Category Archives: Management
This conversation follows on from where the previous conversation left off. Specifically, I intend to share with you the theory behind the shaping the work context approach to changes organisational behaviour. And the limitations of using the traditional tools: hard and soft. Let’s begin.
It occurs to me that the fundamental assumption is that human behaviour is always functional. Which is to say that there is correlation between the human behaviour that occurs in a work context and how that work context shows up for the human beings who find themselves there in that context. Put differently, there is an ongoing dance between context and behaviour: each is influenced by the other on an ongoing basis. From this flows the following ‘advice’ from the authors of Six Simple Rules:
1. Human Beings As Purposeful Actors Making Use Of Resources And Dealing With Constraints
Human behaviour can be understood in terms of three elements. First, the goal/s, the towards-which the human being ‘moves’. Second, the resources-tools that are at hand to help ‘move’ towards the goal. Third, that which shows up as an obstacles-hindrance. Collectively, these three elements in their unity (as one) constitute the work context as lived-experienced. Here is what the authors say:
Understanding what people do and why they do what they do is so utterly fundamental that it is our simple rule. Before you, as a manager, do anything to solve a performance problem, you can save yourself a lot of time and money by first applying this rule.
2. Understand How The Organisational Elements Affect-Shape The Work Context
Do organisational structures, processes, procedures, and systems matter? Do they affect-shape human behaviour? Yes, they do affect behaviour and performance. But not in the simplistic way that most of us assume. According to the authors (bolding is my work):
Their impact depends on how they combine with each other to shape the goals, resources and constraints to which people adjust their behaviours.
If you do any cooking you will get that the impact that any one ingredient has depends on the other ingredients that constitute the recipe. If you manage stocks you will understand that it is not the risk of the individual stock that primarily matters – it is the impact of that stock on the risk profile of your portfolio. Hopefully you get the idea.
3. Be Wary of Taking The Hard (Scientific Management) And Soft (Human Relations) Approaches To Improving Organisational Performance
Let’s consider each of these approaches to understand why it is that the authors advise caution in automatically and mindlessly adopting one or both of these approaches as the silver bullet for dealing with organisational challenges.
The Hard Approach And Its Limitations
Why is there is much emphasis in the hard approach on clarity – clearly specifying the rules of the game, the roles and responsibilities of the actors, the boundaries, the rewards and punishments….? Is it because the hard approach takes it for granted that performance is a direct consequence of what people are instructed and rewarded-punished for doing? Let’s listen to the authors:
Structure defines the role, processes instruct how to perform it, and incentives motivate the right per on in the right role to do it. From this perspective, if there is a performance problem, then it must be because some key organisational element is missing or not detailed enough. So companies jump straight from identifying a performance problem to deploying new structures, processes or systems to resolve it. This error dumps a first layer of complicatedness into the organisation.
Let’s make this real by revisiting InterLodge. What did management do at the beginning? Did it not resort to restructuring and reengineering without actually looking into the work context that shaped behaviour? And when management did look at the front line what did it conclude?
Receptionists were not selling rooms to latecomers. They were not engaging the customers in a way that made customers satisfied. They were not charging the right room rate.
If you focus on what your people are not doing does this help you understand what it is that they are doing and what leads them to do what they do? Clearly not. So the authors advise the following (bolding is my work):
Performance is what it is, because people do what they do, not because of what they don’t do. People do what they do precisely because of the organisational elements already in place (not because of the ones that are missing)……
The authors go on to provide what I consider the most valuable and most neglected insight into human behaviour in organisational contexts (bolding is my work):
Organisational elements do not combine with each other in the abstract, based on their supposed intrinsic pros and cons.…. It is only by considering the work context, and their effect in this context, the organisational elements can be appropriately analysed and designed. The effect …….. depends on how people deal with these elements as resources or constraints.
What did the receptionists do with the “guest engagement” skills that they honed during the mandated training course? They used these skills as a resource. But a resource for what? A resource for their goal: avoiding stressful encounters with angry customers:
… they used their skills not to meet the target price point but to proactively offer rebates and refunds. What’s more, their new skills combined with their clarified roles in an unexpected way that also provided new resources to the receptionists……: some receptionists used their newfound interaction skills to explain clearly to guests that their responsibilities stopped at the front desk and did not include back-office activities…
Now you know why I am not a fan of worshipping at the altar of lean, six sigma, process and reengineering. And in the world of consulting, the anal retentive fixation on methodology. I learned the hard way: spending years doing it and seeing the meagre and often counterproductive results.
The Soft Approach And Its Limitations
As this post is already long I recommend that you get hold of a copy of the Six Rules for a fuller-deeper picture. For my part I leave you with the following:
…. the soft approach views performance as a by-product of good interpersonal relationships. But this view confuses people getting along with genuinely productive cooperation. Real cooperation is not fun and games….. it always involved adjustment costs.
Indeed, the better the feelings among individuals in a group, the more people are likely to avoid straining the relationship by bearing adjustments costs themselves or by imposing them on others …. So they will avoid cooperation and make third parties bear the consequences, or they will compensate with extra resources to remove interdependencies… the extra resources teak the form of …. excess inventory stocks, time delays, interfaces and committees, and customer requirements unmet….
Here I draw your attention to the never ending challenge that almost every large organisation has in getting just the folks in marketing (advertising, website, email, direct…) to work together – cooperate. Or the bigger challenge of getting the folks in marketing, sales and service to cooperate to generate a joined up and attractive customer experience.
If you wish to learn more but do not wish to read the book then I recommend the following TED Talk by one of the authors of the Six Simple Rules:
Recap: Where We Are At
If you took part in the previous conversation you will have a good grasp of the work context that led to the receptionists running to-fro from the front desks to the problem rooms, seeking to keep rooms in reserve so that they were in a position to placate angry customers by moving them to a different-better room, and using their newly acquired guest engagement skills to negotiate with customers – offering them refunds, room rate reductions and/or vouchers.
What Is The Core Challenge Here?
So I ask you what needs to happen for InterLodge to generate its desired outcomes: higher occupancy rates, higher price points per room, higher levels of customer satisfaction, and ultimately a higher share price? Let’s make this question simpler, what is the challenge here? Have a go, formulate an answer to that question.
Isn’t the challenge to shift the work context so that it calls forth, naturally and by default, the kind of behaviour that will result in guest rooms being fit for guests, leading to happy customers, leading to less rooms being kept aside by receptionists and no need for the receptionists to offer discounts-refunds on the room rates?
Now look further-deeper, go into the heart of the matter. Venture into territory that few venture into: think! Keep peeling the onion.
What is the core challenge when it comes to doing that which needs to be done in order to craft-deliver the kind of customer experience (end to end) that causes happy customers? Isn’t it cooperation? Cooperation between all the organisational actors who directly-indirectly influence the customer experience. Is it not your experience that the bigger the organisation, the higher the importance of cooperation, and the lower the likelihood of finding genuine cooperation?
What Steps Did InterLodge Take To Shift-Shape The Work Context?
According to the authors of the Six Simple Rules, InterLodge took the following three steps:
- Did away with the organisational elements that were useless and/or counterproductive. For example, they did away with the financial incentives which were supposed to motivate the receptionists to improve room occupancy. And they stopped the soft skills “guest engagement” training program.
Made managerial promotion dependent on having worked in multiple functions. Why? To encourage and ensure that managers had a lived-experiential understanding of the work of each function and how it related to the work of other functions.
Changed the work context so that cooperation was called forth between Housekeeping, Maintenance and the Front Desk (receptionists).
Let’s dive into point 3 shifting the work context to cause cooperation as the default behaviour. Imagine that is your challenge. What specific action/s would you take to shift the work context and call forth cooperation between Housekeeping, Maintenance, and the Front Desk (receptionists)?
What Actions Did InterLodge Take To Generate Cooperation Between The Multiple Actors?
Before I share the answer with you, I invite you to listen to the authors of Six Simple Rules:
Their [receptionists] work put them in the closest contact with customers, and they were the most directly penalised when customers were unhappy. They had an interest in cooperation but had not way to influence the behaviour of other groups – specifically, the housekeeping and maintenance staff.
So the clue is there: find a way to directly expose the housekeepers and maintenance staff to the wrath of unhappy customer/s. Did management pursue this option? No. Why? Because the did not find a practical way to expose these folks to the wrath of the customer. The customer was most likely to be angry in the evening when s/her checked into or returned to her room. And this is exactly when the housekeepers and maintenance were not at work.
What did InterLodge do? Management give the receptionists a say in the performance evaluation of the folks in housekeeping and maintenance. Did it work? Yes. Why? Because the Receptionists had a say and their say mattered. This is how the authors put it (bolding is my work):
In the past, it had always been enough for these employees [housekeeping, maintenance] to fulfill the criteria and meet the targets of their individual function. Now, people in the the two back office functions were also being evaluated on how effectively they cooperated with each other and with the receptionists, and it was the opinion of the receptionists themselves that carried special weight…. After all, their careers and the possibility of promotion were on the line.
Was it as simple as that. Not quite, this change had to work in conjunction with the other big change:
When this change in how personnel in back-office functions were evaluated was combined with the new cross-functional rotation of managers (which gave managers more of an appreciation for the interdependencies among the various functions), the nature of work changed rapidly at the hotel.
How exactly did the nature of the work change? By this expression the authors are pointing out, in particular, how the way the folks in housekeeping and maintenance ‘showed up and travelled’. Let’s listen once more to the authors:
The housekeepers checked the equipment in the rooms when they cleaned and let the maintenance groups know immediately when something needed attention. What’s more, the two back office functions were a lot more responsive when someone from reception would call asking for help to resolve a customer problem.
What Results Showed Up At InterLodge?
According to the authors:
… InterLodge hotel business unit’s gross margin increased by 20 percent within eighteen months. The rapid improvement in margins allowed the company to … nearly triple it [stock price] in just two years.
If you want to understand the logic behind this then I recommend buying-reading the Six Simple Rules.
What Is The Core Insight-Lesson For Those Working On Customer Experience And Customer-Centricity?
The core insight-lesson is spelt out rather pithily and it is one with which I am in full agreement. The lesson is so obvious and yet neglected. Why? Because it involves taking the “road less travelled”. What is this central insight-lesson:
To achieve customer-centricity make the organisation listen to those who listen to customers. Changing interaction patterns among functions is much more powerful than creating a dedicated customer-centricity function.
There you have it. The challenge of customer-centricity is that of disrupting, shifting, and shaping interaction patters so that transformed work context calls forth the requisite degree of co-operation from-across-amongst all organisational actors which directly and/or indirectly affect the customer experience. And the authors have shared how this was done at InterLodge. And they give other examples in their book, which is well worth reading.
Enough for today. In the next and last part of this conversation I will lay out for you (and comment upon) the sociological theory behind tools for shaping the work context. And why it is that the standard-commonplace approaches (hard, soft, hard+soft) to organisational change and customer-centricity do not work. Like they did not work for InterLodge.
Thanks for listening, I hope you got value out of the conversation.
Imagine that you are the CEO of InterLodge. You face a big problem: your share price has been falling for some time. You need to do something to deal with the issues of high costs and low profitability. You find that the occupancy rate and the average price point per room are too low. And the surveys suggest that Interlodge’s customer satisfaction levels are well below where they should be.
Over to you. What are you going to do about this? What approach will you take? What levers will you use to address the issues?
What Did The Top Management Team Do?
The management team did what most management teams do? It restructured and reengineered. Specifically:
- It created a shared service initiative to serve groups of hotels by region. Why? To cut costs and drive up quality.
It redefined roles & responsibilities of hotel employees. Why? To improve productivity and focus resources on driving up quality.
It rolled out a new computerised yield management system. Why? To improve the occupancy rate.
Did the desired outcomes show up? No. The authors of Six Simple Rules state:
A year later, none of these changes had produced any of the improvements the management team sought …… The share price continued to slide.
What Did Top Management Do Next?
Top management took a bold step. InterLodge’s management committed, via a public announcement, to doubling its share price within three years. Why did management do this? Clearly to support-boost the share price and at the same time to energize the hotel employees. Did it work? The authors say that it had a powerful effect on InterLodge employees. The opposite of what management intended: terrified rather than energised. Why?
Because these hotel managers were expected to increase occupancy rates, raise the average price point, and improve customer satisfaction whilst working within the parameters set by the centralised yield management system, the shared services offer, the organisational design and staffing levels set by the centre.
So the hotel managers acted on the one measure that they felt they could make an impact on: customer satisfaction levels. They acted on the hotel receptionists. Why? Because they came to the conclusion that: the hotel receptionists were young and didn’t care about doing a good job; they lacked the right customer handling skills; and they were not selling rooms to travellers who arrived late in the day even when rooms were available.
So what did the hotel management do? Three things. One, they clarified roles, processes and scorecards. Two, they put the receptionists through a soft skills training course to improve their communication and guest engagement. Third, they set up an incentive plan to motivate the receptionists to sell more rooms and increase the occupancy rate.
Did it work? Here’s what the authors of Six Simple Rules say:
Six months later, however, the problems remained. In fact things had gotten worse. The occupancy rate had dropped further. Average price point was down. Customer surveys showed lower levels of satisfaction. Receptionist turnover had risen.
So what did management do next? It looks like they hired a bunch of smart consultants. What did these smart consultants do.
First, Seek To Understand The Work Context At The Concrete (Lived-Experienced) Level
The consultants sought to understand the work context of the receptionists at InterLodge. Please note that the work context is not the objective situation. By work context I am pointing at the work-context as experienced-lived. How does one get to terms with the work context? In this case, the consultant spend a month observing and talking with receptionists at various hotels. What did the consultants uncover?
- The most difficult, most unpleasant, part of the job for the receptionists was dealing with angry customers;
The receptionists had to deal with angry customers on their own – by the time customer’s rang down to complain the maintenance folks had gone home; and
The maids cleaning the rooms were best placed to spot problems and alert maintenance. Yet, they did not do so due to the silo based performance metrics to which they were held accountable – productivity in cleaning rooms.
What is the insight that eventually hit the consultants? Here it is in their words:
the goal of the receptionists was not to earn a financial incentive by improving the occupancy rate. No, the goal of the receptionists was to avoid the unpleasantness of dealing with unhappy customers.
How did the receptionists deal with the situation that they found themselves in?
- The younger receptionist sought to fix the problem themselves. This meant they found themselves running back and forth between their front desk and the problem rooms. This behaviour didn’t work for the customers who arrived at the front desk and found nobody there. And so had to wait.
They kept rooms in reserve so that they could placate customers. Why? Because even if the new room wasn’t so much better, angry customers appreciated the receptionist who went out of his/her way to help.
They adjusted the room rate downwards. The customer harnessed their new found guest engagement skills to negotiate a refund, rebate, or voucher to deal with angry customers.
What Can We Learn From This Understanding of The Work Context?
The authors have something powerful to say and I urge you to listen, really listen:
… the young receptionists were forced to bear the adjustment cost caused by the behaviour of the back-office functions [Housekeeping, Maintenance]. They had little choice in the matter, somehow, they had to deal with the angry customers. The adjustment costs they suffered were simultaneously financial (they didn’t achieve their bonus), emotional (they were blamed by both managers and customers), and professional (at a certain point they would become so burned out that they would quit….).
But customers were also bearing adjustment costs in the form of poor hotel experience. And of course, so were the shareholders in the form of declining returns….
Receptionists could never fully compensate for what the back-office functions [Housekeeping, Maintenance] could have achieved had they been cooperating with each other…
Once the management team took time to understand the context of the work in its hotels, it came to realise that the problem was not that the receptionists were badly trained, or had some psychological issue or attitude problem, or needed more incentives. Rather, their behaviours were rational solutions to the problems they faced.
What actions did the InterLodge management take to shift-shape-transform the work context? And what kind of results showed up? I will share these with you in the next post.
This post got published before I intended to publish it. Sorry for this oversight. I have now completed it as intended and am republishing it. I apologise for any inconvenience and thank you for your understanding.
What do B2B technology vendors sell?
No, it is not the technology. Think again, what do B2B technology vendors sell? They sell dreams that speak to a fundamental human need. What dreams? Dreams of control-mastery-domination over the ever flowing, every morphing, character of a process we turn into a noun: life.
What need do these dreams take root from and speak to? The need for safety and security. At some fundamental level we get that nature is indifferent to our survival and wellbeing. To deal with this anxiety we embrace anything that provides the illusion of safety-security. The Greeks embraced the Gods, we embrace technology and the latest technofix.
I notice that the big data and analytics space is hot right now. It is the latest technofix being pushed by the B2B technology vendors. It occurs to me that this technofix is designed to speak to those running large enterprises – especially those who are higher up and divorced from the lived experience of daily operational life at the coal face.
What I find astonishing is that so few actually ask the following two questions:
1. “What kind of a being is a human being?”
2. “What kind of a culture is human culture?”
What is the defining characteristic of human beings?
Allow me to illustrate by share a story I read many years ago:
Psychologist: John, you have been referred to me by the authorities. They tell me that you think that are dead. Is that right? Are you dead?
John: Absolutely, I died a little while back. I am dead.
Psychologist: How interesting! You died a little back. Yet here you are talking with me. And I am not dead. So how is it that you are dead and I am not dead, yet here we are talking?
John: Beats me how this works or why it is happening. I know that I am dead.
Psychologist: John, I have an idea. Do dead people bleed?
John: Don’t be ridiculous! Everyone knows that dead people don’t bleed!
The psychologist suddenly reaches over and cuts John’s hand with a knife. Both of them are looking at John’s hand. Blood, dark red blood, is seeping through the cut. The psychologist looks at John with the look of satisfaction, of victory. Let’s rejoin the conversation.
Psychologist: John, do you see that blood on your hand? How do you make sense of it? You say that you are dead. And earlier you told me that dead people don’t bleed.
John: F**k me, dead people do bleed!
This is not simply an amusing story. It is a story that captures the experience of a respected psychologist who has been dealing with many kinds of people, dealing with many kinds of problems, over a lifetime. This story capture a fundamental truth of the human condition.
It appears that to survive in the world as it is and as we have made it, we need to be deluded. We need to distort reality: to make life more predictable, to make our current situation lighter-better than it is, to see a future brighter than is merited by the facts, to see ourselves stronger, more capable, more influential than we are. Studies suggest that those of us who lack this ability to distort reality and delude ourselves end up depressing ourselves.
What Kind Of A Culture Is Human Culture?
Symbolic and ideological. Why? Because human beings just don’t cope well with the world as it is. So we get together into tribes. And the glue that keeps the tribe together is a particular way of constructing the world, a particular way of giving meaning to the world, and a particular way of interacting with the world. And when I speak world I include human being, and human beings; a human being is always a being-in-the-world as in always and forever an intrinsic thread in that which we call world.
The next question: which ideology do members of society espouse? The dominant public ideology. In the world of business this is that of scientific management and in particular reasoning and making decisions objectively – irrespective of the past, of tradition, of our personal interests and opinions.
A more interesting question is that about the actual behaviour of the elites, the Tops. What is it that the Tops actually do? They do that which protects and furthers their interests: their power, their status, their privileges, their wealth, their dominance. So insight and recommendations (whether from big data and analytics or through conventional methods) that are in line with these interests are heartily accepted and actioned swiftly and vigorously.
Any insights and recommendations that challenge the vested interests of the elite (Tops) are repressed at the individual level, belittled-disputed-ignored at the societal level. I invite you to read this article which can be summed up as the UK Government sacks the chair of the official Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. Why? Because the chair was insisting on the reclassification of drugs. What happened?
- The Advisory Council looked at the data (of harm to the individual taking the drugs and others affected by his/her behaviour) on drugs at the request of the UK.
On the basis of the data, the Advisory Council came up with the conclusion that “if drugs were classified on the basis of the harm they do, alcohol would be class A, alongside heroin and crack cocaine.”
The drug rankings, associated findings and recommendations were ignored by the UK government. Why? Because they went against the government’s stance on drugs.
The chair of the Advisory Council challenged the UK government’s refusal to act on the recommendations of the Advisory Council. So the appropriate UK Government minister sacked him.
What Does The Future Hold for Big Data & Analytics?
If past behaviour is an adequate guide to the future then it is safe to say that technology vendors will get rich. And the business folks will have another layer of technology that they have to manage. One or two organisations may reap substantial benefits, the rest will be disappointed. Yet, this disappointment will not last long. Why? By that time the technology folks will have come up with the latest technofix!
I leave you with the following thoughts:
1. There are no technofixes to the kinds of social issues-problems we continue to face;
2. Incremental improvements lie in the domain of big data and analytics;
3. Breakthroughs lie in our ability to see that which is with new eyes – a shift in dominant concepts, dominant paradigm, dominant ideology, dominant way of seeing that which is.
Put differently, big data & analytics is a red herring for those who aspire to lead: to cause-create that which does not exist today. Managers, those whose horizon extends to daily operations and the next twelve months, may find big data and analytics useful – as long as it does not threaten the sacred cows of the Tops-Middles and the corporate culture.
The physical world in which we live is unforgiving
Which is to say that it works as it works, and pays no heeds to our needs-wants-desires-preferences. If you choose to jump from a tall building without a parachute or other safety tools, you will pay a price: death and/or seriously injury to yourself and possibly others. If you choose to send a rocket into space then you must pay the price in terms of engineering talent, tools, equipment, fuel, time….
What about the organisational worlds in which we expend our lives?
Are these organisational worlds forgiving as opposed to unforgiving? Do our beliefs-needs-wishes shape organisational worlds such that we do not have to pay a price for our choices-actions?
As I look back on my 25+ years of working in business, it occurs to me that the lived answer to the question is “Yes!”. Yes, we can take a course of action, hope for the best, and it will work out. Yes, if we exercise our intelligence-cunning we can escape paying the price. Yes, the organisational/social world is unlike the physical world, we can seduce these worlds to bend to strategic intent, our plans, our desires-wishes.
Is this way of showing up and travelling in organisational worlds limited to the Bottoms. No. My lived experience suggests this way of showing up and travelling in the world is widely dispersed, almost ubiquitous, at all levels of the organisation: Tops, Middles, Bottoms. It occurs to me that whilst this may be accurate, it is not true. So what is true? My experience suggest that this mode of showing-up and travelling in the world is most intense-pervasive with the Tops and least so with the Bottoms who work at the coal face.
The Law of Life? There Is Always A Price And It Is Always Paid
Having spent some 25+ years at the coal face of organisational life, in particular working on all kinds of organisational change and business performance improvement initiatives, allow me to share with you that which I call the ‘Law of Life':
There is ALWAYS a price. It is ALWAYS paid. We only get to choose whether we pay the price right up front, during the middle, or at the end.
Let me elaborate on this a little:
- Everything that exists, exists in relationship, hence interdependency is the fundamental characteristic of life. We recognise this interdependency when we talk about the system and systems thinking.
At the level of the system there is always a price and the price is always paid. It does not matter whether we want to pay the price or not. Nor the amount that we want to pay. The system determines the price. And the system extracts the price. Yet it is flexible on when the price is paid – it allows us some element of choice as to when we pay the price.
We, the organisational actors who are an intrinsic part of the system, can choose to pay the price right up front, during the journey, or at the end of the journey.
The wise-experienced-courageous tend on the whole to pay the price (demanded by the system) right up front (or as near to the front as practically possible) and thus forego all the additional pain-suffering that goes with paying the price during the middle or at the end.
What Does This Have To Do With Customers?
You may be asking yourself what does this have to do with Customers? Allow me to answer this question by walking through a typical CRM or Customer Experience initiative.
I say that CRM and Customer Experience are a game of cooperation not technology. What do I mean? I mean the technology piece is the easy piece. The real challenge is dealing with all the needs to be dealt with to call forth genuine cooperation from all the parts that have to cooperate for the dream of CRM and Customer Experience to bear the fruits that the gurus and academics promise so seductively.
So the price that needs to be paid is all that it takes to let go of history and co-create a promising future. Allow me to illustrate the degree of challenge that I am thinking of when it comes to large organisations – the ones that I work with. Think back to South Africa and the release of Nelson Mandela. The challenge was that of dealing with division and creating co-operation. What did it take? All that went with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission: the practical aspects (budget, people, buildings, equipment, processes, technology…) and the human dimension (courage, vulnerability, openness, forgiveness…).
What is the default practice? The default practice is not to pay the requisite price: not to get the people who need to be in the room in the room; not to openly talk about the elephants in the room; not to come up with an approach that works for all, none excluded.
When you choose not to pay the price upfront, there tends to be a lot more pain-suffering during the middle. What happens? Disagreements between the various actors on what the vision means in practical terms: objectives, priorities, roles and responsibilities, business processes, technology, metrics….. And it is possible to work through this phase usually through fiat and fear. Some initiatives never make it through this phase.
Sooner or later you arrive at the end: implementation. If you haven’t paid the requisite price at the front end or during the middle then the system demands payment here at the end. What form does this payment take? When it comes to CRM systems the price is the lack of adoption. With regards to VoC systems and programmes the price is the failure of the people in the organisation to actually act, in any significant way, on the voice of the customer. In the realm of Customer Experience you find that the changes that you have made don’t have the kind of impact you expected them to have: happier customers, more repeat business, higher prices, higher revenues, higher profits….
What Does This Have To Do With Leadership?
It occurs to me that effective leadership is all about figuring out what the true price is, determining whether you have the means/willingness to pay the price, and paying the price right up front.
Often the up front price is as simple as not following blindly (like sheep) the path that happens to be in fashion at that moment in time. Or taking a courageous decision when it becomes clear that the path that you have embarked upon requires a much higher price that you are willing to pay. It occurs to me that a great example of a courageous decision is that made by John Wren and Maurice Levy in calling off the Omnicom-Publicis merger.