NO MORE BS: QT and LHI – Let’s Talk Customer Service

Thank you!For a long time, I have deeply respected QuickTrip (QT).  Their customer service is of such outstanding quality; even when their fuel is more expensive, I still prefer shopping at QT.  The people go out of their way to help you have a fantastic customer experience.  I have never had a rude employee, a poor customer interaction, or left with an unresolved problem.  I struggle with a cane and neurological issues and have had doors held open for me; cashiers have brought me my change, always a good experience at QT.  Thank you!

On the other end of the spectrum, you have the Department of Motor Vehicles, and they are joined by Logistics Health Incorporated (LHI).  I have had my share of detestable customer service experiences; I am a customer service subject matter expert and have been regularly published on customer service topics.  When I rate LHI as competing for the DMV for the worst possible customer service provider, LHI might even have the DMV shaded!Angry Wet Chicken

16 April 2021 – I enter LHI at 5333 N 7th St, Phoenix location; I am 35-minutes early to a 1200 appointment.  On 25 March 2021, the Gov. of Arizona stopped enforcing mandatory masking.  As a person with a documented medical condition where I struggle to breathe enough volume per breath and cannot physically wear a mask, I did not wear a mask to this appointment.  I was rudely asked to wear a mask by the receptionist.  I showed her my Dr.’s note about having breathing problems where I cannot wear a mask.  The receptionist, after making considerable noise, canceled my appointment as a no-show.  Guess who is not going to be paid for my mileage to and from the facility.

I went to my car, called LHI Customer Service number 866-933-8387; the representative tried calling the facility.  After several hold sessions, she told me she would find me a provider who would work with me on the mask issue to complete the VA Contracted Compensation and Pension Appointment.  I never heard back from this representative.

Angry Wet Chicken 27-10 days later, I receive a call to reschedule an appointment spending more than 2 hours talking to the representative, who finally schedules me an appointment with another non-LHI provider in Phoenix for 10 May 2021.  I received a call from that provider confirming I have an appointment.  Yet, a bait and switch occurred, and my appointment was then rescheduled for the same provider, same LHI facility, and I attended this appointment.

0750, 10 May 2021 – I arrive early for the 0800 appointments.  The receptionist is belligerent when I walk through the door about me not being seen without a mask.  She further stipulated that since I can talk, I can wear a mask, and nothing I say will change that “medical opinion.”  She eventually tells me to call customer service and have them call her to relate treatment instructions.  She refused me a supervisor and then proceeded to make a bunch of calls, often holding her iPhone in one hand and the office phone in another.

While on the phone with Emily at LHI, at 33:35, into my call with the LHI customer service center, the Phoenix Police arrive.  The receptionist had called 911 and claimed, “I have a disruptive patient, who refuses to follow directions, is swearing, and throwing things, and refuses to leave the building.”  Officer Pacheco Badge #11039, Report # 21-725905, and his partner arrive, speak with the receptionist, who repeats her claim, then they talk to me.Apathy

I report I have not used swear words.  I have not thrown anything.  I have not been told to vacate the premises.  I have a medical condition that precludes me from wearing a mask, and I cannot physically wear a mask.  I show the officers my Dr.’s note to this effect.  The officer then turns to another patient who happened to have come in after me, and he confirms to the officer everything I said.  The worst language that the receptionist can truthfully claim that was used at her was “belligerent” and “snowflake.”  I will own the fact I called her belligerent and a snowflake.

Angry Grizzly BearThe officers go back to the receptionist, who two other people have now joined, names unknown, wearing scrubs presumably from the treatment rooms in the back.  They then make several calls.  Then one of the people asks if I can wear a mask but not over my nose.  I explain it is a breathing volume problem I have, and any mask hinders my volume of air per breath and makes breathing difficult.  The people behind the desk are seriously unhappy that my breathing problem does not have a name, a disease, or some identifying characteristic: the receptionist, the officers, and the people from the back return to a hushed conversation.  I am still on the phone with Emily and on hold while Emily is trying to contact the site.quote-mans-inhumanity

Finally, a decision is made, would I wear a face shield.  I claimed I have offered to wear a face shield twice and been told, face mask or nothing by the receptionist.  A nurse practitioner finally agrees if I wear a face shield, she will see me.  She then spent the next two hours complaining about me being an hour late to the appointment, her “very full schedule,” and how we had to “get this done quickly.”

Then, the nurse practitioner proceeds to lecture me twice about getting the vaccination for COVID-19 and how if I had the vaccination, they would be more comfortable with me not wearing a mask.  At no time, in the first or second interactions with the receptionist, did anyone ask me if I had received the vaccination.  I then finally left with a lecture about not being “anti-vax.” How she had no symptoms or post-injection problems, and how since I already have breathing problems, my comorbidity meant I should be seriously considering getting the vaccine.VA 3

I am not “Anti-Vax!”  I want my questions answered before I get the vaccine.  I want truthful information from peer-reviewed resources that I can reference and discuss with my primary care provider, neurologist, podiatrist, and other specialists who help me manage my health.  I want to know about drug interactions and the vaccine.  I need to know how this will affect diabetes because the experiences of Indians who are diabetic have been horrible!

I have no idea if the nurse practitioner did her job or just wasted my time.  What I do know is that LHI is about 100% useless in their customer service!  Failure to keep promises is the number one reason why trust is built or shattered.  Failure to carry through with what you promise is the second most common reason why trust is Bird of Preydestroyed in customer service.  Face-to-face providers need to be looking for solutions, not actively looking to inconvenience the customer.  100% of the medical profession IS customer service.  How the provider approaches the customer (patient) is the number one factor in how that patient will respond to treatment.

LHI, if you decide to respond, I will indeed include your response in a follow-on article.  However, at this moment, you have scored with the DMV as the worst possible example of customer service, and I hope you learn fast to care for the patient better!  I am fed up with your treatment, and change is mandatory; immediately!

© 2021 M. Dave Salisbury
All Rights Reserved
The images used herein were obtained in the public domain; this author holds no copyright to the images displayed.

NO MORE BS: Government Customer Service

Duty 3As a subject matter expert on customer service, as a professional customer service provider, and as a concerned American, I have to state for the record, the government’s abuse of the taxpaying customer is beyond atrocious, ridiculous, and craven!  I am sick to death of being treated like cat vomit; when I seek customer support from the government, I pay such incredible sums to fund.  Worse, I am fed up with the bureaucratic mindset that places the customer in the wrong, the customer as a pain, and the customer as a nuisance to be endured instead of assisted professionally.

ProblemsMy local Post Office here in Phoenix was visited yesterday (03 March 2021).  The Post Office does not deliver packages to the apartment complex we live in, so the standard procedure is for the USPS delivery person (mailman) to place a card notifying the customer of a package on a 10-day hold in the customer’s mailbox.  Since we moved in, we have not gotten these indicators, and Monday, my wife was notified a package she needs was returned by USPS.  It was delivered Monday to the Post Office and returned to sender as “customer refused delivery” the same day.

I went to the Post Office seeking answers.  The counter-working postal representative was the epitome of rude, obnoxious, and downright unfriendly.  It took more than an hour for a supervisor to arrive, and upon discussing the problem, I was told, “Lots of your neighbors have been complaining about this issue.”  Are you kidding me?!?!?!  You have two 500+ Apartment complexes across the street from each other, multiple people from both complexes are complaining about package delivery failures, and with a smile, you can tell me this is a known issue.

Theres moreAsk yourself the following question, if you had upwards of 100 customers complaining about your work, how long would you remain employed?  Frankly, I am still stunned 24+ hours after the interaction with this supervisor.  My visit was the sixth time I had been to the Post Office complaining about not getting package notifications and having trouble with packages sitting around the post office taking up space.  One of these visits included speaking to the Post Office’s head, general, whatever, the top person in charge of a local post office is titled.  Still, the employee has maintained their job, kept the same route, and the customers continue to be abused.

After I wrote a formal complaint, I was assured that action would be taken, and the employee talked to about this oversight in their duties.  Seriously, that was exactly what the supervisor said, “the employee will be talked to.”  I understand the human resources processes, understand and have designed human resource processes, and possess a Doctor of Psychology title specializing in industrial and organizational psychology.  But, I do not know how 100+ complaints can arrive at the post office weekly, and the same mailman is only on their verbal reprimand for failure to perform their duties.  We have been complaining about this issue for a year now, and in speaking with several neighbors, they have been complaining for longer than a year about this failure.  I have some doubts that this issue will be resolved, ever!

Detective 4But hey, the Post Office is only one of the government agencies exhibiting a race to the bottom where customer abuse and customer disservice are concerned.  The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), a state-run agency, is always in this race, and they take hostile customer service to new heights, or depths, depending upon how you look at their performance.  The last visit to the DMV ended with screaming for several minutes in my car before possessing the proper mindset to drive away safely.  The DMV is comparable to a dentist drilling before anesthesia starts and doing a poor job on an infected tooth; you just know you will have a bad day when a visit to the DMV is scheduled!

Yet, in discussing the race to the bottom, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is also a constant competitor in asinine customer service practices, customer abuse, and inept inertia.  I do not think the VA could even get bureaucratic inertia correct if someone had not taught them how.  The Department of Veterans Affairs – Office of Inspector General (VA-OIG) investigated a surgical supply program for abuses and found:

VA controls were not sufficient to ensure VA medical facility staff accurately reviewed, verified, or certified distribution fee invoices for the program. VA also did not ensure staff at medical facilities accurately established and applied the on-site representative rates and paid fees based on annual facility purchases. The pricing schedule establishes fee rates for on-site representatives based on annual facility purchase amounts.”

The amount of money involved is staggering ($4.6 Billion). The fact that the VA cannot correctly oversee a supply program, check invoices, monitor stock levels, and pay invoices properly does not bode well for integrity in customer service.

LinkedIn VA ImageThe VA is to be congratulated, the colonoscope, which is used on multiple patients for a colonoscopy, is being cleaned properly and to standard, which means that infections from one patient are less likely to occur in another patient transferred from the colonoscope.  However, the training program, certification program, and training documentation remain under considerable scrutiny for continual failure, as discovered by a VA-OIG investigation of 10 different clinics!  Training, certification of training, and documenting and tracking training are internal customer service actions that the entire VA continues to fail.  Whoever is in charge of adult education and training at the VA is not performing their jobs, and this is witnessed every couple of weeks in the VA-OIG investigation results across the entire VA.  Designed incompetence leading to customer service failures, absolutely ridiculous!

I-CareThe VA-OIG conducted a lengthy investigation at the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) Chicago VA Regional Benefits office in Illinois.

The OIG found claims processors did not properly correct administrative errors in 88 percent of cases reviewed. Errors resulted in improper underpayments of about $59,100 to six veterans, improper overpayments of $18,900 to two veterans, and $5,900 in debts VA had inappropriately collected from eight veterans through January 2020.”

Revisiting the Post Office example above, if you had an 88% error rate in your job, how long would you expect to keep your job?  Training and certification of claims processing personnel remains a failure of internal customer service and is mentioned in every VBA investigation by the VA-OIG.  As a point of fact, the failures of training and training certification were recently cited as a significant deficiency, where in 2018, no certification and training occurred due to internal technical problems with the intranet.  Yet, even with all this evidence that training is failing, certification is not occurring, and claims processors continue to abuse veterans through clerical, system, procedural, and process errors on claims, they maintain their positions.  Cited in this latest VBA investigation was the claims processors’ continual failure to communicate with the veteran.

Boris & NatashaConsider the following analogy.  A 100% disabled veteran gets paid once a month and budgets those monies very carefully to last the entire month.  A claims decision is made, and without any communication for why, the amount the veteran is expecting to live is cut in half.  The veteran is then responsible for wading through the various call centers to find why, how the decisions were made, and what to do, which takes time, lots, and lots of time on the phone.  While bills go unpaid, food goes unpurchased, financial difficulties mount, and correcting the situation takes more time.  Sure, the VA will pay back pay, but that is never sufficient to cover all the accruing costs and losses experienced.

Hostile customer service by the government is the most inexcusable example of customer disservice imaginable.  Why; because there is no competitor to move your business.  There are no pathways for holding customer service representatives accountable when even talking to a supervisor is not worth the time and effort.  I spent four hours on the phone chasing a claims processing error; at one point, I finally got so mad I demanded a supervisor.  I waited on hold for just under 120-minutes for the supervisor, who said had I worked better with the agent, I would not have had to wait, and the problem could have been resolved, as their opening statement!

Survived the VABy this time, I had worked with four separate agents who were confused or refused the call by hanging up.  I had been sworn at, I had been told I was a liar, and I was told my office could not handle your request.  Each call required anywhere between 30 and 50 minutes of hold time waiting for an agent.  As the supervisor reviewed the problem, they discovered that their agents could not have handled the situation, and a specialist was required.  But, I never got an apology from the supervisor for the waste of my time, the issues experienced with previous agents, nor the loss of my time and resources it took to handle the problem.

Gadsden FlagGovernment employees beware; how you treat customers is a problem, and you need to be held to task for your insolence, depravity, ineptitude, inertia, and uncaring attitudes!  When discussing the BS of government, the customer service issue is the most egregious.  I will call you out publicly every time you abuse a customer.  I am done being abused!

© 2021 M. Dave Salisbury
All Rights Reserved
The images used herein were obtained in the public domain; this author holds no copyright to the images displayed.

Call Center Chaos and Appreciative Inquiry

While this article discusses government call centers generally, and New Mexico (NM) Government call centers specifically, please do not think the problems described are specific only to, or lessons could not be applied to, many other call centers.  New Mexico Government call centers all have a common problem, they are purposefully designed to not help or serve the customer.  Worse, the work processes are convoluted to the point that work takes anywhere from 10 – 15% longer than it should, costing 30 – 50% more than it should.  Worse, if a customer gets connected to an “Escalation Department,” the workers in that department have no authority, no tools, and nothing they can do but repeat marketing materials, and hope the customer goes away.

Cute CalfEssentially, the NM Government call centers, at the city and state levels of government are as emasculated as a spring-born calf!  Let that sink in for a moment.  No tools, no authority, no support, and only their verbal wits to make the customer go away.  If you think this problem is only apparent in government call centers; well, you are wrong.

AT&T has a very similar, though not as endemic issue.  Sprint, the problem is both apparent and not considered a problem.  AIU, COX, Comcast/Xfinity, FEDEX, UPS, UoPX, and more, you all have very similar issues where the work processes and the customer service are disconnected, leaving employees emasculated and stuck spouting marketing lines in the hope of appeasing the customer.  Sure, some of you have better call escalation processes, but these escalation processes only show the emasculation of your people more exactly.

For example, take today’s interactions with a NM Government Call Center.  The representative on the call escalation line could very easily reach out to their supervisor and take the criticisms and ideas from the customer’s call, put them forth as their own ideas, and improve the call center and customer attentiveness of the organization.  Unfortunately, sad experience has shown that new ideas in NM Government Call Centers are anathema to the good order and discipline of the call center.  Thus, proving that the endemic lack of customer attentiveness is systematic in NM Government Call Centers and considered a benefit to the customer/taxpayer using the government service.

Purposeful customer abuse is not appreciated, not acceptable, and eventually leads the call center to ruin.  Which is a monumental waste of the potential in your employees, as well as being ruinously expensive for some future disaster.  In speaking with retail associates at Comcast/Xfinity and COX Communications, one learns from frontline representatives what to expect from calling the call centers.  If the retail associates are frustrated with the inability to be served, this is automatically passed to the customer.  Bank of America has this problem in spades!

Appreciative InquiryAppreciative inquiry is a growth mechanism that states that what a business organization needs, they already have enough of, provided they listen to their employees.  Appreciative inquiry and common sense tells leaders who want to know and change their organization, how, and where to go to begin.  Appreciative inquiry-based leadership is 6-continuous steps that start small, and cycle to larger problems as momentum for excellence permeates through an organization.  But the first step, just like in defeating a disabling addiction, is admitting there is a problem.

Coming back to the NM Government Call Center, the front-line supervisor upon hearing about this representative’s experience, chooses to believe there is a problem.  Knowing that the problems are endemic and systematic in the organization, decides, “For my team, we will be the core of excellence.”  Thus, this supervisor is now motivated to take the second step in the appreciative inquiry cycle, “Define.”

The supervisor defines what they can change, and then from that list of items that they can control will select the first item to change by asking themselves and their team, “Which item on this list can we tackle first?”  Thus, leading to the third step in appreciative inquiry, “Discover.”

Imperative at this step is the focus upon what is already going right on the topic selected.  Not focusing upon what is wrong, or upon what cannot be controlled or influenced by the team.  Focus on the positive, list the best of what is going right!  For example, if the inquiry will be reducing hold times, and the team has been trending down from multiple hours to single hours of hold time, focus on the positive, and get ideas about tips used from those who are successful in reducing hold times.

The idea in discovery is to create the motivation for the next step in appreciative inquiry, “Dream.”  But, do not dream small!  Remember, when you shoot for the sun and miss, you still land among the stars.  Dream BIG!  Dreaming is all about setting your sights on what currently is considered impossible, that your team can make possible.  Going back to reducing hold times, set the dream at 30-minutes.  You can always come back and dream bigger or repeat the appreciative inquiry cycle on this topic again in the future.

Next, “Design,” design the future and it becomes your destiny; which also happens to be the remaining two steps in the appreciative inquiry cycle.  President Thomas Monson is quoted as saying, “Decisions DO Determine Destiny” [emphasis in original].  If you decide the status quo is acceptable, that decision determines the destiny, and ruination will follow.  If you decide to pursue excellence, this decision will determine how successful you and your team can be.  Design the future you desire, state the goal, write it down, post the goal, speak positively about the goal, and build momentum through accomplishing small steps towards the goal.

Thus, the destiny is born into fruition and what today is impossible, is tomorrow’s reality.  Destiny in the appreciative inquiry cycle is defined as creating what the future will be.  Positive growth occurs through incremental steps and changes the destination.

A pilot friend of mine loves the story about a new pilot who is making their first cross-country flight with a more experienced pilot.  The young pilot is close to being able to solo, and the experienced pilot knows the route, the weather, and decides to let the young pilot fly solo for a few hours.  The new pilot gets bored holding a single course and wavers a little to the left, and a little to the right of the base course and does not think anything of the consequences.  Several hours go by and the experienced pilot returns to the flight deck to discover bad weather is moving in fast, the small lane cannot fly in the weather that is coming necessitating an unscheduled landing, and the plane is 400-miles off base course.  The young pilot said, I only moved a few degrees left and right, we cannot be that far off course.  Later the experienced pilot shows a track of the airplane on a map to the young pilot and reality sinks in, by a matter of a few degrees, over time, the plane got in trouble.

A few DegreesAppreciative inquiry is exactly like the plane, by having a destination, defined according to positive desires, through the process of discovery, dreaming of the possible future, while designing the future, the appreciative inquiry leader can make the small changes today that move the destination from ruination to success.

The first step is admitting there is a problem, and desire to fix that problem at all costs.  What are you passionate enough about to fix at all costs?  Whether you are a representative or a company director, the same question applies and the answer will determine your ultimate destiny.  The key is action at all costs.  The efforts, time, resources, etc. will be spent to achieve does not matter, the new destination does matter.

A call center supervisor friend of mine had three stellar and highly experienced employees on their team.  My friend also had some young talent with incredible potential.  Because the three stellar employees did not want to become supervisors, this effectively blocked the new employees from achieving potential.  My friend had to make a choice, lose the new potential, or reorganize the team.  My friend chooses to keep the experienced people, and shortly after this decision was made, two quit for other opportunities, the new potential quit because they longed for professional growth, my friend was promoted, and the new supervisor had no depth of experience left on the team.

Some would blame the new employees for quitting too soon, others would lay the blame on the supervisor for not developing the talent pool, others might express dismay at the senior talent leaving; honestly, they are all right, and all wrong!  My friend decided to hang the costs, and the decision was a tremendous learning experience.  Using appreciative inquiry will provide similar learning experiences, prepare, and commit, now to learn first and stay focused on the positive.

Appreciative inquiry can help; there are six operational steps:

  1. Admit there is a problem and commit to change.
  2. Define the problem.
  3. Discover the variables and stay focused on the positive.
  4. Dream BIG!
  5. Design the future and outline the steps to that future.
  6. Destiny, create the destination you desire.

Follow the instructions on a shampoo bottle, “Wash, Rinse, Repeat.”  The appreciative inquiry model can be scaled, can be repeated, can be implemented into small or large teams, and produce motivated members who then become the force to producing change.  Allow yourself and your team to learn, this takes time, but through a building motivation for excellence, time can be captured to perform.

© Copyright 2020 – M. Dave Salisbury

The author holds no claims for the art used herein, the pictures were obtained in the public domain, and the intellectual property belongs to those who created the pictures.

All rights reserved.  For copies, reprints, or sharing, please contact through LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/davesalisbury/

 

Customer Service Begins with Employees – Knowing the Paradigm

During the last 60 days, I have had the ability to see two different companies and their training programs up close and personal.  Both companies provide call center employees, and currently, both companies are employing a home shored or remote agent to conduct call center operations.  Neither company is handling remote agents very well; and, while both companies have excellent credentials for providing exterior customers with excellent customer service, both companies fail the first customer, the employee.

ProblemsCompany A thinks that games, contests, prizes, swag, and commissions adequately cover their inherent lack of customer service to employees.  Company B does not offer its employees any type of added compensation to its employees and treats their employees like cattle in a slaughterhouse yard.  Both companies talk an excellent game regarding treating their employees in a manner that promotes healthy exterior customer relations, but there is no substance, no action, no commitment to the employee.  Company B has an exceedingly high employee churn rate, and discounts that rate because of employees working from home and not being able to take the loneliness of an office atmosphere.  Company A has several large sites and is looking forward to having employees back on the call center campus.

When the conclusions for employee dissatisfaction were shared, the question was raised, “How does the leadership team know when the employees are not feeling served by their employer?”  The answer can be found in the same manner that the voice of the customer is found, mainly by asking the employees.  Neither company has an employee feedback process to capture the employee’s thoughts, ideas, feelings, and suggestions; relying solely upon the leadership team to provide these items.  Neither company overtly treats its employees poorly, Company A does have a mechanism to capture why employees leave the organization.  Company A was asked what they do with this information and refused to disclose, which is an acceptable answer.

Consider an example from Company A, a new hire has been in the hiring process since January, was informed they were hired around the first of April but was also told the next start date/new hire training class has not been scheduled due to COVID-19.  The employee is finally scheduled for a new hire class starting the first week of June.  Between the time of being hired and the start date, the employee begins taking classes Mon thru Fri, 1800-2100 (6:00pm to 9:pm).  The employee is scheduled to begin work at 1030 in the morning and work until 1900 (7:00pm).  The new hire asks for help with the schedule, the classes being taken will improve the employee’s skills upon graduation on the first of August.  Training is six weeks long, but the overlap is only 9 working days.  Company A’s response, either drop the classes or quit the job.

Internal-CS-Attitude-Low-ResThus, the attitude towards employee customer service is exposed to sunshine, and regardless of the games, prizes, food, swag, commissions, etc., the employee-customer service fails to keep highly talented employees.  This example is not new, and is not a one-off, unfortunately.  The example is regular business for employee treatment, and as the trainer stated, there are always more people for positions than positions open, so why should we change operations?  Since January Company A has been working unlimited overtime to fill the gap in open positions.

Company B informed all new hires that training is four-days long, and upon completion on the job training commences.  On day 3, training is extended to five days, on day 4 training is extended, and on Saturday, training is extended to a mandatory Sunday.  No excuses, no time off, no notice, and no reasonable accommodation is provided to make other accommodations for children, medical appointments, etc., and by the time Sunday arrives, the new hire class has already logged 60-hours in a week that began on Tuesday.  Several employees are unable to make Sunday and as such are now kicked out of training, and will lose their jobs once HR gets around to giving them the ax.

Neither employer offers reasonable accommodation to employees working from home, as working from home is an accommodation already.  Marking the first area of risk; if an employee works for your organization, regardless of the attitude of employee treatment, reasonable accommodation is the law in America, and similar laws are on the books across the world.  Yet, both companies were able to eschew the law and deny reasonable accommodation.  Company B did it by never responding to the employees after they missed a day of work during training.  Company A did it by forcing the employee to decide without the aid of HR, claiming HR does not have any power in the decisions of training.

Now, many people will advise the employees hindered in their job search that the company does not serve them.  That fit into a new organization is more important than money.  That if an employer does not serve their employees, that employer has no value and the ex-employee is better off.  Yet, the companies hired these people, went to great expense to onboard these people, and now must spend more money to hire more people to fill the gap.  Both companies will have to pay overtime and other incentives to get the newest new hires through training.  All because of the disconnect between serving internal customers and external customers.  Many business writers have said, the only customer business has, are the employees.

Leadership CartoonMyron Tribus used a water spigot to help explain the choices of business leaders where employees are concerned.  A business is either a money spigot and customers, employees, vendors, stakeholders, do not matter, so long as the money keeps rolling in to pay off the shareholders.  Or business is a spigot with a hose on it to direct the efforts of the business through the relationships with employees, customers, vendors, stakeholders, and shareholders, to a productive and community-building long-term goal of improvement.  Either a business is a money spigot or a community building operation, the business cannot do both.

With this analogy in mind, the following four suggestions are provided for businesses that either want to change spigots or need help building the only customer relationship with value.

  1.  Decide what type of business you want to be, and then act accordingly.  No judgment about the decision is being made.  Just remember, the greatest sin a business can commit is to fail to show a profit.  Employee costs can make and break employers and profits.
  2. Provide a feedback loop. Employees are a business’s greatest asset, the greatest source for new products, new procedures, new methods of performing the work, and new modes of operation, and until the leadership team decides the employees have value, the business cannot change to meet market demands.  In fact, that business that does not value employees, cannot change at all, ever!
  3. Be “Tank Man.” As a child, I remember watching the Tiananmen Square incident unfold in China.  I remember watching a man, stand in front of a tank and bring that tank, and several more behind it, to a standstill.  Nobody knows this man’s name, but many remember his stand.  Be the example of world-changing customer service, even if no one will ever know your name.Tank Man - Tiananmen Square
  4. Many parents have told their children, “Actions speak louder than words.” At no other time has these words been truer.  Act; do not talk!  Show your employees’ customer service and they will conquer the world for you.  Actions to take might not mean expending any money.  Showing someone you care is as simple as listening, and then helping.  LinkedIn daily has examples of hero employees who do more, serve better, and act all because their leader acted on the employee’s behalf.
    • Blue Money BurningConsider Company A for a moment, the time of class overlap was 1-hour. The number of days the overlap was going to affect that employee, 9.  Thus, for the cost of nine hours at $17.00 per hour, or $153.00 USD total, an employee was lost.  How much blue and green money was lost getting that employee hired, just to see that employee leave within two days of starting?  How much more blue and green money will be lost to replace that lost employee?

No longer can employer hope to treat employees poorly and still achieve financial success, between social media and modern communication, the word gets out that an employer does not care about their employees.  No longer can labor unions abuse non-union members autonomously.  No longer can a business walk away from social and community abuses with impunity.  The choice to treat people as valuable assets is an easy choice to make, choose wisely!

© Copyright 2020 – M. Dave Salisbury

The author holds no claims for the art used herein, the pictures were obtained in the public domain, and the intellectual property belongs to those who created the pictures.

All rights reserved.  For copies, reprints, or sharing, please contact through LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/davesalisbury/

Communication: The Devil is in the details – Shifting the VA Paradigm

I-Care23 January 2020, I wrote about how a medical support assistant (MSA) was negatively influencing communication between my primary care provider and myself.  Today, I discovered the Department of Veterans Affairs – Office of the Inspector General (VA-OIG) is reporting the same problems in several other VA Medical Centers across the country.  One veteran waited 36-calendar days for a positive test result notification; yet, because there were no “adverse patient events as a result,” the lack of communication is not considered an issue.  Another example involves a patient and do not resuscitate (DNR) orders, along with family concerns and end-of-life home hospice care.  The VA physician/hospitalist in charge had four incidents raising concerns the VA-OIG investigated, where the need to improve communication is the problem with no solution, support, or quality controls.

I guarantee, if there is a 36-day lag in a positive test result notification to me, there would be an adverse patient reaction.  While the VA-OIG made communication recommendations, I would bet dollars to doughnuts that the problems in communicating remain a significant customer service issue.  Why, because the majority of comprehensive inspections the VA-OIG conducts include failures in communication, and the amount of communications issues resemble bunny rabbits in a field with no predators.

The “I-Care” customer service program at the VA reports the following in every I-Care class:

“How we treat veterans today determines if the veterans choose the VA tomorrow.”

On the I-Care Patient Experience Map, how communication is used influences how the veteran feels about choosing the VA for their needs.  Yet, the VA continues to communicate like the veteran has no choice, no options, and does not matter.  Here are some communication tips, tailored specifically to the VA; may they find application quickly in VA customer operations.

  1. The VA claims that the primary care provider, the nurse, the MSA, and the patient are a healthcare team.  If this is the case, then the first step in improving communication is a technical fix opening as many channels of two-directional communication as possible.  Including email, voicemail, text messaging, telephone, fax, and instant messaging.  If the patient has all these channels, and they do; why can’t the nurse, the doctor, and the MSA use all the same technology to communicate?
  2. The VA has improved on this issue, but there is considerable improvement still to make; when test results come out, copy the patient on the results, automatically. But, where the patient’s results are concerned, explain the results.  Have the nurse or a physician assistant write some comments about the results, before sending them onto the patient.  Currently, I receive bloodwork results and have to Google/Bing my way through the results and guess when discussing the results with my spouse.  I received bloodwork results from UNM, the results came in digitally to my email box, with hyperlinks to explanations by doctors in the UNM system.  I received X-Ray and MRI results that claimed “all normal;” this does not tell me anything and increases the problems in understanding what was observed in the X-Ray and MRI.
  3. Face-to-face customer service is a skill that requires training, quality assurance, and monitoring. Yet, the MSA’s at the VA, who do the most customer influencing communication, are not trained, monitored, or quality assured.  The result, patients are treated horribly or are treated amazingly well, based solely upon the individual.  Unfortunately, the leadership in charge of customer service are often the worst offenders for poor customer service.  This must change; implementing a quality assurance program is not difficult, or expensive, and provided the quality assurance does not become the stick to beat people into submission, will provide positive fruit.  But, everyone who communicates with a veteran needs training and needs methods for improvement.
  4. Stop active listening as the standard for communication. In a hospital environment, especially, the standard should be reflective listening to achieve mutual understanding.  Active listening skills can be faked, thus inhibiting proper communication.  As an example, review the physician hospitalist who was able to fake care for patients sufficiently to fool the VA-OIG, but the patients and their families were left without feeling they had communicated sufficiently to act with confidence.
  5. “I-Care” is a good program; why has it not become the standard for all customer interactions? There is no reason for this program to not be a mandatory baseline standard of employee behavior from Secretary Wilkie to the newest new hire.  Yet, hospital directors can dismiss “I-Care,” refuse to implement “I-Care,” and disregard “I-Care.”  To grow the “I-Care” culture, every employee needs to onboard and commit; where is this being insisted upon?

Too often, the root cause analysis is either poor communication as the issue, or a substantial sub-issue; yet, even with the insistence of the VA-OIG, communication failures remain.  No more!  The VA must implement “I-Care” for every employee, implement a quality assurance program for communication, hold communication training, and design communication goals for every classification of employee.  Most importantly, every single leader must exemplify the customer standards they want to see in their employees.  There are no valid excuses for failing to communicate!

 

© 2020 M. Dave Salisbury

All Rights Reserved

The images used herein were obtained in the public domain, this author holds no copyright to the images displayed.

Customer Service Leadership through Religious Realism

Authors Note:  This analysis was a concluding project during my doctoral degree on customer relations management.  I post it here as the sentiment contained tracks with a desperately needed shift in the conversation between internal customers to facilitate an improved external customer support system.

For this analysis, a customer is defined as both an internal (fellow employee) and external (a person or organization paying money for your product/service) entity desiring a product or service. Gitomer (1998, 2005, and 2008), Greenberg (2002) and KASET (1988) all provide more detailed distinctions regarding customer classes, service needed, and methods for providing the euphemistic term “customer service.” When discussing customer service Avolio & Yammarino’s ‘Full Range Leadership Theory’ (2002) including the need for strong moral character as found in religious belief and the combination of the philosophies of Realism and Positivism, are employed to help define why multiple principles are required to fully influence the customer interaction while attempting to provide service.

Religious realism is based upon the following philosophies, positivism and realism, with religion as an overlaying guiding measurement mechanism. Positivism is the field of philosophy that deals with obtaining knowledge through logic, mathematics, and human sensory input. For example, an item is understood as hot due to a source of heat transference and the heat is felt through sensory input and understood employing prior experience. Epistemic knowledge is created through experience and through genetic knowledge transference (Hoerr, 2007). For example a parent passes on the knowledge of hot and burn to a child who forever knows the difference between hot and cold. Peale (1992) is called upon in conjunction with Allen (1902) to broaden the positivist philosophy by adding the control of human interaction, the individual’s thoughts, feelings, bias, attitude, and personality. Allen (1902) is especially important for the consideration that thoughts predict outcomes.

Realism deals with that which can be understood but not seen. For example, gravity is real as a principle of science, but seeing gravity can only be understood through the attraction of an object to another, not seen as a power. Consider the item falling from a height, we understand the attraction of the item falling as the gravitational pull upon the object, but cannot see gravity. Hoerr (2007) adds to the body of insight regarding the genesis of knowledge and the genetic nature of learning. While many of Hoerr’s (2007) conclusions are not personally acceptable, Hoerr (2007) does identify many points in both religious leadership and knowledge creation, not fully explained or identified in postmodern thinking supported in Delanty & Strydom (2003).

Religion is used as an overlaying guide Von Braun explains this need succinctly in Miller & Fugal, (2000) [p 35], not to control the principles, but to fully understand the need for human behavior as choice and consequence cycle and the drive to become more than a club wielding species locked in mortal combat with elements, other men/women, and man himself. Religion is the impetus for many of man’s achievements, philosophies, and tenants of thought and action, this is inferred from a discussion by Newton as related by Miller & Fugal (2000) [p 70]. While not a researcher in the traditional sense, as an observer and author, not many come better; Carnegie (1936) and Allen (1902) are employed, as their collective observations regarding positivism, realism, religion, and the influence of thought upon the human interaction remain timeless. Muir (1902) and Frankl (1992) provide the religious overlay, non-denominational, but universal. Muir (1902) focuses upon specific guiding principles fundamental to man, when applied, could be termed religious. Frankl (1992) is employed as the sole purpose for man to strive is explained and examined in detail, again, in a non-denominational environment.

A review of traditional researchers performing work specific to religious leadership in customer service environments is identified encompassing the positivism, realism, and religion inherent in modern leadership. The works of Alon & Chase (2005), Pandey, Gupta, & Arora (2008), and Soltani & Joneghani (2012) are referenced extensively as their combined research provides the fundamental proof of religious leadership being dynamic in organizations, especially in customer interactions. The main theme running through all of these researchers is that no specific religious flavor stands supreme; but that strong religious morals are paramount to the leadership qualities identified by Hamlin & Sawyer (2007) and the customer service proficiencies identified by KASET International (1988). The ideals of strong morals, strong character, and defined positions of ethics, honesty, and specific limits are shown as attractive to customers. Steyrer, employed in Avolio & Yammarino (2002), emphatically outlines the research on character traits, stigma’s, charisma, and many other personality traits distinguished in individual people. Several times, Alon & Chase (2005), Pandey, Gupta, & Arora (2008), Soltani & Joneghani (2012) create the distinction, that while not needed for success, these character traits add depth and satisfaction to success. This is important, as many organizations do not employ religious leadership, realism, or positivism. Yet these organizations are successful or only successful for a short time. The answer as to why religious leadership is important and provides more satisfying success is found in the difference between leadership and management.

Leadership vs. Management

            Hamlin & Sawyer (2007) make the case perfectly clear that leaders are not managers and managers never lead. This theme is fundamental to the remaining analysis for several reasons; namely, leadership in customer service requires on the spot action, decision-making, and accountability, all anathema to managers (Avolio & Yammarino, 2002, p 25). Goldratt & Cox (2004), Gitomer (1998), and KASET International (1988) all espouse similar philosophies in caring for customers. More importantly, Greenberg (2002) discusses opportunity management in relation to customer centered focus which provides the guidance needed to develop people, train people, and improve service, which is the end goal of Goldratt & Cox (2004), Gitomer (1998), and KASET International (1988). The requirement to develop people, train people, thus improving customer service is a key trait in leadership missing in managers, Antonakis & House make this abundantly clear (Avolio & Yammarino, 2002, p 3-33).

While a multitude of factors persist in separating leadership and management, the other factor prevalent in religious based customer service leadership is found through agency theory; the principle is freedom to choose, coupled to accountability for the choice and consequence (Ekanayake, n.d.). Managers employ we, us, team, as deflectors to accountability or to soften consequences for ill, but employ I, me, and mine, when the consequences are perceived as favorable. Leaders are the exact opposite in their speech patterns, accepting accountability for negative consequences but deflecting praise for positive consequences. This phenomenon is documented in many places namely, Allen (1994), Brady & Woodward (2008), Maxwell (2003), and Wren (1995). Goldratt & Cox (2004) do a tremendous job documenting the changes as they occurred in a business with a charismatic leader and the managers who must make “bricks without straw (Exodus, 5:16-18).” The changes that occurred parallel the principles established by Greenberg (2002) and Hamlin & Sawyer (2007). More important is the behavior patterns of charismatic leaders, grounded in religious foundations, produce the organizational patterns discussed by Kreitner & Kinicki (2004), Lundin, Paul, & Christensen (1996). Dumdum, Lowe, and Avolio, quoted in Avolio and Yammarino (2002), increase the research in leadership character traits providing correlational evidence between effectiveness and satisfaction [p 35]. Dumdum, Lowe, and Avolio, from Avolio and Yammarino (2002) [p 53], outlined how “charisma,” “idealized influence,” “inspirational motivation,” and “intellectual stimulation” from leaders outweigh and influence both internal and external customers from a transformational leader. While transactional leadership is effective, the carrot or reward is always a problem in transactional leadership and is not as effective in training people, developing people, or influencing people. Managers often employ the transactional theory of leadership while never striving for the transformational aspects, which are more affective. The research is clear, leadership and management are totally separate principles, and leadership through religious principles is the better option for transforming organizations and the people associated with those organizations.

Spiritual leadership encompasses, the best of human striving, harnessing the power of individual effort and the power of positive thinking. This power to strive is derived from strong morals, developed over time and experience. Some of the experience has been learned genetically (Hoerr, 2007) and cannot be discounted simply because it sits in opposition to the philosophical theories of postmodernism. Soltani & Joneghani (2012) discuss these principles through expanded research coming to similar conclusions about the need for and use of strong morals in leadership and success. This does not mean that those without strong morals cannot succeed, but that the success of those with strong morals appears to last longer and possess a far greater reach and impact. Pandey, Gupta, & Arora (2008) researched the power of religious leadership/management in the corporate culture of an organization and the positive influence this religious culture has upon customer service. Again, this does not make a claim that those without religious leadership cannot be successful; but the research is clear that possessing the strong morals of a religion advances success and improves the customer experience. Religious leadership, corporate culture, and customer receptiveness to strong morals is mentioned due to the need for not losing oneself in corporate cultures. Those employees possessing strong moral character need not lose themselves making Carnegie (1936), Muir (1928) and Peale (1992) more applicable to the separation between manager and leader and the need for knowing oneself more abundantly clear. Kreitner & Kinicki (2004) allude to the same organizational principles discussed by the researchers Alon & Chase (2005) along with Pandey, Gupta, & Arora (2008). The organizational matrix needs strong moral character, epitomized through religious leadership, not management, is clear as detailed by Maxwell (2003).

Goldratt & Cox (2004) do a tremendous job documenting the changes as they occurred in a business with a charismatic leader and the managers who must make “bricks without straw (Exodus, 5:16-18).” The changes which occurred parallel the principles established by Greenberg (2002) & Hamlin & Sawyer (2007). More important is the behavior patterns of charismatic leaders, grounded in religious foundations, produce the organizational patterns discussed by Kreitner & Kinicki (2004) and Lundin, Paul, & Christensen (1996). Dauten (2003) provides impetus for leadership shifts, organizational change, and perspective on how to avoid some of the problems in making the change. Dauten (2003) adds another single variable into the volatile mix of change and leadership over management, a positive attitude as defined and described by Peale (1992). Dauten (2003) and Peale (1992) both emphatically state that without a positive attitude, as reflected through the actions of smiling, the charisma described in Avolio & Yammarino (2002) cannot be properly identified by those being led. Development Dimensions Intl. (2008) spells out retention efforts during change; yet the more telling research document lies in Frankl’s (1992) dissertation for delivering a product or service, changing the organization, all while retaining employees. Tribus (2008) specifically discusses how to change; namely, by being the change you desire to see in others. All of these authors are justified in the research conducted by Alon & Chase (2005), Pandey, Gupta, & Arora (2008), Soltani & Joneghani (2012). The principles of selling, customer leadership, product development, employee retention, and etc. all are developed more satisfactorily and improved through organizations with strong morals through religious leadership. Religious leadership is formed as a paradigm of action and detailed by Kuhn (1996) and Allen (1902). Kuhn (1996) outlines how paradigms are chosen, built, and become cultures in an organization. Allen (1994) introduces the simplicity behind realism and foundational knowledge, lifting, edifying, and providing methods for improving organizations. The keys here are simplicity that Muir (1928) expounds upon. Eden & Sulimani discussed in Avolio & Yammarino (2002) [p 287-308] expound upon the principle of self-fulfilling prophecy (SFP), Allen (1902) would describe this as thoughts becoming actions, predicting results. Regardless, self-fulfilling prophecy (SFP) also referred to as the “Pygmalion Paradigm” “works” (Avolio & Yammarino, 2002, p 288). The realization that expecting more from people, providing the training to achieve the higher standard, and raising the bar, is absolutely effective. This principle is universal in application. Changing how a person thinks, improves performance; expecting more from people, improves productivity measures; leadership, transformational leadership, founded upon strong moral codes and ethical actions, “works” (Avolio & Yammarino, 2002).

Religious Philosophy vs. Postmodernist Philosophy

Delanty & Strydom (2003) pitch post modernist thinking as the new reality and reject the fundamental principles described herein. Post modernist philosophy represented by Delanty & Strydom (2003) strives hard to cast out realism, redefining realism in new terms rejecting the foundation upon which the theory was built (p 442-447; 456-467). Habermas, quoted in Delanty & Strydom (2003), dictates that realism cannot be considered unless it is perpetually washed and filtered through new interpretations. This would be akin to learning about a hot stove by touching it and then re-experiencing the hot stove through burning other parts of the body, just to make sure we understand heat. The religious philosophy discussed herein would simply allow for learning that the stove is hot and looking for the signs of heat through sensory options to protect the individual from future burns or harm. While this analogy is simple, the concepts are easily understood. Postmodern thinking would have the individual continually suffer through new learning experiences in an attempt to understand heat. While the foundations of knowledge are more than acceptable to simply keep the individual from further harm through realistic endeavors and understanding. Bhaskar, Collins, and Habermas, again as displayed in Delanty & Strydom (2003) individually, would argue that the analogy about heat is too simplistic, not transcendental, and not ontologically expressive enough. Yet, Muir (1928) would argue that simplistic is best and more than sufficient to pass understanding from the author to the audience. This same philosophy would carry over into customer service and religious leadership. It is important to note, postmodern thinking will change language, attempt to re-define words, create new words and phrases, all in an attempt to overpower the thinking and thought of the audience. But the foundational principles of realism, strong morals, and leadership as a principle of living always shine through using simplicity.

References

Allen, J. (1902). As a man thinketh. New York, New York: Grosset & Dunlap.

Allen, R. E. (1994). Winnie-the-pooh on management: In which a very important bear and his friends are introduced to a very important subject. New York, New York: Dutton/The Penguin Group.

Alon, I., & Chase, G. (2005). Religious freedom and economic prosperity. Cato Journal, 25(2), 399-406.

Avolio, B. J., & Yammarino, F. J. (2002). Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead. San Diego, CA: Emerald.

Boylan, B. (1995). Get Everyone in Your Boat Rowing in the Same Direction. New York, New York: Barnes & Noble.

Brady, C., & Woodward, O. (2008). Launching a leadership revolution, mastering the five levels of influence. (pp. 4-7). New York, NY: Business Plus.

Carnegie, D. (1936). How to win friends and influence people. New York, New York: Simon & Schuster.

Dauten, D. (2003). The laughing warriors: How to enjoy killing the status quo. Richmond, CA: Lumina Media.

Delanty, G., & Strydom, P. (Eds.). (2003). Philosophies of social science: The classic and contemporary readings. Philadelphia, PA: McGraw-Hill.

Development Dimensions International. (2008). Retaining Talent: A Benchmarking Study [Brochure]. Bridgeville, PA: Bernthal, P. R., & Wellins, R. S.

Drucker, P. F. (1999). Knowledge-worker productivity: The biggest challenge. California Management Review, 41(02), 79-94. ISSN: 0008-1256

Ekanayake, S. (n.d.). Agency theory, national culture, and management control systems. (2004). Journal of American Academy Business, 4(1/2), 49-54.

Exodus, The Holy Bible, King James Version. New York: American Bible Society: 1999

Frankl, V. E. (1992). Man’s search for meaning. (4th ed.). Boston, Massachusetts: Beacon Press.

Gitomer, J. (2005). Little red book of sales answers: 99.5 real world answers that make sense and make money. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

Gitomer, J. (2005). Little red book of selling: 12.5 principles of sales greatness. Austin, Texas: Bard Press.

Gitomer, J. (1998). Customer satisfaction is worthless – Customer loyalty is priceless: How to make customers love you, keep them coming back, and tell everyone they know. Atlanta, GA: Bard Press.

Gitomer, J. (2008). Sales bible: The ultimate sales resource. New York, New York: Harper Collins.

Goldratt, E. M., & Cox, J. (2004). The goal: A process of ongoing improvement. (Third Revised ed.). Great Barrington, Massachusetts: North River Press.

Greenberg, P. J. (2002). CRM – At the speed of light 2nd Edition. New York, NY: McGraw Hill – Osborne.

Hamlin, R. G., & Sawyer, J. (2007). Developing effective leadership behaviors: The value of evidence-based management. Business Leadership Review, IV(IV), 1-16. Retrieved from http://www.mbaworld.com/blr-archive/scholarly/5/index.pdf

Hoerr, W. (2007). The final belief system: Or, an account of evolution; the belief system that will, in time, replace all religions. Queensland, Australia: The Evolution Ashram. Retrieved from http://www.evolutionashram.org/book.htm

KASET International, (1988). ACHIEVING Extraordinary Customer Relations – Skills and Strategies for the Cellular Industry (2e). Tampa, Florida: KASET International.

Kreitner, R, & Kinicki, A (2004). Organizational Behavior 6e. New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies.

Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions. (Third ed., Vol. VIII). Chicago, ILL: The University of Chicago Press.

Lundin, S. C., Paul, H., & Christensen, J. (1996). Fish! A remarkable way to boost morale and improve results. New York, New York: Hyperion.

Maxwell, J. C. (2003). Real leadership: The 101 collection. Nashville, Tennessee: Maxwell Motivation Inc.

Miller, S., Miller, S., Fugal, S., & Fugal, P. (2000). The best of especially for mormons. American Fork, UT: Especially for Mormons Inc.

Muir, L. J. (1928). Flashes from the eternal semaphore. (3rd ed.). Salt Lake City, UT: The Deseret News Press.

Paine, T. (1942). Basic writings of thomas paine: Common sense; Rights of man; Age of reason. New York, New York: Willey Book Company.

Pandey, A., Gupta, R. K., & Arora, A. P. (2009). Spiritual climate of business organizations and its impact on customers’ experience. Journal of Business Ethics, 88, 313-332. doi: 10.1007/s10551-008-9965-z

Peale, N. V. (1992). Three complete books: The power of positive thinking; The positive principle today; Enthusiasm makes a difference. Avenel, New Jersey: Wings Books.

Schiffman, S. (2007). Cold calling techniques (that really work!). (20th Anniversary ed.). Avon, Massachusetts: Adams Media an F W Publications Company.

Soltani, I., & Joneghani, R. B. (2012). Operational model of cascading values and professional ethics in organization: A context for spiritual development of employees. International Journal of Business and Management, 7(18), 130-140. doi: 10.5539/ijbm.v7n18p130

Stanford, N. GSA, Enterprise Transformation. (2011). Knowledge worker productivity: challenges, issues, solutions. Retrieved from GSA website: http://www.gsa.gov/graphics/admin/KnowledgeWorkerProductivity_Final6811.pdf

Tribus, M. (2008). Changing the Corporate Culture Some Rules and Tools. Retrieved from: Changing the Corporate Culture Some Rules and Tools Web site: http://deming.eng.clemson.edu/den/change_cult.pdf

Wren, J. T. (1995). The leader’s companion: Insights on leadership through the ages. New York, NY: The Free Press.

© 2015 M. Dave Salisbury

All Rights Reserved