Author Archives: Andrew McFarland

Customer Service Levels Decline

Once again American Express has released its Customer Service Barometer (2012 version).  Once again, the findings aren’t pretty (see below):

  • Companies consistently miss expectations and are getting steadily worse – 31% in 2012 versus 26% two years earlier.
  • 2/3 of customers are willing to spend more with companies that provide excellent service.  This finding bears out earlier studies.  For those willing to spend more, excellent service translates to 13% more (up from 9% in the 2010 study).
  • Social media is not yet a mainstream mechanism for delivering customer service.  When social media is used to make an inquiry, consumers can count on responses only 31% of the time.   (See this opportunity/risk analysis of using social media to deliver customer service.)

The downward trend in so many metrics suggests one of three possibilities:

  1. Companies are not taking the data to heart.
  2. Companies are delusional about their current state – This option seems likely given The Temkin Group’s finding that 65% of companies rate themselves better than average.  (Mathematically possible, yes, but unlikely just the same.)
  3. Companies are incompetent at implementing the necessary changes.  If this is the case, American Express provides handy “tips” to help.
    1. Great service starts with people – Absolutely agree!  This is also the place poor service starts too, so beware.
    2. Listen to your employees – Only works if employees are listening to customers.
    3. Every interaction is an opportunity to drive engagement – I recommend this book to elucidate.

Nothing in this report changes previous conclusions – the path to greater profitability starts with engaged employees exceeding customer expectations.  The pivot point is to take the actions that will yield the biggest and most immediate positive impact on your customer experience.  Customers clearly want us to succeed and are willing to pay more!  The results show just as clearly that we aren’t.

Mission Accomplished? Say So!

President George W. Bush claimed credit for winning a war only just begun and Vice President Al Gore once famously claimed credit for inventing the internet.   Probably a good idea to do some fact-checking before opening one’s mouth, but claiming credit itself isn’t wrong.

In a previous post I wrote that claiming credit was an optional step in customer communications.  But it would have been more accurate to say that claiming credit is natural step as a company evolves.

At the start of a customer experience journey you may spend all your energy investing in delivering basic service.  At that juncture, claiming credit may well be an afterthought.  However, as Andy Sernovitz reminds us in a thought-provoking post, claiming credit helps change the WOM (word of mouth) dynamic.

Focusing on strengths and victories can also invigorate an entire ecosystem.

  • Employees – Imagine what a positive charge your customer service team would experience if they were reminded of happy customers.  It’s as basic as positive reinforcement vs. negative.  Positive momentum includes every department in the company.  Human Resources?  Sure.  It makes it easier to attract great talent.
  • Shareholders – Institutional and individual investors alike want to know that your company is doing things well and impressing customers.  First person testimonials are worth sharing!
  • Prospects and Customers – People want to be associated with success.  Positive WOM helps de-risk buying decisions and validate good choices.  Negative WOM gets out one way or another.

Now consider 2 alternatives to positive WOM:  silence OR negative press.  Neither is going to boost share price, energize employees or add loyal customers.

So I stand corrected, the pivot point is to make the most of your wins.  Make sure you’ve accomplished the mission… and then say so.  It’s important to point out your good work and to thank customers.  It is even more important to let your prospects, employees, and shareholders know the same thing.

Matchmakers Improve Engagement

Match.com and eHarmony ought to get out of the dating business and into corporate recruiting.  Think of what could happen if employers could find people who were passionate about their jobs.

Instead, most companies focus on filling openings.  When an opening exists in a company the first thing that occurs is someone draws up the list of tasks that the job requires.  They match job functions with candidate experience.  They get exactly what they desired (and deserve) – someone who can do the job.

But there is a world of difference between doing the job and enjoying the job.  In fact, a recent study by Accenture shows that approximately 60% of men and women are dissatisfied with their jobs.  (Ironically, job flexibility, a “benefit” designed in part to reduce turnover, keeps unhappy people in their jobs.)

Dissatisfaction and the resultant lack of employee engagement present a huge drain on (a) corporate profitability and (b) human potential.  To correct this mismatch, two things must occur.

  1. Companies must match jobs with strengths.  While necessary, it isn’t sufficient to follow Jim Collins’ oft-touted advice to “get the right people on the bus.”  Equally important is to ensure people are in the right seats.  In a recent interview, Tracy Dolgin, CEO of YES cable sports discusses his perspective.  The “Reverse Peter Principle” rewards doers (vs. managers).  His experience shows that productivity improves and management overhead expenses are kept in check.
  2. Employees must take a leap of faith to satisfy their intrinsic needs.  Staying in a job because of flexible work arrangements stifles our innate needs to achieve autonomy, mastery, and purpose.  (Brief overview by Daniel Pink on TED.)

The pivot point is that helping people find work that satisfies their deepest needs also fulfills a business purpose (engaged employees impact profitability).  Accenture’s study shows that a benefit such as flexible work schedules DO reduce turnover, but also keep people in jobs that they find unsatisfying.  Their study is yet another proof point that shows how employers and employees both lose when companies limit their mission to filling jobs with qualified people.