s credo of “going for the no,” I stopped working this opportunity immediately. If a company wants to reduce their team’s internet usage, and my project is predicated on increasing it, that’s not a battle I will win.

But worse than the opportunity lost was the sinking feeling that enterprises are just not understanding the value in the new social media and by choking off access they risk permanently missing out on the possibilities. Perhaps Andrew McAfee’s healthy pessimism about business’ adoption of these tools is warranted.

Tags:
, , , ,

How to read a web newspaper

Thursday, October 25th, 2007

OK, so I know that everything on the web is miscellaneous. But I’ve been wondering why I interact with two highly similar web sites so differently.

I subscribe to both the New York Times and Wall Street Journal newspapers, and read both online (especially when traveling, like today).

When I read the NYT online, I meander through the sections–sports (yay Red Sox), technology, business, arts, books. Pretty much in that order. I just about never read the front page. I go right for the detail.

With the WSJ online, I invariably seek out the button that says “Today’s Newspaper.” Clicking this loads a page where articles are listed in the order they appear in the paper, with page number headings–A1, A2, etc. It’s not laid out like the paper, but for example Marketplace is the second section, starting with page B1, just like the hardcopy edition.

Why do I use these two sites so differently? In part, I’ve always navigated the Times miscellaneously. (Sunday paper reading order–sports, arts, books, business, week in review, styles, magazine. I recall my astonishment seeing my friend Gerry Halstead read the Sunday Times front section once, beginning to end, each article in full. It took him a good hour.)

But I do read the Journal in order: section A (glance at the op-ed page but not too closely so I don’t get annoyed), section B, skip section C (not enough investments to worry about that), section D, if at all, over lunch.

And so it is online. The cool thing about the web, and with well-organized web sites, is that the user can choose. Read it our way, read it your way. Whichever you prefer.

, , , ,

Miscellaneous means more knowledge for those who want to dive in

Tuesday, August 21st, 2007

If you love the messiness that is the sprawl of information on the World Wide Web, then read “Everything Is Miscellaneous,” by David Weinberger. If you hate that messiness, you should read the book, too. It’ll teach you a few things.

Weinberger describes how the nonhierarchical, unfiltered, near-chaos of blogs, wikis, Amazon playlists and Digg rankings offers us far more possibilities to learn, engage and converse than we ever had going to neatly-organized libraries and reading our local newspaper. (Disclosure: I happen to like blogs. And newspapers too.)

One concept discussed in “Everything Is Miscellaneous” is “social knowing,” in which “connections among people help guide what the group learns and knows.” Via the range of comments on a blog post, or the discussion page on a Wikipedia entry, the reader can absorb the information in a posting, plus an array of opinions about it–some nutty, some profound, all passionate. Hyperlinks can lead the reader to source material, and she can draw her own conclusions about the opinions in the text. All in all, there’s the ability for a reader to deepen the context, almost infinitely, when gathering information on the Web. And therefore the possibilities to study and grow are similarly endless.

In this Weinberger echoes Richard Ogle in “Smart World,” who argued that creative leaps were enabled by the environment in which the creator lived and worked–his world helped think for him. Picasso in creating Cubism had the museums of Paris and dialogue and competition from collaborators such as Braque.

Whereas we’ve got pretty much the whole world available from our laptop. Who can say what we can do with it?