Failure to Notice
The BBC reported recently that workers cleaning up the grounds beneath a roller coaster at Alton Towers in England had found more than 1000 personal items whose owners had lost them while enjoying the ride. Among these articles were 800 pieces of jewelry, 237 mobile phones, 53 non-matching shoes and 604 watches. Perhaps the most interesting item of all was a prosthetic leg.
Most of us, I think you will agree, tend to notice little things like whether or not someone is hopping on one leg or walking on two. It reminds me of that sketch so brilliantly written and performed by Peter Cook and Dudley Moore in which Dudley, who only has one leg, shows up at an audition for the part of Tarzan. The issue here is not whether the customer had one leg or two; rather, it is that the person operating the ride failed to notice it. As Mr. Moore so courageously demonstrated, it is impossible to stand still on just one leg; and as his auditioner was quick to point out, he only had one leg to stand on where two were required.
How is it possible that something this obvious was overlooked by the ride operator? Among other things, I would say it was because he or she wasn't interested in what happened after the sale. Making the sale was the most important thing, the only thing, that mattered. A lot of companies think that they have this problem in the bag because they provide after sales questionnaires; but I've found that the questions usually ask for only the information they want to hear, not for what they don't want to hear. It's almost as if the questionnaire is being used to remind customers of what a great experience they had, a way to help them forget about all the personal items they lost along the way.
This story teaches us a lot about customer service. It reminds us that the relationship after the sale is as important as it is before and during it. It shows us that our customers have needs that we don't know about; and it proves to us once more that the obvious may be staring us in the face. Most of all, it reinforces what we know already - that it is easier fix problems when they first occur than it is at any other time.
. . . Excuse me, sir, but have you lost a leg?
Hurricane Obama
Kenneth Timmerman on Newsmax.com reports that a lawsuit has been filed in Pennsylvania by that state's former Deputy Attorney General Philip J Berg, a "self-avowed supporter of Hillary Clinton," which alleges that Barack Obama was not born in the United States.
Similar lawsuits have been filed in seven other states: Hawaii, Washington, California, Florida, Georgia, New York and Connecticut. Berg contends that the failure of Obama and his lawyers to produce a birth certificate clearly stating his place of birth is an admission of guilt, and therefore makes him ineligible to be President of the United States.
Fight the Smears has posted what appears to be a valid birth certificate; but somehow this "evidence" has escaped the notice of the eight state and federal courts in which the lawsuits were filed. Curiously, the certificate number has been blacked out, raising further suspicions about its authenticity. Conspiracy theorists know the power of Photoshop.
My point, here, is not to pass judgment one way or the other, but rather to illustrate how easily an issue that may seem small to one person can be huge to others. Managers and employees make this mistake all the time. For example, managers expect employees to produce their best work day after day. Regardless of the personal problems that plague all of us, they want dependable workers, not unreliable ones. Employees, on the other hand expect managers to keep details of their private lives, however trivial, in the strictest confidence. If managers can't be trusted with the small things, why would anyone ever confide in them on something that was "really important?"
To Obama, missing the "federally mandated deadline" for producing a "vault copy" of his birth certificate may seem like an unnecessary distraction so close to Election Day; but to some members of the electorate, this is more than just a storm in a teacup: It's a Category 5 Hurricane. If he expects to weather this storm, then he would be wise to direct all hands to the pumps. Otherwise he may find that he's the captain of a sinking ship.
Managing a Difficult Boss
I've been busy answering questions submitted to me through AllExperts. One of the most common problems seems to be how to work with a difficult boss. When people start a new job, often they are anxious to make a good impression. This can be very difficult in those situations where their supervisor is an incompetent manager. There is much to be said about this problem, and I plan to cover it in an upcoming newsletter; but for now, I want to encourage all of you to focus on what you can do, rather than what you can't do. If you concentrate on the foibles of your manager, it will eventually affect your own performance. If you concentrate on your own work, you will not be distracted by what your manager does or does not do. By concentrating on your own work, you will get more done and your attitude will improve as well.
A Cardinal Rule
One of the cardinal rules in management is to praise in public, but criticize in private. It is remarkable, however, just how few managers actually practice this. In my experience, the majority make public criticism of their subordinates into an Olympic event, but are so embarrassed about offering praise that they not only just do it privately, in their offices or elsewhere, but give it sort of under their breath and without making eye contact. And they are just the ones that do praise others. A lot of managers just criticise, but never offer any praise. Their view is that 'no news, is good news.'
Well, let me set the record straight. Managers and aspiring managers, sit up and take note. Never criticize your subordinates in public. Don't do it. In most cases, whatever has occurred is not important enough that it can't wait for a private chat later; and even when it is, you can be sure the person responsible already feels about as big as a bug's whisker. There is nothing to be gained by crushing that person's ego in front of everyone.
I'll tell you something else I'll bet you don't know. The people that you aren't criticizing are listening. You can destroy their morale and your reputation as a leader or a manager by mishandling the situation. Once that happens, things will never be the same. It is almost impossible to undo the damage. From then on, people will be very careful around you. They'll be watching their backs, instead of their work.
Don't Believe Everything You Read on the Internet
You are probably thinking that it is the title of this entry is so obvious as to not need an explanation. Well, things are never that simple, are they.
About a week ago, I asked for some advice on AllExperts.com. The first reply I got was okay, but I wanted some additional clarification. The more I asked, the more facetious and patronizing the "expert" became. Not at all what I expected.
The problem, I think, arose when I started getting e-mails from AllExperts which said that the person who provided the advice wanted me to rate her answer. What I didn't realize was that this was a "trick" question. It wasn't that the expert wanted feedback; it was that AllExperts had generated the e-mail asking for feedback. Because I hadn't figured it out at the time, I was responded as if I was talking to a neutral third party.
My point is that when you are communicating with people you don't know on the Internet, you have to take extra precautions because things are seldom what they seem to be.
Maybe I just had a bad experience; but, I used this free "service" on the recommendation of someone else without checking the facts first. How often do you suppose this happens in organizations? Quite often, I think.. Does the squeaky wheel always get the oil? In other words, do the people who complain the loudest and most frequently always get their way, particularly at the expense of others? I hope not; but I can tell you that I have worked in organizations where I've seen this happen time and time again. It's a sign of weak management.
In the long run, it is worth taking the time to decide on an objective standard against which to evaluate the complaint and to gather the facts from as many different sources as necessary so that you have as near to a complete picture of the situation as possible before taking a decision. Otherwise, you might just shoot from the lip and regret it later.
Read the Fine Print
We all know that we should never agree to a legal document without reading the fine print, and I'm sure that most of you do this with contracts printed on paper; but, how many of you do it with online contracts? Maybe you're thinking, "I don't have any online contracts." Well, if you're reading this blog, then let me assure you that you do. In fact, you have several. Here's what I mean.
Everytime you load new software, you are asked to read the terms and conditions. Studies have shown that the majority of people don't read them; instead, they just click "I agree" and move on. I read recently that in an effort to get people to read their terms and conditions, they offered $1000 to the first person who e-mailed them at their special address. Eventually, someone e-mailed them, and they paid up. I wonder how many people missed out on the money-spinner.
Today, I was offered the opportunity to download some free search engine optimization (SEO) software. Of course, there were several upgradeable versions and analytics that cost real dough; but the basic level was free. At first, I was a bit dubious of downloading it. My SEO "mentors" Jennifer Grappone & Gradiva Couzin, authors of Search Engine Optimization: An Hour a Day,
Now, I'll admit it: I don't read every single word in these contracts. One is much like the other and usually along these lines: Company X owns the software not you; you can only download it to this machine; you can't sell it to anyone; you can't reverse engineer it; we will send you advertising e-mail from time to time that you don't want; and if anything goes wrong with your machine, it's not our fault.
Companies depend on this format to include things they hope we won't notice. I read quite fast, and so as I breezed through this one, a s word I wasn't used to seeing caught my eye. "Ukraine." Yep. The terms and conditions were subject to the laws of the Ukraine. I don't know what the extent of your legal expertise, but mine is limited to the US and the UK. Eastern Europe? Do they have laws? Have they been in force for any length of time? It's only been 20 years since the collapse of the Old Soviet Union. There was no way that I was going to put this software on my computer. The company offering it was based in Canada.
This anecdote illustrates how important it is to read the fine print. Various testimonials regarding the software included people who had badgered their CEOs until they finally gave in and let them get it.
How can this be a cock-up? You know already. Read the fine print. You don't want to receive a knock at the door from Big Brother because you didn't.