Zealise Blog

Poor Customer Service: What is it with banks?

Do you ever wonder why banking is called the financial services industry?  Or who coined the term? Most likely, it was the banks themselves, in which case it can only have been due to massive self-delusion or an unlikely and hitherto undetected sense of irony. Increasingly any link between banks and service appears coincidental and more likely to be the result of luck more than judgement.

This was highlighted in a recent Sunday Times article “Saved from Hitler, Lost by Barclays” in which a journalist described how Barclays not only lost the contents of a safety deposit box, but managed to absolve themselves from any responsibility for the loss. One would think Barclays would be more sensitive to such publicity in this day and age (especially in light of their new corporate values) but, alas, it would seem not.

Yet, while I can heave a sigh of relief that I don’t bank with Barclays, my experience with Santander suggests there is not much to choose between them.  My story hardly fits in the same league, but nevertheless seems to epitomise the apathy and general “couldn’t-care-less” attitude that passes for service in these monolithic, overgrown and overblown organisations.

Naked Nights: Diary of Customer Service on a Trip to Tunis (3)

Days 4 and 5: Plumbing the Depths.

It seemed that my faith was futile.

The next 2 days brought more of the same. I persisted in commuting and conducting the training in my black socks and sandals, apologising profusely for presenting a spectacle that could have had the fashion police locking me up and throwing away the key. (I am just grateful that nobody could see the image in the mirror that confronted me every night when I climbed into bed!)

Yet nobody seemed to care. Apart from the hotel, customer service was non-existent and nobody I expected to help appeared the least bit concerned. Another call to Air France on Day 4 elicited a sense of irritation and a request to please leave matters until the next day, when they would see what could be done. Meanwhile the hotel staff also kept pursuing the matter with baggage claims and greeted us at the end of the day with a sad shake of their heads as we walked through the door.

Getting off the bonus treadmill!

The festive holidays are over; as ever sped on their way by the bonus season and some promise of reward for reluctant returnees. Yet here too the tinsel seems tarnished. And it’s not just a case of modern equivalent of the seven lean years following the seven fat years. The now-perennial debate about bankers’ bonuses, with goodwill getting gazumped by gripes about galling greed, inevitably ripples wider.

Particularly here in the UK, where bailed-out banks are largely owned by the taxpayer and parliament pauses as the Punch & Judy pantomime of party politics resumes with the ritual pointing of fingers and hurling of abuse across the floor, in the apparent conviction that he who shouts loudest will carry the day.  One has to wonder whether all the passion, pomp and posturing is entirely for show. Certainly, that is all an independent observer can conclude, since nothing actually changes.

This is incredibly annoying! Not least because the rousing rhetoric resounds with clichés and facile arguments that completely miss the point.

The underlying premise of bonuses is the apparently logical principle that people will work harder if they are better rewarded for their efforts. This has become so embedded in the conventional wisdom that it is never questioned. As a result we have a performance culture that has “grow’d like Topsy” and lost touch with reason. Incentives have become so ubiquitous that that the government is even introducing performance related pay into the teaching profession and the police!

Research, however, shows that this is flawed logic. Dan Pink and others have long shown that incentives are counter-productive for all but the most basic and mechanical of tasks. This makes sense when you consider that increasing complexity means greater interdependence. In a world that is becoming increasingly complex this means that people are increasingly less capable of shaping their own outcomes or determining their own results. 

It's Time to Pull Together

This week brought confirmation of something that I have more than suspected for a long-time. Yet, while validation brings vindication, the picture portrayed is alarming. It would have been better to be proved wrong.

According to the 2013 Deloitte Shift Index Report the Return on Assets (ROA) for US business has declined from 4.1% in 1965 to 0.9% in 2012. (See the graph below.) That’s a decline of 78% over 47 years!

This is extremely alarming when one considers that the US is the world’s Number One economy. You can only wonder what the decline is for the entire block of “developed” economies. It helps explain just why China is closing so rapidly on that # 1 position!

Best Definition of Employee Engagement

It is hard to keep track of all the different definitions of employee engagement. David MacLeod’s government appointed task force identified more than 50 perfectly good definitions.  So how can you expect to create employee engagement when you can’t even get a standard, universally accepted definition?  This very diffusion makes it almost impossible to come up with a singular solution that appeals to everyone. 

That is why I was so struck by the pithy answer that Ellen Kullman, the CEO of du Pont, apparently gave during an interview when asked what she looks for in an employee. She gave a single word answer which I am sure you will agree takes a lot of beating: “presence.” (Source: ‘That Used to be Us’: Thomas Friedman and Michael Mandelbaum, Page 100.)

Having colleagues who, years ago, joked about “people who had left the company but were still on the payroll”, this struck an immediate chord.  If, however, you find it too cryptic, her expansion is clear. “We want every employee to be in the room … the rote jobs today are gone – they are done by machines. Now you have to have people who can think and interact and collaborate.” You cannot think or interact or collaborate effectively if you are not 100% focused.

Management, Manipulation and Employee Engagement

If you are striving to be a better manager – which, as a self-respecting manager you undoubtedly are – you may find it helpful (even if it seems slightly odd) to start with a little etymology. 

You see the word ‘manage’ is derived from the Latin ‘maneggiare’ meaning to handle and comes from the root word ‘manus’ or hand. As such it has a great deal in common with the word ‘manufacture’ (literally to make by hand) and ‘manipulate’ (literally to fill the hands) and all conveying the need to handle, or operate the hands. This has some pretty profound implications when it comes to people. 

Throughout history and right through the Industrial Age, human labour has been “hired.” One consequence of this was the phrase “hired hands” which broadly characterised the relationship between employer and employee. It was this concept which gave employers the right to hire and fire people at their discretion.

Today, however, we have moved beyond this narrow need. Since the start of the Information Age we have talked widely and openly about “knowledge workers,” thus implicitly recognising the need to move beyond the historic limits conveyed by the traditional terminology. Even if you haven’t consciously recognised this, you have already intuited it, hence your efforts to develop initiatives “to win the minds of your people.” Yet even that is not enough.

Can you really manage with non-permanent employees?

As a writer myself, I understand the difficulties of creating “attention-grabbing” headlines and titles. And this week I was struck by the headline, ‘Why the rise in non-permanent labour is fast becoming a C-Level issue.’ Three things aroused my curiousity, possibly more as a result of my own thought processes than the writer’s intentions.

1. What was the definition of “non-permanent labour?” (With my own research identifying a world-leading company having reduced headcount by 110,000 over the past 10 years it seems clear that no job is permanent.)
2. Is it rising and why? (How can business leaders expect to build brands if they do not have engaged employees who share the organisation’s purpose?)
3. Why is it becoming a C-level issue? (Surely all staffing is a C-level issue, and so what makes this unique?)  

Work-Life Integrity is the Answer

A common theme in articles I have been reading this week is employer brand and the creation of places where people want to work. These were perhaps best represented by this article in HR Magazine. Yet I cannot help wonder why it all appears so mystical and mysterious. Surely it is obvious?

After all, if we only have one life, it seems self-evident that we should all want to make the most of it. And work is large part of life. Thus you don’t need some academic writing in Harvard Business Review to tell you that, “People want to do good work”, “in an organisation that makes a difference” and “in a place that magnifies their strengths.” For anyone with an ounce of humanity that should be a no-brainer!

The Performance Paradox

At the European Association of Change Management Professionals (ACMP) conference in London earlier this week, a speaker introduced us to Neuroscience, a clearly complex topic and definitely not something one can claim to be an expert on after a 45 minute session! I did, however, learn 3 key things which I hope will stick with me for more than the duration of the conference, and I would love to share them with you now.

1. Threat is bigger than reward.
2. The brain searches for threats every 5 seconds.
3. The “SCARF” Model.

How to break the cycle of poor industrial relations

The centuries-old struggle of employers versus employees shows little or no sign of abating.  There were two clears signs of that this week. The first was the strike by firemen against changes it says will force firefighters to work longer, pay more into their pensions and receive less in retirement. The second was a call by the NHS Employers organisation calling for a freeze in pay scales in 2014/5. On the face of it the two extremes of the struggle – workers acting because they feel exploited, and employers sending messages that employee costs cannot continue to rise.

Such standpoints, however, only perpetuate the struggle. To resolve the underlying problem you have to think differently or, as Einstein put it, “You cannot solve a problem from the same level of consciousness that created it.”  So how can we break free of such entrenched thinking?