partum intelligendo

Killing two industries with one email

From the Thinking Allowed email from yesterday, mention of Lawrie Taylor's experience of years earlier when asked to help with a piece of market research:

I’d always assumed these big companies – and this was one of the biggest – must be entirely independent bodies.  Not at all.  The first question their representative asked could hardly have been less objective.  ‘What sort of results are you looking for?’ he asked.   ‘Well’ said my man from the PR company.  ‘We’d rather like to find that the public would welcome more retail facilities on forecourts.’

 

‘Good’ said the polling man, making a note.  ‘And will you need a cover organisation to publish the results?’ ‘Preferably’ said my man. 

 

In no more than sixty seconds I’d been give a perfect demonstration of how the PR industry works. 

And people in the market research and PR industries wonder why we don't get more respect.

 

I know that there are many (not most, but many) people in the industries that would blanch at this as I do, but until there is a visible, conscious and concerted effort to change these practices, we're always going to be tarred with the same brush.   

From the horse's mouth.

From Jasper Fforde's "First Among Sequels", two horses talking together while their book is being repaired:

"So what's this Pride and Prejudice all about, then?"

"It's about a horse that pulls a carriage for the Bennets."

Which seems to tie in neatly to those companies that offer poor customer service that I posted about earlier.

MESH is a mess, but Apple is a huge temptation

I've recently come across two outstanding examples of customer service - in many ways elements that should be simple business-as-usual, but because of the rarity of such common sense practices they stand out in my mind.  And, as direct results of those processes, the companies in question have won substantial new business from me.

(These are particularly notable in the wake of two spectacularly bad pieces of customer service - step forward MESH Computers and SEAT cars.)

The first example is my mobile phone provider, 3.  Early in the last contract, there were problems with 3 - billing and technical problems that made me re-think the decision to switch to them.  They resolved the technical issues quickly - "here's a new, more up-to-date phone that'll work better.  No charge." - which left the billing problems.

We'd come in on a special tariff that was difficult to implement in their billing systems.  No-one was debating the tariff or trying to move us, but for two months, we were over-charged.  Then, on the next customer services call, the agent made this response:  "It's difficult to see that this hiccup won't repeat later and I don't want that.  Can I make this suggestion?  We put you, for billing purposes only, on tariff XXX, which would mean £X over the course of the contract.  But our agreed tariff would mean only £Y over the course of the contract, so we'll credit you the difference into your account immediately, so that a) you only pay the agreed amount of the contract and b) no more billing problems and customer service calls.  There is a c) you don't have to pay us anything until that credit is used up - so nothing to pay at all for another X months..."

I'm impressed.  A system that genuinely puts the customer first is a rarity.  As are people trained to think round the system and the problem to come up with a solution.  And managers willing to let processes be circumvented openly.

Needless to say, when it came time for renewal I did.  And subsequently gone for their mobile broadband too.

The second example is an easy one, but still significant.  After fighting for almost 10 months with MESH Computers to get a functional Windows PC, I looked again at Apple.  Yes, the products look well-designed.  Yes, there are people who are utter evangelists for the company.  Yes, they say they can do most things.

But how do I get convinced to a point where I'm ready to throw out a decade of investment in Windows kit, software, habits, etc.

The website's good and checking through I discover that there's an AppleStore half an hour from here and that I can book a one-hour business consultation to talk things through with them.  Not bad.

Before the session, I get a friendly phone call - what am I looking at?  What are my concerns?  I talk through my main ones - the stuff that I do on my systems that's slightly quirky but helps keep me running.  Programmes like Easy2Sync for Outlook.  Come the meeting, Steve's got answers ready, along with healthy advice ("You don't need the top of the range laptop, just go with this model.")

I'm pretty much sold - the products are good and I'm impressed with the service I'm getting.  (With the constant proviso that this is pre-sale, and things often change afterwards...)

And then comes ProCare.  Apple's top of the line service offering - drop the machine in and we'll sort it at the Genius Bar.  (Given that MESH's helpline and seven booked engineer call-outs haven't fixed the current PC, I like this.)  And, let us have your current PC and we'll transfer everything across for you...

And the "let us have the machine for 24 hours once a year and we'll give it the once over, tune it up, etc" is just a dream come true.

You mean you'll give me the product, help me with training (Apple's One-to-One), easy service (which may turn out to be more run-of-the-mill disappointment like others, but nothing about Apple has disappointed so far) and then once a year you'll take it off me and repair everything I've tweaked or uninstalled by accident.

I'm shifting to Mac.

For me these two companies have one thing in common - they genuinely see the customer and have chosen to understand the customer from the customer's own perspective.  They've then amended their processes and offerings to make life simpler for the customer.

Dante on a bicycle

Following my post earlier in the week, an update from Henry

Greetings from the train back from Lourdes, after an incredible day at the etape. The conditions were described by the local paper as 'apocalyptique” and ”Dantesque” with driving rain and - at the top of the mountains - near freezing temperatures. The battle is not just with yourself (and the elements) but also the 'broom wagon' which sweeps off the road those who don't go fast enough. Almost 2,500 were eliminated in Sunday's conditions.

And I made it. I kept 10 minutes ahead of the broom wagon in the early stages, slogged for two hours up the mighty 7,000 ft Tourmalet (more than twice the height of the highest mountain in England)  for an exhilarating feeling at the top. Then a wonderful (though icy) descent through the Gorge de Luz - survived through the old cyclist trick of stuffing newspaper up your shirt (stops the chest freezing).

And finally the unrelenting 5,000 ft of the Hautacom. My time was 9 hours 6 minutes (so 45 minutes to spare). It felt so good.

If you sponsored me - many many thanks

If you haven't yet, there's still time (I'm told 20% of donations come in after the event):

Childline: http://www.justgiving.com/henrystewart

Softpower: http://www.justgiving.com/henrystewart1

And this is me in action: http://tinyurl.com/6xuooe

I can feel the need to do something daunting myself now.

KCUK - Building a change management strategy

Thanks to everyone who participated in last week's workshop at the KCUK conference.  Various odds and sods off the back of the session:

• My presentation slides are here

• The basketball video I mentioned.

• The Harvard Business Review article on complexity/leadership/decision-making by Dave Snowden
• Dave's in-depth article on complexity and its implications, "The new dynamics of strategy: Sense-making in a complex and complicated world"

It was a distinctly Reduced Shakespeare Company take on the subject - so we're thinking of building a full one-day masterclass around it.  Thoughts to me at tony@narrate.co.uk

Horror stories for the Mac? Anyone?

After enduring some spectacularly bad hardware problems and appalling customer service with my current desktop PC, I'm finally looking at moving over to Mac.  It's exciting and tempting, and I'm (at last!) realising that those are also warning signs.

As with most things, we tend to confirmation bias - seeing evidence to support the course of action we want to take.  So this time, I'm looking consciously for reasons not to move to the Mac, specifically for examples of system failures and lack of service in resolving issues.

It's an interesting exercise.  Had I done it for the desktop PC, there were plenty of horror stories available to make me reconsider.  For Apples, however, there are fewer.

So - I'm pleased I'm actually thinking it through more and looking for warning signs.  Anyone got any horror stories?

Remarkable, Happy Henry

From Henry Stewart, the remarkable boss at remarkable Happy Computers:

This Sunday I am taking the biggest physical challenge of my life. I am cycling the etape, the public stage of the Tour de France:

• 105 miles
• the same mountains - Tourmalet at 7,000 ft, Hautacom at 5,000 ft - that you will have seen Lance Armstrong power up.
• the route that, when added to the Tour in 1910, the lead rider famously spat the word 'assassins' at the organisers on reaching the top.
• Max time of 10 hours (or they sweep you off the road)

I've been training for 5 months for this, but have left the sponsorship a bit late!  The links are below, I hope you can help:

Now I am a keen cyclist. But until this year I'd not cycled more than 30 miles for 20 years - and then it was across the slightly flatter territory of London to Oxford. Getting fit enough for this (fingers crossed) has been quite an experience!

I'm raising money for 2 charities. In partnership with the Institute of IT Training, I'm cycling for Childline, who do fantastic work for children with nobody else to turn to. And I'm also raising money for Softpower, a small charity that Happy works with in Uganda - helping to train local schools in IT skills. Take your pick.

Childline: http://www.justgiving.com/henrystewart
Softpower: http://www.justgiving.com/henrystewart1

I haven't yet heard how he did - I suspect he's still in recovery...

[For any that don't know, Happy are the IT training company in Aldgate, London - great atmosphere, great attitudes and, for much of the early part of the decade, the monthly venue for the London Fast Company Community of Friends.  Henry let us use the space each month on condition that speakers weren't Powerpoint-driven.  And we got to dip into the ice-cream freezer...]

Who used to run the Rovers Return?

So much of what we in Narrate do is pure common sense, but comes as a revelation to lots of people.  One example is the Future, Backwards technique.  It's a Cognitive Edge-developed tool that's excellent for all sorts of reasons above and beyond the obvious one of using it to debate/imagine/envision the future of a group of people.

The great moment for many is early on in the process, when we're building up the back-story of the organisation.  The discussions are always good and illuminating, with a fast-developing sense of common understanding around past history.  Often, the different perspectives on a common event are both entertaining and helpful.

Frequently, however, I'm asked why bother with the past when the work is focused on the future.

A couple of reasons for me.  Firstly, the patterns we perceive in our past restrict and limit the possibilities we see in our future.  And by pulling them out of our heads and making them visible to everyone, we have greater awareness and hence choice about our future.  It's also worth noting that the past that's created by people in the exercise usually differs greatly from the official version - different emphases, different takes on events.

Secondly, I liken the organisation to a soap opera - if you're taking over the local pub, it's always helpful to know about the fire/fight/breakup that took place there a couple of years ago.  Coming into an organisation without the baggage of its history can be helpful, but not if you don't know where the pitfalls lie or where the skeletons are kept.

Most importantly for communications and culture, it's helpful to know what people heard/believed the last time the CEO stood up and talked about the need for change.  Because, if you take the same approach this time, they already know what to expect - regardless of what words you dress it in.

Where do you allow dissent?

I've recently been in a number of environments where everybody has been so keen to encourage positive discussions that I've ended up coming away with a flat, slightly unreal feeling - interesting conversations that never really reached any depth.  It's reminded me of the big "hoorah" sessions that organisations regularly run for people around any one of a hundred different initiatives.  Organisers are (like recent conferences) so focussed on getting everyone excited, they don't allow for some fairly basic human issues.

Like dissent.

In my days as a PR consultant or a communicator, the idea of dissent started off as being a threat to be smothered or diverted as early as possible.  The possibility of someone disagreeing with the corporate line generated a degree of fear and prompted distinctly managerial responses.  After a while,as I became increasingly uncomfortable with the approach this required, I became a (sometimes lone) voice for open discussion of both positive and negative aspects of an issue.

Far better, surely, for people to have a wider reflection of a situation and hence make an intelligent, informed choice about their response than to have some glowing, unrealistic ideal picture that can only generate disillusionment or outright hostility when it, inevitably, turns out to be false.

I find it disturbing still when, as happened on the CommsNetwork recently, people start sharing best practice on how to suppress negative news and opinions in an organisation.

Let's not pretend that that's even possible.  Eliminating dissent in public fora and public communications, in addition to highlighting a dishonest, untrusting approach, merely drives it into informal areas where debate and discussion of alternative perspectives is limited and where the dissenting view will be magnified and spread.

Far better, as part of any comms programme or internal strategy, to build in situations and places for dissent to arise, be debated and dealt with openly.

I wish I could say that the real issue here is where that dissent can best take place (and I would love suggestions and thoughts on that topic) but if I'm honest I don't think we're there yet.  First we need a greater acceptance of the value and need for dissent.

I guess I'm dissenting from the common view of dissent.

Undiverse diversity

In recent weeks I've spoken at or run workshops at conferences on knowledge management, employee engagement and change communications.  Very few moments in those that excited, but one over-riding element that depresses me.

The subtext of so many of the questions I get asked and so many presentations I sit through is "How do we get everyone thinking the same way?"

STOP IT!

At a purely practical level, organisations are legally required to have gender, race and age diversity - disparate types of people working for them.  What on earth makes you think they'll think the same when their experiences, perceptions of the world and cultures are different?

At a strategic, health-of-the-organisation level, everybody thinking the same is positively dangerous - stifling innovation, suppressing warning signals, locking out possible alternative ways of seeing the world.

You don't really want everyone thinking the same, parrotting the corporate messages back at you (even if they believed them, which they don't).  You want instead to learn ways of working with that diversity of opinion, voice and approach.