Old but good service concept: the Circle of Influence

One of my favorite customer service concepts is the "Circle of Influence". It reminds us that there are things we cannot control, such as our customers, so we should focus on things we can control (like our reaction to our customers).

A story...

My phone rang and I answered it, "Hello, this is Jeff." The person on the other end was a colleague that I had met a few times, but didn't know well. "Hi Jeff, do you have a minute?" she asked.

"Sure," I said.

Silence. Then... "Are you sure you have a minute? You sounded really hesitant. I can call back if this isn't a good time."

Huh?! It took a second to collect my thoughts. "I don't know why you think I sounded hesitant. I said sure. How can I help you?"

Again, awkward silence. Then... "Hey, I didn't mean to cause any conflict or upset you in any way. I'm just calling to ask you for a phone number, but if this isn't a good time or you don't want to give me the number that's OK, just say so.  I'm really not trying to cause any problems."

I gave her the phone number, but I couldn't get off the phone fast enough. That lady was nuts!!

It took me a few minutes afterwards to get over it, but then I reminded myself about the circle of influence. I really felt she was pushing my buttons, but I also realized I had allowed my buttons to be pushed. There was a good chance I'd run into this person again, so I wanted to be sure I was better prepared the next time. Looking at my "circle of influence" I realized what the crucial piece of dialogue should have been. 

Crazy Lady: "Hi Jeff, do you have a minute?"

Me: "Sure."

Crazy Lady: "Are you sure you have a minute? You sounded really hesitant. I can call back if this isn't a good time."

Me: "I'd be happy to speak with you now. How may I help you?"

Epilogue

This little exercise really paid off. I saw Crazy Lady a couple weeks later.  This time there were other people present, so there would be witnesses if I didn't handle it well. Sure enough, she stayed in character and said something crazy and provoking, a classic "button pushing" move. Fortunately, I remembered my little circle of influence self-pep talk and I was ready. I just smiled, shrugged it off, and redirected the conversation to keep it positive. Awkward conflict avoided! 

Gallup finds more reasons to micromanage

A new study from the Gallup Management Journal has discovered that igorning your employees may be even more harmful than focusing on their weaknesses. Not unexpectedly, focusing on employee strengths yields the best results of all.  You may know that I'm an unabashed fan of micromanaging, and this data provides more fuel for my micromanagement fire!

Micromanagement yields the best results.
I define micromanagement as actively managing employees' performance, helping them become successful, and gradually providing them with more and more autonomy as they demonstrate competency and earn trust. This definition is very consistent with a "strengths-based" management philosophy.

In Gallup's study, managers that focus on employee strengths have the most engaged employees (61%) and the fewest actively disengaged employees (1%).

Micro-meddling yields worse results.
Often confused with micromanagement, micro-meddling is a management approach that focuses on employee weaknesses. Micro-meddlers don't set clear expectations and spend their time correcting performance rather than encouraging growth. Unlike micromanagers who loosen the reins over time, micro-meddlers make it impossible for employees to earn trust and autonomy.

In Gallup's study, managers that focus on employee weaknesses engage (on average) 45% of their employees while an average of 22% of their employees are actively disengaged.

Not managing is worst of all.
The hands-off approach is even worse than micro-meddling. Gallup found that only 2% of employees who felt ignored by their managers were engaged compared to 40% who were actively disengaged. Managers who fail to provide clear and consistent direction or any feedback often choose this style because they want to avoid conflict, want to achieve a positive reputation with their employees, or are simply overwhelmed with other responsibilities.  Whatever the cause, this is clearly the worst way to go.

Check out an article on Gallup's study here.

Read my post, "Long Live the Micromanager" for more info.

Back from the "ID10T" brink - wrap-up of the Adobe story

Last Friday, I was finally able to get my technical support problem resolved with Adobe's Connect Pro web-conferencing service.  My goal was to continue using the service, so I'm glad I didn't have to cancel. At the same time, Adobe's customer service was exceptionally poor. This epilogue highlights the costly effects of an "ID10T" customer service philosophy: I'm frustrated, Adobe looks bad, and we've both wasted time and resources.

I'm Frustrated
On Friday, I received a phone call from Rahul, a Technical Support Consultant at Adobe. He asked me a few questions, put me on hold for just a moment, then asked me to try logging in. Shazam! The problem was fixed.  Total time = <5 minutes.  Why am I frustrated? Because it took so much of my time to finally get connected with the person who had the solution.

Adobe Looks Bad
Taking an "ID10T" approach with customers is never a good policy. If you didn't catch my earlier posts on the subject, "ID10T" is technical support slang for user-error (or, the customer is an idiot). Dealing with obstinate service reps who insist on walking through a protocol that takes 30 minutes to complete, but brings us no closer to resolving the issue, is infuriating.  And, furious customers like to share.

Everything else was waste...
Adobe and I both wasted a lot of time on what turned out to be a 5 minute solution once it got to the right person. 

• Six different Adobe employees communicated with me via phone and/or email at some point in time.
• Total phone time = more than 60 minutes (with 4 Adobe employees).
• Total email messages = 7
• Total angry blog and message board posts from me = 7

What can we learn?

This situation highlights a few key lessons for any customer service operation. First, never assume your customer is an idiot. (Although some are -- it's not up to us to point that out.) Second, your customer service operation should rapidly funnel customers to the person who can help, rather than setting up obstacles and roadblocks erected in the name of "efficiency" and "cost containment". Third, make sure the left hand and the right hand get together once in awhile so each knows what the other is doing. While I was on the phone with Rahul getting my problem fixed on Friday, I received an email from Matt that simply said "Are you still experiencing this issue?" Thanks, Matt.  That email was super-helpful... (Insert sarcasm here.)

I found the 4th level of "ID10T" hell

I heard back from my new "friend" at Adobe via email today. His message revealed the 4th level of "ID10T" hell.  To re-cap, here are the first three:

1. Brush off my inquiry with a non-answer so I have to inquire again.
2. Try to prove the problem is a user-error, essentially an "ID10T" problem.
3. Promise to respond, but don't, so the customer has to send a second inquiry.

The fourth level of "ID10T" hell:

Respond to the customer's second message and ask for the customer's login and password. What?! That's right, my "buddy" Deepak at Adobe has informed me that he needs my account login and password to resolve my problem.

I'm surprised nobody threw me a party yesterday to celebrate my birthday. After all, according to Deepak, I was born yesterday!! Is this an ID10T Squared issue?

Seriously, does anyone know anyone at Adobe not named Deepak that can help me with Connect Pro?

Not every technical support issue is an "ID10T"

Technical support people have a term for user-errors: ID 10 T. Mushed together, it spells out ID10T, or idiot. Sometimes, they're even right. A great many computer problems are resolved by simply rebooting, checking to ensure the monitor is actually attached to the computer, or making sure the thing is even plugged in. I get that. What I don't get is the assumption that every problem is the result of a user-ID10T.

I'm spiraling through the depths of Technical Support hell with Adobe at the moment. This isn't a rant on Adobe per se (I generally really like their products), but it's a great example of how so many companies get it wrong.

First level of technical support hell: brush off the inquiry. I emailed their technical support folks to ask about a problem I had experienced with their web-conferencing program, Connect Pro. The gist of my email was I had followed their directions to the letter to set up a web-conferencing template, but it wasn't working. What should I do now?  The brush off came via a long form email that essentially said, "We're so sorry you are experiencing a problem.  Here is a link to our directions on this topic."  Uh, I'm emailing because the directions DON'T WORK!

Second level of technical support hell: try to prove the ID10T theory. I sent a follow-up email today to ask for additional assistance since their first message missed the mark.  I was pleasantly surprised to get a phone call in response to my follow-up email, but soon grew frustrated. The person on the other end of the phone used unfamiliar idioms that made him very hard to understand. Worse, we spent 30 minutes going through a checklist of trouble-shooting ideas that I had already been through. How many times do I have to tell this guy I've already done that?! Finally, we got to the end of his list and he told me he'd have to do some additional research and get back to me. By now, I'm wishing it really was an ID10T issue so I could get on with it already.

Third level of technical support hell: promise to respond, but don't. I'm sure there is some study that shows if you don't call the customer back, he will just give up.  I was promised a follow-up response within about 30 minutes. That was about three hours ago and I'm still waiting.  I'm not giving up though!

Stop the madness!

Admittedly, these technical issues are sometimes difficult to resolve, but there's got to be a better way to handle them. For starters, the strategy of assuming the customer is an idiot has got to go. Secondly, the strategy of having an inexperienced (and presumably low-wage) person wade through an endless checklist before passing the issue along to someone who is actually competent has also got to go. The whole system smacks of their time is more valuable than mine. Meanwhile, I'm frustrated, I'm blogging about it, and my problem isn't resolved.

I'll keep you posted. In the meantime, please let me know if you know a good tech support person at Adobe!