In the entry “3 Sorrys” I explained our household rule of the 3 Sorrys: feel sorry, say sorry, and make it better. I then suggested that Customer Service organizations could do well to adopt this same practice. What I neglected to say was Customer Service organizations need to, “Make it better for me (the current customer) now.”
For example, while recently attending an event at a large retailer my children and I were told we were too late to receive the free promotional item being offered despite the fact that the two-hour event had only been taking place for an hour. The manager apologized then went on to explain that on the next conference call he was going to give “Corporate” a piece of his mind - he blamed their lack of planning for the shortage. As the customer, I’m not interested in the internal in-fighting, and you’re putting “Corporate” in their place does nothing to address the current situation. To be quite frank, I don’t care; it’s not my problem.
In this particular situation I wasn’t even looking for any type of compensation – the promotion for the event clearly stated “or until supplies last.” A simple apology would have been appreciated. However, I found it unprofessional and even offensive to have the manager vent to me about “Corporate’s” mistake.
People are most often going to analyze a situation first and foremost by how it affects them. While this may be fine for your customer, you’ve got to avoid the natural pre-disposition to assess and respond to a situation in a self-centered manor. Otherwise you run the risk of further alienating your customer. There will always be time for root-cause analysis and process improvement, but it should not take place while in the middle of a customer service recovery effort. Make it better for the customer (me) in a timely manner (now), then behind the scenes you can work to make it better for next time.
Communication Takes 3 Parts
It takes 3 parts - you, me and the medium.
I was having a tense conversation with a co-worker via e-mail where I was asking him to follow up on something and he was implying I should be responsible. I'd never met him before, but he had the same name as someone I had worked with at Disney World. So I asked at the bottom of my reply to his latest terse message, "Did you ever live in Orlando? You have the same name as someone I worked with at Disney World." And the response came back, "No... were you Mickey Mouse?"
My perspective: Is he implying I do a Mickey Mouse job here?
His perspective: - truly, I don't know. Lighthearted humor? A "zing"? Do I zing back? At least he didn't call me Goofy.
I let it go.
My wife and I have this type of conversation all the time. Not really that she calls me Goofy, which at times would be deserved, but she's coming from a completely different perspective than me. And this is face-to-face where the medium leaves less room for guessing - although tone of voice, posture, eye contact, etc. can still be mis-interpreted. We've finally realized that at times we need to define our position or explain our tone and manner when we make a statement. "I'm raising my voice because I'm frustrated that the air conditioner isn't working, not because I'm mad at you!" clarifying that I was not blaming her for turning on the dryer while the dishwasher and 3 air conditioners were running - truly, I could have just as easily done that. But I was still yelling in her direction if not "at her," and she would naturally become defensive. Who wouldn't? My explanation didn't justify the yelling, just explained it. And by vocalizing that I realized what I was doing, and that self-realization also helped me to quickly calm down. In the past this would have escalated to... well, I'm sure you can imagine.
One other tip learned the hard way: Sarcasm rarely travels well over IM.
I was having a tense conversation with a co-worker via e-mail where I was asking him to follow up on something and he was implying I should be responsible. I'd never met him before, but he had the same name as someone I had worked with at Disney World. So I asked at the bottom of my reply to his latest terse message, "Did you ever live in Orlando? You have the same name as someone I worked with at Disney World." And the response came back, "No... were you Mickey Mouse?"
My perspective: Is he implying I do a Mickey Mouse job here?
His perspective: - truly, I don't know. Lighthearted humor? A "zing"? Do I zing back? At least he didn't call me Goofy.
I let it go.
My wife and I have this type of conversation all the time. Not really that she calls me Goofy, which at times would be deserved, but she's coming from a completely different perspective than me. And this is face-to-face where the medium leaves less room for guessing - although tone of voice, posture, eye contact, etc. can still be mis-interpreted. We've finally realized that at times we need to define our position or explain our tone and manner when we make a statement. "I'm raising my voice because I'm frustrated that the air conditioner isn't working, not because I'm mad at you!" clarifying that I was not blaming her for turning on the dryer while the dishwasher and 3 air conditioners were running - truly, I could have just as easily done that. But I was still yelling in her direction if not "at her," and she would naturally become defensive. Who wouldn't? My explanation didn't justify the yelling, just explained it. And by vocalizing that I realized what I was doing, and that self-realization also helped me to quickly calm down. In the past this would have escalated to... well, I'm sure you can imagine.
One other tip learned the hard way: Sarcasm rarely travels well over IM.
"The report of my death was an exaggeration."
Mark Twain is responsible for the quote in the title of this entry, but it could very well have been said by the person in the story below. Here's a reminder of how important it is to be aware of your medium in communications. Recently I came across the following e-mail:
Let me start with this: my Mom is fine.
She is not dead. She is not ill. She never was. (Knock on wood.)
There is humor in this now, but I'm sure all parties involved felt horrible- except my Mom, who is in much better shape than was reported.
You may want to know the back story on this one - -
Apparently the mother of (Name Omitted 1)'s friend (Name Omitted 2) died. She called (Name Omitted 3), also a friend of (Name Omitted 2), to let her know, but (Name Omitted 1) was only able to leave a voicemail message. (Name Omitted 2) listened to the message but only heard, "... mother died." After pulling over on the side of the road and vomitting, (Name Omitted 2) then called her father, my Mother's brother, and told him my Mother had died and suggested he contact his kids to let them know. Who knows where this bit of mis-information has circulated to by now, but if you hear this incorrect rumor please correct it right away. Later, (Name Omitted 2) finally called (Name Omitted 1) and they got their stories straight. (Name Omitted 1) then called my Mother to let her know that she is not dead, even if she should hear otherwise.
Lessons I learned:
Let me start with this: my Mom is fine.
She is not dead. She is not ill. She never was. (Knock on wood.)
There is humor in this now, but I'm sure all parties involved felt horrible- except my Mom, who is in much better shape than was reported.
You may want to know the back story on this one - -
Apparently the mother of (Name Omitted 1)'s friend (Name Omitted 2) died. She called (Name Omitted 3), also a friend of (Name Omitted 2), to let her know, but (Name Omitted 1) was only able to leave a voicemail message. (Name Omitted 2) listened to the message but only heard, "... mother died." After pulling over on the side of the road and vomitting, (Name Omitted 2) then called her father, my Mother's brother, and told him my Mother had died and suggested he contact his kids to let them know. Who knows where this bit of mis-information has circulated to by now, but if you hear this incorrect rumor please correct it right away. Later, (Name Omitted 2) finally called (Name Omitted 1) and they got their stories straight. (Name Omitted 1) then called my Mother to let her know that she is not dead, even if she should hear otherwise.
Lessons I learned:
- I will never again leave a voicemail message with the word "died." Instead I will say something like, "Please call me back as soon as possible. It's important."
- I am reminded again of the importance of verifying my sources. If do I hear about death by way of voicemail my first call will be to the person who left the message, and I will make no other calls regarding this until I can verify it with my source.
- The game "Operator" we played in 3rd grade can come in handy.
Even here this story loses something in translation, but you can imagine how quickly something like this can get out of hand. And there's a bit of humor in it too - it's almost out of an I Love Lucy episode - in retrospect.
For more thoughts on the communication medium, see my next entry Communication Takes 3 Parts.
Looking Through Other People’s Lenses
The other day I was trying to explain to my 10 year old the concept of considering someone else’s point of view when having a disagreement. I said, “You know how you have hazel eyes and I have blue eyes, right? Well, what if that affected the way we see different colors?”
“But we will never really know,” he added immediately. Quite perceptive I thought. We won’t ever really know exactly how someone ‘sees’ things. If only ‘seeing’ what other people ‘see’ the way they ‘see’ it was as easy as trying on their glasses. But that’s what empathy is – trying to understand someone else’s experience without having that experience yourself.
The concept of empathy was best driven home for me in a communications class I took nearly 20 years ago. The class taught us to break down and visualize the parts of speech in a way I had never before considered. This visualization became particularly effective for me in my Customer Service career. Coming in to this class I had thought of communication as a simple transaction: and idea is formed in person A and transferred to person B, typically in writing or orally.
However, in this class we explored things like the mode, the medium, etc. that all work together to shape and deliver the message being transferred. But just as importantly these same factors work on the receiving end. And finally we considered anything that may get in between point A and point B to muddle or interfere with that transfer (we called it ‘noise’). The final result - - a complex system not unlike a kind of Rube Goldberg contraption much more complex in design than the result produced.
It turns out that everyone’s past experiences shape their lenses and thereby influence the way they perceive their future ones – no wonder the number of continents is socially dependent and Men are From Mars and Women are From Venus. If only empathy were as easy as trying on someone else’s glasses. I’d lend you my rose-colored glasses any time.
“But we will never really know,” he added immediately. Quite perceptive I thought. We won’t ever really know exactly how someone ‘sees’ things. If only ‘seeing’ what other people ‘see’ the way they ‘see’ it was as easy as trying on their glasses. But that’s what empathy is – trying to understand someone else’s experience without having that experience yourself.
The concept of empathy was best driven home for me in a communications class I took nearly 20 years ago. The class taught us to break down and visualize the parts of speech in a way I had never before considered. This visualization became particularly effective for me in my Customer Service career. Coming in to this class I had thought of communication as a simple transaction: and idea is formed in person A and transferred to person B, typically in writing or orally.
A ---> B
However, in this class we explored things like the mode, the medium, etc. that all work together to shape and deliver the message being transferred. But just as importantly these same factors work on the receiving end. And finally we considered anything that may get in between point A and point B to muddle or interfere with that transfer (we called it ‘noise’). The final result - - a complex system not unlike a kind of Rube Goldberg contraption much more complex in design than the result produced.
It turns out that everyone’s past experiences shape their lenses and thereby influence the way they perceive their future ones – no wonder the number of continents is socially dependent and Men are From Mars and Women are From Venus. If only empathy were as easy as trying on someone else’s glasses. I’d lend you my rose-colored glasses any time.
The Number of Continents is Socially Dependent
Did you know the number of continents is socially dependent? (What do I mean by socially dependent? Sometimes this is referred to as culturally biased, but I’m biased against the word “biased.”) We all understand that your language, lifestyle, health & longevity, and beliefs system (among many other things) are dictated in large part by your where and when you are born. True, your life experiences will have a lot to do with these as well, but even your life experiences are impacted by where and when you are born. But did you know that where and when you are born determines your understanding of “facts”?
Understandably, spirituality is regarded as truth, or fact, by those who ascribe to each religion, and I am not here to debate anyone’s spirituality. I am simply referring to “facts” we find in our science textbooks. For example, the number of continents is a matter of opinion. I had always been taught, as sure as the earth revolves around the sun (just ask Galileo), there are seven continents. Then about fifteen years ago I had the opportunity to work with college-aged people from all over the world in Walt Disney World’s EPCOT Center. One day while speaking with my co-workers from Mexico they mentioned the five continents.
“Five?” I asked, “Don’t you mean seven?”
“Seven? No, there are only five: Europe, Africa, America, Asia, and Australia.”
“What about Antarctica?” I asked, “And North America and South America?”
Their answer opened my eyes, not so much for the answer itself, but their reasoning behind it. Why is Antarctica considered a continent and not the Arctic? What differentiates North America from South America? And although I had points I could argue about both, what I realized is that my arguments could be boiled down past “facts” and into nothing more than my beliefs – beliefs I had been taught as “facts” because of where and when I was born. But the beliefs that they built their “facts” upon were no less valid. In the end we had to agree to disagree.
But what I also realized was that things I knew as “fact” were just educated opinions; not necessarily right, yet not wrong either. I often look back on this lesson when I “know” other things but someone voices a conflicting “fact.” (This goes along way toward looking through other people’s lenses.)
Apparently the number of planets in our solar system is socially dependent too? But if Pluto is not a planet then what did My Very Educated Mother Just Serve Us Nine of?
Understandably, spirituality is regarded as truth, or fact, by those who ascribe to each religion, and I am not here to debate anyone’s spirituality. I am simply referring to “facts” we find in our science textbooks. For example, the number of continents is a matter of opinion. I had always been taught, as sure as the earth revolves around the sun (just ask Galileo), there are seven continents. Then about fifteen years ago I had the opportunity to work with college-aged people from all over the world in Walt Disney World’s EPCOT Center. One day while speaking with my co-workers from Mexico they mentioned the five continents.
“Five?” I asked, “Don’t you mean seven?”
“Seven? No, there are only five: Europe, Africa, America, Asia, and Australia.”
“What about Antarctica?” I asked, “And North America and South America?”
Their answer opened my eyes, not so much for the answer itself, but their reasoning behind it. Why is Antarctica considered a continent and not the Arctic? What differentiates North America from South America? And although I had points I could argue about both, what I realized is that my arguments could be boiled down past “facts” and into nothing more than my beliefs – beliefs I had been taught as “facts” because of where and when I was born. But the beliefs that they built their “facts” upon were no less valid. In the end we had to agree to disagree.
But what I also realized was that things I knew as “fact” were just educated opinions; not necessarily right, yet not wrong either. I often look back on this lesson when I “know” other things but someone voices a conflicting “fact.” (This goes along way toward looking through other people’s lenses.)
Apparently the number of planets in our solar system is socially dependent too? But if Pluto is not a planet then what did My Very Educated Mother Just Serve Us Nine of?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)