Customer Engagement and smoke and mirrors travel money 'sales'

I'm travelling in Europe soon so have been watching the exchange rate between the Pound and Euro with more interest than I usually would.  I've noticed some travel shops advertising travel money sales and thought I might take advantage of one to make my money stretch a bit further whilst I'm away.

That is until I had a conversation with a friend who works in a Thomas Cook travel shop this morning.  He explained that when they put up 'sale' signs on travel money the rate doesn't change at all, it's the same as it is (or would be) every other day. 

They would no doubt say that it's not intentionally misleading and maybe even that the signs are purely to make customers aware that travel money is on sale.

But given the almost universally accepted interpretation of the word sale (i.e. an occasion (usually brief) for buying at specially reduced prices) what I thought it meant was different, and I suspect others' do too.

Yet another example of short term thinking driving actions at the expense of the long term relationship with customers.......

LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/timhadfield
Twitter: @accordengage
Telephone: 0044 07906650019

Are your Customer Experience consultants actually damaging your relationships with customers?

I recently read an article written by a consultant from a leading Customer Experience (CE) consultancy.  In it, amongst other things, the author expressed a view that CE isn't about making customers happy but is about motivating them to behave in a way that is valuable to the business.

I agree that it's about more than customer happiness - the word is just too vague to be meaningful.  But I feel extremely uncomfortable with the rest of the sentence.  For me getting customers to do what is valuable to the business implies their manipulation.  Of course, it would be naive not to understand that the very essence of business is about profit - achieving a positive return on investment, but maximising profit without creating sustainable customer relationships doesn't make sense.  It can't be just about the business, it has to be about mutual benefit. 

Both parties have to feel that the value they derive from the relationship makes it of benefit to them to continue it.  The same is true for others involved in the relationship.  Suppliers have to feel it's worth it, shareholders have to be willing to invest, employees have to feel it's worth them continuing to turn up for work.  The value each gets has to be in balance.  If it's not then trust starts to evaporate and the relationship breaks down.  We're seeing it now with milk farmers in the UK feeling their relationship with retailers is out of balance.  It's also the reason that the banks are held in such low regard right now, customers believe that the benefit banks have derived from their custom has been out of kilter.

It worries me that some customer experience consultancies are contributing to the imbalance if they are focusing only on value to the business.  It surely has also to be about the value to customers and should make the connection with value to employees, suppliers and shareholders.....


LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/timhadfield
Twitter: @accordengage
Telephone: 0044 07906650019

Asleep at the wheel

Amidst more revelations over the weekend about the LIBOR crisis I read one commentator suggesting that regulators in the UK, responsible for overseeing the financial services sector, were 'asleep at the wheel'.  His assertion was that given their remit and in particular, the increasing focus they have placed on the importance of organisational culture, they should have a) been aware of flaws in the culture at Barclays and b) done something about it. The accuracy and validity of that view will undoubtedly become clearer as the investigation into the scandal progresses over the coming weeks and months but the idea of being asleep at the wheel is an interesting one.

It’s an idiom which means that someone is not doing their job properly, usually because the job holder has failed to recognise threats or warning signs that may then materialise and have an adverse impact.  It implies that monitoring such indicators is the responsibility of the job holder and that as a result they have neglected those responsibilities.

The literal meaning of the phrase refers to falling asleep whilst driving, the consequences of which can obviously be grave.  You may have experienced a feeling of extreme tiredness whilst driving and possibly even found yourself nodding off at the wheel.  It happened to me recently during a very long journey on the M1 and thankfully I awoke with a start as my car started to veer to the left after I’d momentarily closed my eyes.  The fear and relief I felt was powerful.  Fear of what might have happened had I not woken up and relief that it hadn’t.

The problem was that it was dark outside, my car was comfortable and warm and whilst I was aware I was tired I really didn’t think I’d fall asleep.  My response to these emotions was to open my window and turn on the air conditioning so that the sleep inducing comfort was disturbed by a sudden and rapid fall in temperature.  It wasn’t until I did this that I realised just how warm it was inside the car.  I also stopped at the next service station, got out of the car, walked around, and talked to a barista in a shop whilst buying a cup of coffee.  I thought these things would change my state and the environment that had resulted in me closing my eyes in the first place.  And happily they worked and the rest of my journey was safe and uneventful.  I’ve since decided that I’m going to invest in one of the drivers’ sleep warning devices that trigger an alarm if you start to nod off.

Going back to the growing scandal in the financial services sector (and it’s equally relevant in other sectors, just think for a moment about other scandals in which the word culture has come up in recent years – MP’s expenses, NoTW Phone Hacking, Mis-selling to name but a few)......I suspect that being asleep at the wheel is by and large a fair description of what happened to some of the people in key positions.  The problem with organisational culture is that it becomes it becomes the norm, after a while it’s ‘comfortable’ because it’s what we know.  Its facets, characteristics and idiosyncracies become so familiar that we stop noticing them.  As Edward T Hall eloquently said “Culture hides more than it reveals and strangely enough what it hides, it hides most effectively from its own participants.”

And the risk is even greater when business performance appears reasonably good because every organisation can become so comfortable a place that people end up closing their eyes and having ‘forty winks.’

The questions that need to be asked in every organisation is whether people in it are asleep at the wheel right now?  And if so, is the vehicle heading towards a crash?  What’s the organisational equivalent of opening the windows and turning on the air conditioning?  Is there a metaphorical service station just around the corner that provides the opportunity to walk around, talk to a few people and ‘smell the coffee’?  And would it be a good idea to invest in a sleep warning device?

LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/timhadfield
Twitter: @accordengage
Telephone: 0044 07906650019

How to think about Internal Customers

One simple message in this blog.  If you want your business to deliver a great customer experience then don't talk about internal customers!  It's the wrong thing to do. 

Why?
Because internal customers don't exist.  They are actually colleagues.  Colleagues who need to have an effective and efficient relationship together so that they can deliver a positive experience to real customers, the people who ultimately buy the product or service.  Ultimately isn't the sole purpose of the internal relationships to enable the customer experience?

I understand that companies use the term to illustrate the importance of the internal supply chain but in my view it's counter-productive.  It risks leading non-customer facing people to think that their role doesn't impact the customer, when it's vital they think exactly the opposite.  They must feel that everything they do has an important impact.

Extending this point if every employee can't articulate how what they do, directly or indirectly, impacts customers I'd question why their job exists.  As the story of the NASA cleaner illustrates, employees need to align with the strategy, which for any customer focused organisation will have customers at its core.  I'm sure most people will have heard the story of how President John Kennedy once visited NASA.  He came across a cleaner and asked him what his job was.  The cleaner replied: "My job is to help to put a man on the moon."  There is some doubt about whether the story is true but whether it is or not, it's an illustration of the sort of clarity that we should all aim to achieve for our employees.

There will be people who think that such a change is unnecessary.  After all it's only a phrase isn't it? 

But the question is what does the phrase signify and communicate?  If the language we use illustrates the thoughts we're having, what's the organisational belief it betrays?

So if the phrase 'internal customers' is used in your organisation - I recommend changing it.

LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/timhadfield
Twitter: @accordengage
Telephone: 0044 07906650019

Fish can't see the water they swim in ....

A little over twelve months ago I was appointed by the Court of Protection to look after the financial affairs of my elderly mother who sadly has dementia.  Once appointed all 'deputies' are supervised by the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) and one of the requirements is the production of an annual report which then has to be submitted to the OPG so they can ensure the deputy is fulfilling their responsibilities.

I produced my first annual report recently and submitted it in time for the deadline on 15th June.  It was therefore a surprise to receive a letter from the OPG on the due date which stated:

"Our records show that the report has still not been received."  It went on to say: "Please note that it may take up to 3 weeks for your report to be processed.  if you sent us your report over 3 weeks ago and have not received an acknowledgement letter, please contact us.

If you have returned your report in the last few days please ignore this letter and accept my apologies for any inconvenience this has caused."

This does seem like an extraordinary waste of a letter!  My guess is that most deputies will submit their report in the last week or so prior to the deadline - aren't most people just too busy to schedule things weeks in advance?  Given that why write before the deadline - particularly as the letter suggests they have at least several days and possibly up to 3 weeks backlog of post.  Given the pressure on the public sector to achieve cost savings I also question the cost of producing this letter and posting it - it cost 53 pence.  And of course there's also the deputy 'experience' - what they think and how they feel about being reminded without the OPG being sure that the report hasn't already been received.

I can only conclude that they just don't see the flaws in sending the letter when they do.  I suspect it was part of the process when they had no backlogs and that someone added the final paragraph when they developed backlogs - raher than thinking about more deeply about when is the right time to send it.  And I suspect that's how many of the silly processes and procedures come up - people working in it are so familiar that they stop seeing the flaws.  Like fish who can't see the water they're swimming in......

This one struck me as 'silly'.  Please add your examples .......   

LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/timhadfield
Twitter: @accordengage
Telephone: 0044 07906650019

Is Culture Finally Mainstream?

Harry Wilson, Banking Correspondent for the Telegraph, asked in the paper today whether culture is important in banking?  In the wake of Barclays fine for the deceitful manipulation of LIBOR rates and a fresh mis-selling scandal, the word 'culture' has come up time and time again:

• Governor of the Bank of England, Sir Mervyn King launched a stinging attack on the banking industry and demanded a "real change in culture"...
• Prime Minister David Cameron vowed that the Government will change banking culture, adding that they know what has gone wrong with the UK's banking sector and that they will put it right ...
• Leader of the opposition Ed Miliband called for a full-scale inquiry into banking culture and practices ...
• Lord Turner, chairman of the Financial Services Authority, said the cultural problem in investment banking was not limited to those involved in the Libor fixing scandal. Condemning Barclays, he said: “There is a degree of cynicism and greed that is quite shocking. I think we would be fooling ourselves if we thought that some of the behaviour and culture evidenced in Libor fixing are not found in some other areas of trading activity as well.” ...
• Simon Walker, director general of the Institute of Directors condemned the culture of banking, adding that it was "high time" for a clearout of those in charge
• And even Bob Diamond, Barclays Chief Executive and head of the investment banking unit when the failings identified by the FSA occurred had previously said that culture was at the heart of his recovery plan for Barclays.  Last year he defined it as being "how people behave when they think no-one is watching."

The importance of organisational culture seems to be more widely recognised than ever.  Perhaps it has finally lost the 'pink and fluffy' tag?

Is there also a case for every bank to have its own culture team, working with senior management to articulate the desired future culture and ensure a deep understanding of the current one?

LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/timhadfield
Twitter: @accordengage
Telephone: 0044 07906650019