I’ve been frequenting the Post Office at 3490 South and 4400 West in West Valley City pretty much exclusively for the last few years. It isn’t close to any place I live, work or generally go. I stumbled upon it a couple of years ago when I was in the area for something else and had to mail a package.
Now, I go out of my way to do my business even though I have a good friend who is the Post Master – or whatever they call them these days, of the Post Office right on my way home. There is also another Post Office that services my home and where I HAVE to go to pick up packages or sign for mail. I don’t like it, but I HAVE to go there for some business. I prefer that West Valley Post Office that is way out of the way!
The reason is a guy named Greg. Greg is one of the Post Office employees that sits behind the counter and waits on people who walk through the door all day long, day in and day out. He loves his job. You can tell. And he seems to like his customers. You enjoy the experience. I’ll let others go if I think I can get to his window. And he does a very conversational job of cross-selling.
He is infectious. Over the last couple of years I have seen the general quality of all the counter staff at this Post Office become more like Greg. I think that a company that wanted to improve their customer service ought to send their people over to that West Valley Post Office and watch Greg all day long. Not only would they have lots to talk about, but they would probably also be infected.
Do you know who Greg reminds me of? Ian. Ian (sorry, it was thirty-years ago and I can’t recall his last name – it is remarkable I can remember his first!) was on the wait staff at the British tailor I went to see in Mildenhall, England to buy two tailored 100% wool suits with two pants and a waist-coat (vest for all you Yanks out there) prior to leaving to serve a two-year mission in Scotland and Ireland for my church in 1976.
Ian was not enthusiastic. He was not bubbly. Ian was genuine. Ian was attentive. Ian was kind and sensitive. Ian took wonderful care of me all through the buying process. And Ian conversationally “cross sold” me into a couple of beautiful ties to go with my two suits, dozen white shirts, and socks. He did this even though I already owned a “back of the closet door” full of ties to go with my suits. I remember Ian thirty years later. If I didn’t live in Utah, I’d go back there and buy some more suits from Ian. Frankly, I’ve been looking for an Ian here in Utah and he just isn’t here.
Sometimes I wonder if I ought to go be Ian at some place in Utah. I wonder if what I know about assisting people in making such an important decision about their image (which I learned from Ian) is something that I really owe to Utah men. But that is wistful thinking for another day …
Greg – now Greg ought to work for a tailor! I would imagine that he makes a decent living. If I was in the kind of business that needed someone like that right now, I’d go find out what it would take to get Greg to come work for me. I’d find a way to get that for him. And I would watch as his infectious spirit permeated the rest of my staff.
Go see Greg if you get a chance. And then tell me what you think. You can get stamps anywhere. You can’t see that kind of service at very many places. Especially not at a Post Office!
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Sleight of Hand
In an article yesterday in USA Today titled, “Credit card fees eat up gas station profits,” it was noted that , “As gas prices have jumped, station owners' profit margins have shrunk because they now must pay higher fees to credit card companies to process payments.” (For the full article and on-line comments, see http://www.usatoday.com/money/smallbusiness/2008-07-07-gas-prices-credit-card-fees_N.htm )
What most citizens (I hate that somewhere in the last decade someone tagged me a consumer) do not understand is that the article was one more shot in an on-going war – the war merchant associations are waging against card issuers and transaction processors. This article allowed the merchant associations to once again stake their claim of unfair price gouging.
Whew, talk about sleight of hand.
In the interest of full-disclosure, let me here declare that I work for one of those card transaction issuers and processors, and while I do not speak for them, I am biased. But lest you get the idea that my bias is purely because I work for a card transaction company, think again.
You see, several years ago I was a victim of the huge TJ MAXX (TJX) data release – the nice way to say that TJX was so irresponsible with my personal credit card data that it was stolen and my Credit Union replaced my debit card. And they have yet to send me even a note saying, “Sorry Lon,” let alone anything for my inconvenience. Oh, and lest you think the only inconvenience of a data release is when they steal your money, you haven’t had the pleasure yet, have you?
For your information, I stopped going there. I voted with my re-issued debit card.
But that was also the beginning of my self-education on the issue of merchant data security, interchange fees – or the rate the processors charge the merchant to turn your transaction into your payment, fraud, and charge-backs. In case you want to know, there is plenty out there on it and if you want to look at the complete picture, you shouldn’t just look at interchange fees in isolation.
I’m not a conspiracy nut – but I am a seasoned marketing guy with more than two decades of experience (and most of it is not in financial services) and I know that you position your product, service, campaign or brand by deciding which part of the story you tell. Merchants tell you, and more importantly, tell your elected representatives what they want you and your legislators to know, and withhold the rest of the story because it does not play that well.
Permit me to add a few plot twists that merchant associations leave out.
Merchant data security or the lack thereof is a huge issue they’d like to gloss over. They wish you would not pay any attention to how much data they have on their servers, how much they actually use, how long they keep it, why they keep it after they have been paid, or how well they secure it.
Merchants don’t want you to know the number one fraud issue they face never was bad checks, credit card charge-backs or even shoplifting. It was always employee theft. And they continue to face the issue, but employees are now getting into your data too.
Merchants don’t want you to know that their lapses cost the card transaction processors real money. Oh, by the way, this might be one of the reasons that the interchange fee is a part of the equation.
Merchants don’t want you to use a personal check. You may not see it the same way, but debit and credit cards took the place of the personal check in the mind of merchants years ago. Personal checks used to cost merchants time and money.
The fact that a clerk no longer has to look your card number up on a “hot sheet” booklet made of newsprint and issued weekly, means they no longer know what kind of infrastructure and employment is necessary to provide that “real time” authorization – the immediate verification of the sale.
Merchants do not want to talk about the fact that they added debit or credit payment options because you demanded them. We citizens value payment choice – that is the choice to use debit, prepaid, credit, check or cash for the transaction at hand. We do this for our convenience. We expect if there is any inconvenience in the transaction the merchant will be the inconvenienced party since they are serving us.
We expect them to like our money in whatever form we bring it to them. We don’t like limits on our options, and when they limit us and one of their competitors will not, we are more likely to take our business elsewhere.
Merchants don’t want you to understand that there are costs to processing your payment. They want you to think it is magic. They want you to think it is mysteriously and immediately done when you swipe your card.
They don’t want you to think about the telephone services and connections, the rooms full of servers, the people who have to support such processes and servers, the fraud that must be absorbed, the people who must answer your call, the fact that few of their 19-year old, minimum wage cashiers will check to see that you are who your card says you are, the claims against them when they misapply a charge and then refuse to reverse it, and the damage their “data releases” cost the card issuer and processor.
Merchants want you to think all of that is free.
Merchants think they can get the legislature to regulate the credit card companies because you are outraged and demand it. They know you want payment choice, and they want to give it to you, but they don’t want the costs. They want the magic. They want immediate. They want armies of people to support it and take their personal check and merchant credit headaches away, but not their people, and apparently, not their costs.
So merchants and merchant associations tell you this nice little bedtime nightmare and hope you will write your congressman.
I’ve got a better idea.
Lets all decide together that life-sustaining goods like groceries and gasoline shouldn’t be sold for a profit. Let’s demand that our congressmen regulate merchants of these items. Let’s get a three-judge panel determine the price of every life-sustaining commodity.
I’m sure lame-duck Representative Chris Cannon can get behind this like he did the Interchange Legislation that he recently co-sponsored and which actually might have been the reason for his primary election loss (ah, Chris, you forgot all those card issuers and transaction processors that are a part of your constituency … and they even wrote to you!)
There is only one real problem with my great idea. Merchants who cannot make a profit cannot stay in business, and then where are we? Why, right in 1970s USSR. Three-judge panels to determine prices fit there, not here.
If three-judge panels are not right for food and gas, why are they right for interchange fees?
Now if I were a conspiracy theorist, then there would be a preplanned and very personally profitable ending to this call for regulation for the merchant conspirators. But there isn’t.
You think the credit crunch is bad now? Without payment options it is worse. More like 1820 mercantile - cash or merchant credit only. No ATM.
Think water, no paddle.
What most citizens (I hate that somewhere in the last decade someone tagged me a consumer) do not understand is that the article was one more shot in an on-going war – the war merchant associations are waging against card issuers and transaction processors. This article allowed the merchant associations to once again stake their claim of unfair price gouging.
Whew, talk about sleight of hand.
In the interest of full-disclosure, let me here declare that I work for one of those card transaction issuers and processors, and while I do not speak for them, I am biased. But lest you get the idea that my bias is purely because I work for a card transaction company, think again.
You see, several years ago I was a victim of the huge TJ MAXX (TJX) data release – the nice way to say that TJX was so irresponsible with my personal credit card data that it was stolen and my Credit Union replaced my debit card. And they have yet to send me even a note saying, “Sorry Lon,” let alone anything for my inconvenience. Oh, and lest you think the only inconvenience of a data release is when they steal your money, you haven’t had the pleasure yet, have you?
For your information, I stopped going there. I voted with my re-issued debit card.
But that was also the beginning of my self-education on the issue of merchant data security, interchange fees – or the rate the processors charge the merchant to turn your transaction into your payment, fraud, and charge-backs. In case you want to know, there is plenty out there on it and if you want to look at the complete picture, you shouldn’t just look at interchange fees in isolation.
I’m not a conspiracy nut – but I am a seasoned marketing guy with more than two decades of experience (and most of it is not in financial services) and I know that you position your product, service, campaign or brand by deciding which part of the story you tell. Merchants tell you, and more importantly, tell your elected representatives what they want you and your legislators to know, and withhold the rest of the story because it does not play that well.
Permit me to add a few plot twists that merchant associations leave out.
Merchant data security or the lack thereof is a huge issue they’d like to gloss over. They wish you would not pay any attention to how much data they have on their servers, how much they actually use, how long they keep it, why they keep it after they have been paid, or how well they secure it.
Merchants don’t want you to know the number one fraud issue they face never was bad checks, credit card charge-backs or even shoplifting. It was always employee theft. And they continue to face the issue, but employees are now getting into your data too.
Merchants don’t want you to know that their lapses cost the card transaction processors real money. Oh, by the way, this might be one of the reasons that the interchange fee is a part of the equation.
Merchants don’t want you to use a personal check. You may not see it the same way, but debit and credit cards took the place of the personal check in the mind of merchants years ago. Personal checks used to cost merchants time and money.
The fact that a clerk no longer has to look your card number up on a “hot sheet” booklet made of newsprint and issued weekly, means they no longer know what kind of infrastructure and employment is necessary to provide that “real time” authorization – the immediate verification of the sale.
Merchants do not want to talk about the fact that they added debit or credit payment options because you demanded them. We citizens value payment choice – that is the choice to use debit, prepaid, credit, check or cash for the transaction at hand. We do this for our convenience. We expect if there is any inconvenience in the transaction the merchant will be the inconvenienced party since they are serving us.
We expect them to like our money in whatever form we bring it to them. We don’t like limits on our options, and when they limit us and one of their competitors will not, we are more likely to take our business elsewhere.
Merchants don’t want you to understand that there are costs to processing your payment. They want you to think it is magic. They want you to think it is mysteriously and immediately done when you swipe your card.
They don’t want you to think about the telephone services and connections, the rooms full of servers, the people who have to support such processes and servers, the fraud that must be absorbed, the people who must answer your call, the fact that few of their 19-year old, minimum wage cashiers will check to see that you are who your card says you are, the claims against them when they misapply a charge and then refuse to reverse it, and the damage their “data releases” cost the card issuer and processor.
Merchants want you to think all of that is free.
Merchants think they can get the legislature to regulate the credit card companies because you are outraged and demand it. They know you want payment choice, and they want to give it to you, but they don’t want the costs. They want the magic. They want immediate. They want armies of people to support it and take their personal check and merchant credit headaches away, but not their people, and apparently, not their costs.
So merchants and merchant associations tell you this nice little bedtime nightmare and hope you will write your congressman.
I’ve got a better idea.
Lets all decide together that life-sustaining goods like groceries and gasoline shouldn’t be sold for a profit. Let’s demand that our congressmen regulate merchants of these items. Let’s get a three-judge panel determine the price of every life-sustaining commodity.
I’m sure lame-duck Representative Chris Cannon can get behind this like he did the Interchange Legislation that he recently co-sponsored and which actually might have been the reason for his primary election loss (ah, Chris, you forgot all those card issuers and transaction processors that are a part of your constituency … and they even wrote to you!)
There is only one real problem with my great idea. Merchants who cannot make a profit cannot stay in business, and then where are we? Why, right in 1970s USSR. Three-judge panels to determine prices fit there, not here.
If three-judge panels are not right for food and gas, why are they right for interchange fees?
Now if I were a conspiracy theorist, then there would be a preplanned and very personally profitable ending to this call for regulation for the merchant conspirators. But there isn’t.
You think the credit crunch is bad now? Without payment options it is worse. More like 1820 mercantile - cash or merchant credit only. No ATM.
Think water, no paddle.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Lasting Remedies
“The measure of success is not whether you have a tough problem to deal with, but whether it is the same problem you had last year.” (John Foster Dulles, 1888-1959)
I read this enduring comment by former Secretary of State John Foster Dulles last night while my family continues to wrestle with the consequences of the advanced alcoholism and anti-social behavior of one of our beloved family members. The tough problems are not just the same ones we have seen but are repeating fast and furiously.
In fact, the problems are recurring more often - and with greater intensity than in previous years. And as they occur again, and again, some members of the extended family continue apply the same remedies used in past years - remedies which have quite obviously not worked.
I read this enduring comment by former Secretary of State John Foster Dulles last night while my family continues to wrestle with the consequences of the advanced alcoholism and anti-social behavior of one of our beloved family members. The tough problems are not just the same ones we have seen but are repeating fast and furiously.
In fact, the problems are recurring more often - and with greater intensity than in previous years. And as they occur again, and again, some members of the extended family continue apply the same remedies used in past years - remedies which have quite obviously not worked.
Some, like me for example, count the cost and argue that these “cures” are actually leading to an increase in the unwelcome behavior.
One by one, members of the extended family are coming to realize that providing a safety net to this well-loved, even well-liked, but exasperating family member is counter-productive. The frustration level with those who continue to provide “help,” that is, making resources available to misuse, is growing at a rate commensurate with the destructive behavior.
Decades ago, when I was appointed a minor leader in my local church congregation a wise old bishop told me that most people change only when they are in pain and then they only enough to stop the pain. I thought this overly pessimistic at the time; however, after almost two decades of such service, including as a bishop, I’ve come to know this to be quite true.
During my service to the members of my local congregation, I also learned that money rarely cures poor habits or behavioral choices. It tends to spread the problem over a longer period of time, and only puts off the needed change until all the resources, or the patience of those with the resources, are exhausted.
Until the pain is acute enough to force a change there will be no real change.
But what about the kids? Do you prop up a family unit with a parent, or parents who make poor decisions over and over again just so the children won’t suffer in any way? And if so, how exactly do you do that? The most painful suffering has little to do with where or how they live, or whether the bills are paid. It is related to how little abuse they are subjected to, and much parental attention and love they receive.
If the authorities don’t see a reason to remove the children from the home, what makes you think you should have the right to force your life-style choices on another family unit? If you don’t agree with the life-style choices of a family unit, you have few real choices available to you.
You can withhold your resources. That may make continued pursuit of the destructive life-style impossible. But don't forget, when the pain level rises so does the volume.
You could shut off contact – withhold your love, I suppose, but that would make any influence for good you might have with them impotent.
Of course, you can always lecture and preach at them. But that may ensure that they will stop visiting you, and again, any influence you might have on the situation is nil.
There may be times when they need honest answers, but those times usually correspond to a moment of pain when they reach out and not when you think they need to hear it. Those are golden moments. You should not pass those up no matter how hopeless the situation appears or becomes.
It all comes back to choices and liberty, true solutions and pain levels. Because one member of an extended family chooses to behave in a destructive manner does not mean that all members of the family lost the right to choose how they will spend their time or money.
One by one, members of the extended family are coming to realize that providing a safety net to this well-loved, even well-liked, but exasperating family member is counter-productive. The frustration level with those who continue to provide “help,” that is, making resources available to misuse, is growing at a rate commensurate with the destructive behavior.
Decades ago, when I was appointed a minor leader in my local church congregation a wise old bishop told me that most people change only when they are in pain and then they only enough to stop the pain. I thought this overly pessimistic at the time; however, after almost two decades of such service, including as a bishop, I’ve come to know this to be quite true.
During my service to the members of my local congregation, I also learned that money rarely cures poor habits or behavioral choices. It tends to spread the problem over a longer period of time, and only puts off the needed change until all the resources, or the patience of those with the resources, are exhausted.
Until the pain is acute enough to force a change there will be no real change.
But what about the kids? Do you prop up a family unit with a parent, or parents who make poor decisions over and over again just so the children won’t suffer in any way? And if so, how exactly do you do that? The most painful suffering has little to do with where or how they live, or whether the bills are paid. It is related to how little abuse they are subjected to, and much parental attention and love they receive.
If the authorities don’t see a reason to remove the children from the home, what makes you think you should have the right to force your life-style choices on another family unit? If you don’t agree with the life-style choices of a family unit, you have few real choices available to you.
You can withhold your resources. That may make continued pursuit of the destructive life-style impossible. But don't forget, when the pain level rises so does the volume.
You could shut off contact – withhold your love, I suppose, but that would make any influence for good you might have with them impotent.
Of course, you can always lecture and preach at them. But that may ensure that they will stop visiting you, and again, any influence you might have on the situation is nil.
There may be times when they need honest answers, but those times usually correspond to a moment of pain when they reach out and not when you think they need to hear it. Those are golden moments. You should not pass those up no matter how hopeless the situation appears or becomes.
It all comes back to choices and liberty, true solutions and pain levels. Because one member of an extended family chooses to behave in a destructive manner does not mean that all members of the family lost the right to choose how they will spend their time or money.
Running to the rescue may be the most destructive thing we can do over the long haul.
Choosing not to apply band-aids when hospitalization is needed will cause the pain to increase to unacceptable levels. They call this “tough-love” and everyone can talk about it right up until the moment they have to apply it. At that point, I have noticed, the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth hold hands with guilt and uncertainty and combine to break down the most fortified defenses.
And God help those whose defenses are cemented, for they are in for a long, lonely ride until most of the rest of the family come to recognize the inadequate nature of their own assistance.
What is not inadequate even if it seems simple? It seems to me that the big things are holding their hand when the pain is intense, reminding them we love, accept and believe in them, and being completely honest with them when they want to know what they need to do. And allow, as my Grandmother Tibbitts used to say, the chickens to come home to roost. Let them feel, see and taste the consequences of their decisions. They are, after all, their decisions. They chose.
Secretary Dulles died when I was three-years old, and he may have been talking about national or global problems when he made this timeless and quoted comment, but if the solutions we are using aren’t making the tough problems we face different from year to year, we are simply recycling the same problem into a different time and space. We aren’t using real solutions. All we are doing is assuaging our own guilt and making ourselves feel falsely hopeful for a time.
We ought to change.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Our brilliant Legislature
Today I add more to my comments of June 12, 2008 under the headline: “Crime and Punishment.”
On June 28, 2008, the Deseret News ran an article by Ben Winslow under the headline: “Pay to Stay at the Purgatory Jail,” that gave us this “good” news: “The Washington County Sheriff's Office is implementing a "pay to stay" program at the Purgatory Jail effective July 15. The jail's new chief said it is designed to offset increasing inmate housing costs, as well as an experiment in reducing recidivism among criminals. “
Obviously there are three possible and inspired ideas under-pinning such a decision:
1) There is a misperception among our legislators that our inmates have $50/hour jobs waiting for them.
Why, with those jobs they will be able to pay off a 30-day incarceration in less than 30-hours. Now that sounds reasonable! Especially if we don’t consider the fines that our judges hit them with prior to sending them to jail or prison and without any regard for their ability to pay. But, wait, with that lucrative job waiting for them, and say a $1,000 fine to pay off – they are only adding another, what, 30-35 hours? They should have it all cleaned up in less than two weeks!
2) Perhaps our legislators believe that our criminals have somehow cached the illegal and ill-gotten gains of their pre-jail life and this is a brilliant new means to get it back.
3) Or maybe, our legislators understand all too well that our criminal element will be forced to return to their illegal behavior and this is a new method of taxing that behavior.
Again, quoting Winslow’s article:
"The $45 flat rate will cover all housing costs. Inmates will start being charged from the moment they're moved from booking to housing and end when they're released. [Washington County Sheriff's Chief Deputy Jake] Schultz said discounts will be offered at the Purgatory Jail for inmates who are discipline free (10 percent off), go through education programs (another 10 percent discount), and pay it in full when they're released (up to 50 percent off).
"If they got released and they want to pay in full, they took self-help and had been discipline free, they could potentially have a 70 percent cut," he said. "We're really hoping to promote the rehabilitation process."
Now that makes me feel better since those education programs are working so well already. I assume they are talking about the formal education programs and not the informal prisoner run programs that give young apprentices a journeyman education in fraud, drug chemistry, or financing criminal activities.
Again, from Winslow’s article regarding other jails looking at “pay for stay” fees:
"The Legislature passed this as a signal, as an indication of where they want us to go," said Box Elder County Sheriff's Chief Deputy Kevin Potter.
The Box Elder County Jail is expected to start charging its inmates as soon as they can settle on a price. (Update: They decided on a $45/day charge.)
"That's probably our biggest debate right now," said Potter …
And in what I think is one of the understatements of the year, Winslow notes: “One problem that jails worry about is actually collecting the money. Often, inmates are too poor to make bail and paying a hefty fine after being in jail from arrest to court and through sentencing could be outrageous.”
Lon's second rule of unintended consequences says, "The owners of a system that delivers unintended results or consequences will continue to add new and creative means to deliver those unintended results."
We, therefore, shouldn’t be too hard on the Purgatory Jail “chief” for believing this is an "experiment in reducing recidivism among criminals." How could he know the current system is circular, and is netting unintended results, delivering the same people to his jail over and over again? Oh, wait, he would only need to look at the paperwork or in the cells to see that something is truly wrong. D’oh!
To the legislature, I say, as our favorite stooge would say, “Another fine mess you’ve gotten us in!” Truly stellar! Let’s be sure and re-elect them all. I’m sure they are the smartest people in the state and we couldn’t do any better.
On June 28, 2008, the Deseret News ran an article by Ben Winslow under the headline: “Pay to Stay at the Purgatory Jail,” that gave us this “good” news: “The Washington County Sheriff's Office is implementing a "pay to stay" program at the Purgatory Jail effective July 15. The jail's new chief said it is designed to offset increasing inmate housing costs, as well as an experiment in reducing recidivism among criminals. “
Obviously there are three possible and inspired ideas under-pinning such a decision:
1) There is a misperception among our legislators that our inmates have $50/hour jobs waiting for them.
Why, with those jobs they will be able to pay off a 30-day incarceration in less than 30-hours. Now that sounds reasonable! Especially if we don’t consider the fines that our judges hit them with prior to sending them to jail or prison and without any regard for their ability to pay. But, wait, with that lucrative job waiting for them, and say a $1,000 fine to pay off – they are only adding another, what, 30-35 hours? They should have it all cleaned up in less than two weeks!
2) Perhaps our legislators believe that our criminals have somehow cached the illegal and ill-gotten gains of their pre-jail life and this is a brilliant new means to get it back.
3) Or maybe, our legislators understand all too well that our criminal element will be forced to return to their illegal behavior and this is a new method of taxing that behavior.
Again, quoting Winslow’s article:
"The $45 flat rate will cover all housing costs. Inmates will start being charged from the moment they're moved from booking to housing and end when they're released. [Washington County Sheriff's Chief Deputy Jake] Schultz said discounts will be offered at the Purgatory Jail for inmates who are discipline free (10 percent off), go through education programs (another 10 percent discount), and pay it in full when they're released (up to 50 percent off).
"If they got released and they want to pay in full, they took self-help and had been discipline free, they could potentially have a 70 percent cut," he said. "We're really hoping to promote the rehabilitation process."
Now that makes me feel better since those education programs are working so well already. I assume they are talking about the formal education programs and not the informal prisoner run programs that give young apprentices a journeyman education in fraud, drug chemistry, or financing criminal activities.
Again, from Winslow’s article regarding other jails looking at “pay for stay” fees:
"The Legislature passed this as a signal, as an indication of where they want us to go," said Box Elder County Sheriff's Chief Deputy Kevin Potter.
The Box Elder County Jail is expected to start charging its inmates as soon as they can settle on a price. (Update: They decided on a $45/day charge.)
"That's probably our biggest debate right now," said Potter …
And in what I think is one of the understatements of the year, Winslow notes: “One problem that jails worry about is actually collecting the money. Often, inmates are too poor to make bail and paying a hefty fine after being in jail from arrest to court and through sentencing could be outrageous.”
Lon's second rule of unintended consequences says, "The owners of a system that delivers unintended results or consequences will continue to add new and creative means to deliver those unintended results."
We, therefore, shouldn’t be too hard on the Purgatory Jail “chief” for believing this is an "experiment in reducing recidivism among criminals." How could he know the current system is circular, and is netting unintended results, delivering the same people to his jail over and over again? Oh, wait, he would only need to look at the paperwork or in the cells to see that something is truly wrong. D’oh!
To the legislature, I say, as our favorite stooge would say, “Another fine mess you’ve gotten us in!” Truly stellar! Let’s be sure and re-elect them all. I’m sure they are the smartest people in the state and we couldn’t do any better.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Service or Subservience?
Last year, the Brand I work for began a project to “re-stack” the cubicles, offices and conference rooms at my office space. This is a very polite way to say they were re-sizing to make it possible for more people to inhabit the building.
The first section to be re-sized was the north end of my floor – where I work. The commencement of that re-model project temporarily moved me and my colleagues into the very close proximity of our customer service phone shop for almost half a year. Every day, we heard one side of the calls customer service representatives took from those customers with a problem of some kind.
I don’t want to give the impression that there are huge numbers of complaints. We do a pretty good job with our products and services. I know, I sound like a sports team “homer” but so what? I am a big fan of my brand, my colleagues and our products. Those products and services are great and they work. And when surveyed, a large proportion of our customers love us, or like us a lot (what we call, “top-two-box.)
But with financial products or services, excellence depends not only on what we do, but also on the execution of merchants and third-party vendors, the avoidance of crooks who perpetrate fraud, and even merchant product quality.
Our harried customer service representatives field calls about a variety of customer concerns, and it is very different to spend the bulk of your day dealing with the complaining portion of the consuming public than it is to listen in to an hour of customer calls on a weekly basis in order to make product feature decisions (which people of my profession routinely do.)
Being a captive audience to one side of those conversations gave me and my colleagues a new insight into patterns in the calls.
One example: for a period of time a very hard-working immigrant from an African nation, who spoke English with what sounded like an Eastern –European accent, sat just north of my office. It is one thing to read in the financial press that Americans are opposed to the off-shoring of customer service, and quite another to notice that every other caller, obnoxiously asked this conscientious young man where he lived. I could tell by the young man’s reaction that the caller did not for a minute believe him when he replied, “Salt Lake City, why do you ask?”
This frustrated young man from time to time became very combative, and all of us who heard him felt deeply sorry that he had to endure the abuse that was heaped on him day after day. His immigration story was heart-wrenching and heroic. His work ethic was first-rate. His grasp of English was better by far than say, my grasp of Spanish when I’m visiting Mexico. Honestly, I think this kid is smarter than me.
Another example: while at lunch with a former colleague I overheard another patron verbally abusing a waitress over something related to the food. Not her fault really – she handles the service, but remember, the kitchen doesn’t face the public, they face only management and waiters and waitresses. As the waitress apologetically walked away to fix the problem, and after already causing her more trouble than the bulk of us, the patron commented about the size – or rather lack of size of her future tip.
It is my general observation that most people are bullies to the weak and helpless who don’t seem to matter. If you aren’t weak or helpless, you are probably a bully from time to time too. And there are few people with less power than a customer service representative.
If there seems to be no love in most customer service, perhaps it is less about training on the part of the company, or desire on the part of the employee, and more about the last ten customers who verbally abused them. If there is one thing I have learned well it is that in order to change the dynamics of a relationship, you need only change one side of the equation.
If you want better service, you need to be more like my Dad. He is polite and patient with everyone, most especially the weak and helpless. When he knows it, he uses their name. He thanks them. He is genuine and respectful. He uses the words “please” and “thank you.” He compliments them. He is consistent. Listening to him, you would think he was dealing with the president of the company. And it has been my life-long observation that he gets better service than most people I know, especially where he is well known.
Another observation: Companies are rewarding customers for obnoxious behavior. The unhappy customer that doesn’t push and abuse, demand and cajole, will get no compensational perk.
The jerk, on the other hand – well now, company polices and partially empowered employees and managers will credit their account, send them movie tickets or some other such thing, and thank them profusely for their abuse, bow and scrape. We’ve set up our front-line employees and we’ve ensured that the abuse will continue to escalate.
There are ways to overcome these issues, but the current policies of most customer service organizations, policies devised by re-engineering project managers and approved by senior managers, lead to unintended consequences and escalation remains hidden to those “strategists.”
Those re-engineering project managers are people who jump from one operation to another, think they understand all the pertinent data in minutes, but miss the nuances. They are really good with process maps, project plans and “managing upward.” We’ve left the devising of our most important relationships to people with a cursory understanding of the dynamics or consequences of these key relationships.
These re-engineering project managers think they are more clever than the experts. The experts are those people who do this each and every day. And on that rare occasion when the re-engineering project manager does ask and listen to the experts, they routinely ignore what they say.
Next time you decide some pierced, tattooed, baggy-panted, and very bored or unhappy looking minimum wage service jockey needs a bit of straightening out, take a moment to think about who actually determined the policies, designed the product, or determined the process for that service. Chances are that guy has an MBA, owns the house next door and makes a lot more than minimum wage.
Oh, and he can’t figure out why he can’t find good help these days.
The first section to be re-sized was the north end of my floor – where I work. The commencement of that re-model project temporarily moved me and my colleagues into the very close proximity of our customer service phone shop for almost half a year. Every day, we heard one side of the calls customer service representatives took from those customers with a problem of some kind.
I don’t want to give the impression that there are huge numbers of complaints. We do a pretty good job with our products and services. I know, I sound like a sports team “homer” but so what? I am a big fan of my brand, my colleagues and our products. Those products and services are great and they work. And when surveyed, a large proportion of our customers love us, or like us a lot (what we call, “top-two-box.)
But with financial products or services, excellence depends not only on what we do, but also on the execution of merchants and third-party vendors, the avoidance of crooks who perpetrate fraud, and even merchant product quality.
Our harried customer service representatives field calls about a variety of customer concerns, and it is very different to spend the bulk of your day dealing with the complaining portion of the consuming public than it is to listen in to an hour of customer calls on a weekly basis in order to make product feature decisions (which people of my profession routinely do.)
Being a captive audience to one side of those conversations gave me and my colleagues a new insight into patterns in the calls.
One example: for a period of time a very hard-working immigrant from an African nation, who spoke English with what sounded like an Eastern –European accent, sat just north of my office. It is one thing to read in the financial press that Americans are opposed to the off-shoring of customer service, and quite another to notice that every other caller, obnoxiously asked this conscientious young man where he lived. I could tell by the young man’s reaction that the caller did not for a minute believe him when he replied, “Salt Lake City, why do you ask?”
This frustrated young man from time to time became very combative, and all of us who heard him felt deeply sorry that he had to endure the abuse that was heaped on him day after day. His immigration story was heart-wrenching and heroic. His work ethic was first-rate. His grasp of English was better by far than say, my grasp of Spanish when I’m visiting Mexico. Honestly, I think this kid is smarter than me.
Another example: while at lunch with a former colleague I overheard another patron verbally abusing a waitress over something related to the food. Not her fault really – she handles the service, but remember, the kitchen doesn’t face the public, they face only management and waiters and waitresses. As the waitress apologetically walked away to fix the problem, and after already causing her more trouble than the bulk of us, the patron commented about the size – or rather lack of size of her future tip.
It is my general observation that most people are bullies to the weak and helpless who don’t seem to matter. If you aren’t weak or helpless, you are probably a bully from time to time too. And there are few people with less power than a customer service representative.
If there seems to be no love in most customer service, perhaps it is less about training on the part of the company, or desire on the part of the employee, and more about the last ten customers who verbally abused them. If there is one thing I have learned well it is that in order to change the dynamics of a relationship, you need only change one side of the equation.
If you want better service, you need to be more like my Dad. He is polite and patient with everyone, most especially the weak and helpless. When he knows it, he uses their name. He thanks them. He is genuine and respectful. He uses the words “please” and “thank you.” He compliments them. He is consistent. Listening to him, you would think he was dealing with the president of the company. And it has been my life-long observation that he gets better service than most people I know, especially where he is well known.
Another observation: Companies are rewarding customers for obnoxious behavior. The unhappy customer that doesn’t push and abuse, demand and cajole, will get no compensational perk.
The jerk, on the other hand – well now, company polices and partially empowered employees and managers will credit their account, send them movie tickets or some other such thing, and thank them profusely for their abuse, bow and scrape. We’ve set up our front-line employees and we’ve ensured that the abuse will continue to escalate.
There are ways to overcome these issues, but the current policies of most customer service organizations, policies devised by re-engineering project managers and approved by senior managers, lead to unintended consequences and escalation remains hidden to those “strategists.”
Those re-engineering project managers are people who jump from one operation to another, think they understand all the pertinent data in minutes, but miss the nuances. They are really good with process maps, project plans and “managing upward.” We’ve left the devising of our most important relationships to people with a cursory understanding of the dynamics or consequences of these key relationships.
These re-engineering project managers think they are more clever than the experts. The experts are those people who do this each and every day. And on that rare occasion when the re-engineering project manager does ask and listen to the experts, they routinely ignore what they say.
Next time you decide some pierced, tattooed, baggy-panted, and very bored or unhappy looking minimum wage service jockey needs a bit of straightening out, take a moment to think about who actually determined the policies, designed the product, or determined the process for that service. Chances are that guy has an MBA, owns the house next door and makes a lot more than minimum wage.
Oh, and he can’t figure out why he can’t find good help these days.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
The Root of Civility
Former Supreme Court Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo has said that, "Freedom of expression is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom." Now that, is a brilliant expression!
At least one writer (Salman Rushdie) has expressed the belief that "without freedom to offend," freedom of expression "ceases to exist."
Despite the brilliance of Rushdie, I respectfully disagree with him. And in a time when communication appears to have become so much more careless, offensive, and frankly just plain rude, we need, as a society to figure out how to protect this basic and fundamental right without destroying the slender and fragile threads of civility that hold our society together.
Earlier this week and in another forum, I wrote: "Don't you wish there were a way to indicate non-verbal ques in our emails? How often I would have loved to have had a symbol that indicated my tongue in my cheek, but feel it is somehow not quite manly to use those silly little "emoticoms" with their insipid - more leering than smiley faces!
I'm convinced that the biggest problem with the electronic forms of communication and discussion is that the non-verbal and face-to-face components have been removed but we still expect that they are present. Since our brains are designed to make rapid value judgments, we still make the assumptions we would if we were in a face-to-face discussion but without what communication experts say is as much as 90% of the needed 'data.'
It is a huge problem getting bigger as more and more interpersonal communication is short and written - and getting shorter and more written (texting is showing this trend to be fairly permanent and even more short-handed!)
Seth Godin, a tremendously brilliant marketing writer and consultant, believes that anonymity is killing the civility of our society. I think that it's corollary, "faceless-ness," is a huge component of this destruction. The bottom line though, is that communication is risky even with, or perhaps especially with, the people we love most."
These twin facets, anonymity and faceless-ness, indicate that the real problem with rude or offensive communication or expression is not the inherent freedom, but instead the inherent lack of respect for those with whom we are communicating. If we do not know our audience then we do not even understand those things which might offend. If we cannot see that audience, we often have no idea how real - and bright, they may be.
Ah, you may say, "Lon, you idiot, if your premise is right and we know our audience and we know that something we will say will offend them, then curtailing that communication is to limit our freedom of expression. Rushdie was right!" I did not say we should curtail our expression. But respect for those with whom we communication requires us to work at it.
The root of civility is not conformity or a lack of freedom.
The root of civility is respect.
If we have a tough message to deliver, or a variant point of view, and we need to convince a person we love and respect that this point of view is worth embracing - or at least understanding, we work very hard at crafting the right message, and delivering it persuasively. This is not limiting our freedom of expression - it is merely taking care in its delivery.
One of the mistakes I think that some "constitutionalists" make is believing that expression is an "offensive" word printed boldly and openly on an outer garment. Those of us who don't have to wrestle with theoretic constitutional positions know what the judges cannot admit to in public: those who do such want to shock and offend. They weren't looking so much for expression as for shock value. They want attention - even negative attention.
Expression is the verbalization of one's point of view, thoughts, or values. And you can offend without having a point of view, thought or value.
But if we follow Rushdie to the end of his expression, then perfect freedom is a world in which everyone says whatever comes to their mind at any time no matter who may be shocked, offended or even harmed.
Yelling "FIRE" when there is none, in a crowded theater is the usual example. When, in the rush to get out of the theater, one or more are injured or killed, the expression or thought has just led to damage.
I suspect you have witnessed a political debate where the carefully practiced civility of the candidates breaks down pretty quickly. At the root of that breakdown is contempt for the ideas and opinions of the other candidate or candidates, and the belief that everyone with any intelligence agrees with them. That is a simple lack of respect, my friends.
The opinions of another candidate or citizen may not be worth the effort, but the right to hold them is the same for one candidate - or citizen as for the other.
How well I remember my father, a career military officer, saying he may not agree with my opinion, but would fight to the death for my right to hold it. I don't think we hear those kinds of expressions any more. They seem too quaint. And that is just too bad, because "lay down their life" is exactly what too many have done so that we can have the freedom of expression.
So I am trying to add the element of respect to my freedom of expression. When I write an email, a paper (or even this blog), or when I speak with anyone else I'm picturing and respecting the self-same rights and intelligence of my audience. (You all are quite bright and beautiful, aren't you!)
When I get an email, or read a post, or hear someone speak and something expressed is obnoxious and offends me, I'm trying to remember that they obviously forgot, or didn't know, that a brilliant, cultured, well-read, hard-working and handsome fellow like me was going to read or hear their remarks. I'm going to try to be self-satisfied enough to ignore the offense.
Why? Well, I'd like to see civility restored in my community, and since I am the only member of my community I can possibly change, I'm just working on me. If you'd like to join me in my little quest, you are free to do so.
At least one writer (Salman Rushdie) has expressed the belief that "without freedom to offend," freedom of expression "ceases to exist."
Despite the brilliance of Rushdie, I respectfully disagree with him. And in a time when communication appears to have become so much more careless, offensive, and frankly just plain rude, we need, as a society to figure out how to protect this basic and fundamental right without destroying the slender and fragile threads of civility that hold our society together.
Earlier this week and in another forum, I wrote: "Don't you wish there were a way to indicate non-verbal ques in our emails? How often I would have loved to have had a symbol that indicated my tongue in my cheek, but feel it is somehow not quite manly to use those silly little "emoticoms" with their insipid - more leering than smiley faces!
I'm convinced that the biggest problem with the electronic forms of communication and discussion is that the non-verbal and face-to-face components have been removed but we still expect that they are present. Since our brains are designed to make rapid value judgments, we still make the assumptions we would if we were in a face-to-face discussion but without what communication experts say is as much as 90% of the needed 'data.'
It is a huge problem getting bigger as more and more interpersonal communication is short and written - and getting shorter and more written (texting is showing this trend to be fairly permanent and even more short-handed!)
Seth Godin, a tremendously brilliant marketing writer and consultant, believes that anonymity is killing the civility of our society. I think that it's corollary, "faceless-ness," is a huge component of this destruction. The bottom line though, is that communication is risky even with, or perhaps especially with, the people we love most."
These twin facets, anonymity and faceless-ness, indicate that the real problem with rude or offensive communication or expression is not the inherent freedom, but instead the inherent lack of respect for those with whom we are communicating. If we do not know our audience then we do not even understand those things which might offend. If we cannot see that audience, we often have no idea how real - and bright, they may be.
Ah, you may say, "Lon, you idiot, if your premise is right and we know our audience and we know that something we will say will offend them, then curtailing that communication is to limit our freedom of expression. Rushdie was right!" I did not say we should curtail our expression. But respect for those with whom we communication requires us to work at it.
The root of civility is not conformity or a lack of freedom.
The root of civility is respect.
If we have a tough message to deliver, or a variant point of view, and we need to convince a person we love and respect that this point of view is worth embracing - or at least understanding, we work very hard at crafting the right message, and delivering it persuasively. This is not limiting our freedom of expression - it is merely taking care in its delivery.
One of the mistakes I think that some "constitutionalists" make is believing that expression is an "offensive" word printed boldly and openly on an outer garment. Those of us who don't have to wrestle with theoretic constitutional positions know what the judges cannot admit to in public: those who do such want to shock and offend. They weren't looking so much for expression as for shock value. They want attention - even negative attention.
Expression is the verbalization of one's point of view, thoughts, or values. And you can offend without having a point of view, thought or value.
But if we follow Rushdie to the end of his expression, then perfect freedom is a world in which everyone says whatever comes to their mind at any time no matter who may be shocked, offended or even harmed.
Yelling "FIRE" when there is none, in a crowded theater is the usual example. When, in the rush to get out of the theater, one or more are injured or killed, the expression or thought has just led to damage.
I suspect you have witnessed a political debate where the carefully practiced civility of the candidates breaks down pretty quickly. At the root of that breakdown is contempt for the ideas and opinions of the other candidate or candidates, and the belief that everyone with any intelligence agrees with them. That is a simple lack of respect, my friends.
The opinions of another candidate or citizen may not be worth the effort, but the right to hold them is the same for one candidate - or citizen as for the other.
How well I remember my father, a career military officer, saying he may not agree with my opinion, but would fight to the death for my right to hold it. I don't think we hear those kinds of expressions any more. They seem too quaint. And that is just too bad, because "lay down their life" is exactly what too many have done so that we can have the freedom of expression.
So I am trying to add the element of respect to my freedom of expression. When I write an email, a paper (or even this blog), or when I speak with anyone else I'm picturing and respecting the self-same rights and intelligence of my audience. (You all are quite bright and beautiful, aren't you!)
When I get an email, or read a post, or hear someone speak and something expressed is obnoxious and offends me, I'm trying to remember that they obviously forgot, or didn't know, that a brilliant, cultured, well-read, hard-working and handsome fellow like me was going to read or hear their remarks. I'm going to try to be self-satisfied enough to ignore the offense.
Why? Well, I'd like to see civility restored in my community, and since I am the only member of my community I can possibly change, I'm just working on me. If you'd like to join me in my little quest, you are free to do so.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Full of Gratitude
I woke this morning with an overwhelming sense of gratitude. There were several reasons, but let me just name a few.
My son, in his late twenties, who recently tried to end it all for the second time in as many weeks appears to have finally hit rock bottom and last night agreed not to resist the efforts of professionals, family and friends to help him detox and try to turn things around.
As his Mother and I watched him prepare for transport to an in-patient facility, we felt true hope for the first time in 14-years. Yes, he may break our hearts once again by choosing not to make the effort. It may take many more years for him to become the productive, happy, responsible and law-abiding citizen we want him to be. But today, I am grateful for all the love, support, prayers and expressions of support we have received through this ordeal.
I’m especially grateful to my friend and Brother, Kim – an expert in this kind of thing, who took my calls, counseled with me, and got me through it all. Once again, my friend, I owe you.
I’m not sure we always give those who simply get up in the morning, go to work, act responsibly, obey the law, help their neighbors, take care of their kids, and make a small but significant and positive contribution to our society the credit they deserve. When you see up close and personal the pain, suffering and toll those who don’t do those seemingly simple things cause, you begin to see how truly special those civil people are. Today, I am grateful for all my neighbors in this community who do all those "small" things.
I was also so grateful this morning to wake and discover that Congressman Chris Cannon will be coming home soon. It is not so much because I don’t like Congressman Cannon and his politics (I don’t), or even because I think Jason Chaffetz represents my view-point any better (he doesn’t.) It is really more because I believe that Cincinnatus needs to return home to the farm after his job is done in order to make Washington DC operate better. (If you don't know who Cincinatius is, find and read the story of this man's life. It is worth the effort.)
And those who cannot do the job in one or two terms ought to step aside voluntarily while those who think they are the only ones – or one of the few who can do the job, well, they need to get a reality check.
I am generally against term limits because I think the voters ought to always have the final say, but our current system has shown that the voter is a poor regulator of incumbent longevity, and perhaps my theoretical approach has been proven false by the very practical results.
It is ironic that the Utah Senator (Hatch) who unseated his incumbent opponent more than two decades ago largely because the incumbent had been in DC too long to be in touch with his constituents has now outlasted that former incumbent. It is also paradoxical that he was seen in political ads for Cannon arrogantly instructing us all that we just don’t understand how Washington works, and that you have to be a long-term incumbent in order to get things done.
If all our representatives came home after one or two terms, the system would have to change because one of its legs had been kicked out from under it.
Of course, it is all our fault – Really! We have the kind of government we deserve. When we have less people “show up for a primary election than would show up for a poorly attended BYU Football game”(Doug Wright, The Doug Wright Show, KSL, June, 25, 2008) we have no one to blame but ourselves.
On the other hand, if you are not a member of the dominant ruling party (like me), there was nothing to vote for or against in the primary. So my gratitude is for all those who decided to bring him home, and also for all those who thought he ought to stay one more term but were unable or unwilling to get to the polls and vote. I think this time the apathetic (or perhaps just pathetic) party-line non-voters did us a great service.
Thank you all.
My son, in his late twenties, who recently tried to end it all for the second time in as many weeks appears to have finally hit rock bottom and last night agreed not to resist the efforts of professionals, family and friends to help him detox and try to turn things around.
As his Mother and I watched him prepare for transport to an in-patient facility, we felt true hope for the first time in 14-years. Yes, he may break our hearts once again by choosing not to make the effort. It may take many more years for him to become the productive, happy, responsible and law-abiding citizen we want him to be. But today, I am grateful for all the love, support, prayers and expressions of support we have received through this ordeal.
I’m especially grateful to my friend and Brother, Kim – an expert in this kind of thing, who took my calls, counseled with me, and got me through it all. Once again, my friend, I owe you.
I’m not sure we always give those who simply get up in the morning, go to work, act responsibly, obey the law, help their neighbors, take care of their kids, and make a small but significant and positive contribution to our society the credit they deserve. When you see up close and personal the pain, suffering and toll those who don’t do those seemingly simple things cause, you begin to see how truly special those civil people are. Today, I am grateful for all my neighbors in this community who do all those "small" things.
I was also so grateful this morning to wake and discover that Congressman Chris Cannon will be coming home soon. It is not so much because I don’t like Congressman Cannon and his politics (I don’t), or even because I think Jason Chaffetz represents my view-point any better (he doesn’t.) It is really more because I believe that Cincinnatus needs to return home to the farm after his job is done in order to make Washington DC operate better. (If you don't know who Cincinatius is, find and read the story of this man's life. It is worth the effort.)
And those who cannot do the job in one or two terms ought to step aside voluntarily while those who think they are the only ones – or one of the few who can do the job, well, they need to get a reality check.
I am generally against term limits because I think the voters ought to always have the final say, but our current system has shown that the voter is a poor regulator of incumbent longevity, and perhaps my theoretical approach has been proven false by the very practical results.
It is ironic that the Utah Senator (Hatch) who unseated his incumbent opponent more than two decades ago largely because the incumbent had been in DC too long to be in touch with his constituents has now outlasted that former incumbent. It is also paradoxical that he was seen in political ads for Cannon arrogantly instructing us all that we just don’t understand how Washington works, and that you have to be a long-term incumbent in order to get things done.
If all our representatives came home after one or two terms, the system would have to change because one of its legs had been kicked out from under it.
Of course, it is all our fault – Really! We have the kind of government we deserve. When we have less people “show up for a primary election than would show up for a poorly attended BYU Football game”(Doug Wright, The Doug Wright Show, KSL, June, 25, 2008) we have no one to blame but ourselves.
On the other hand, if you are not a member of the dominant ruling party (like me), there was nothing to vote for or against in the primary. So my gratitude is for all those who decided to bring him home, and also for all those who thought he ought to stay one more term but were unable or unwilling to get to the polls and vote. I think this time the apathetic (or perhaps just pathetic) party-line non-voters did us a great service.
Thank you all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)