What flavour of customer-centricity are you practicising?

Customer-Centricity: we are great at lying to ourselves

If there is one facet of ‘customer-centricity’ and the ‘outside in’ approach that I find striking it is this:  almost no-one who talks about this actually goes entices and enters into conversations with customers on what constitutes ‘customer-centricity’ and ‘outside in’ approach to doing business with customers.   Put differently which are the companies that have entered into ‘conversations for customer-centricity’ with their customers?  With all the noise around social media, user generated content including recommendations/ratings/feedback and collaborative platforms I notice only one way communications: from the company to the customer via some kind of survey or from the customer to the company via the call centre and social media.  Some habits persist: on and on and on.

There is a particularly interesting habit that human beings have: lying.  Must people are aware that they are pretty good at lying to others.  One has to be good to survive and prosper in families, organisations, institutions, communities and societies that function because we lie to one another.  What is overlooked is that we are masters at lie to ourselves: we are striding South whilst proclaiming that we are committed to heading North and then finding a whole host of excuses as to how it is not yet time to head North or that the quickest or only route to heading North is to first go South.  My experience suggests that the same is going on in organisations which are proclaiming their ‘love’ of the customer: customer focus, customer service, customer-centricity, customer experience, customer loyalty, customer obsession, customer responsiveness ……  Put bluntly, there are at least two flavours of customer-centricity: genuine customer-centricity (what I refer to as North in this post); and sham customer-centricity (what I refer to as South in this post).

A real world customer experience example

Lets make this real.  I was talking with James (he happens to drive a taxi) and he was sharing his story about difficult times with me.  If you haven’t noticed, there is a recession and James (and his family) really are feeling the effects.  Insurance premiums have been going up and up and up: over the last 2 – 3 years they have almost doubled.  James (and his family) need that insurance cover and yet James finds he cannot afford it.  So when he got is renewal letter (with a big insurance premium hike) James phoned the company and he was greeted by a helpful chap at the call-centre.   By asking him various questions the call-centre chap was able to move James to an insurance plan that was more in line with his needs (cut out the frills that James did not need) and thus take out the insurance premium hike.

Is James delighted?  Yes and no.  James is delighted that the chap on the phone was friendly and helped James to keep his insurance without any increases.  At the same time James is convinced that he has been ‘milked’ in the previous years.  “Why did they sell me a plan (two years ago) which provided benefits which they knew I was never going to need?”  What is James thinking?  He told me bluntly: “If they can find a suitable plan for me today by asking me some simple questions then why did the company not do the same two years ago when I joined them?  Why did they put me on a more expensive plan than I needed?  I don’t trust the company!”

In the real world we have messiness that does not appear in Customer theory and talk by ‘gurus’

So just recap, in James example of his relationship with his insurance provider what is so?  This is what I noticed:

  • James is positively delighted with his last interaction with his insurance provider – the helpful chap who helped him to keep is insurance premium to what it was last year;
  • James distrusts the insurance company – he is convinced that the company deceived him into taking out a more expensive insurance plan in order to fatten its coffers at his expense;
  • James is disappointed with the conduct of the insurance company yet has stayed on with the same company – he does not feel he has a choice.

Lets just take a look at that again and see what we can learn.  When I look at this I notice that life is messy.  You can have a customer who is delighted (in traditional customer satisfaction terms), distrustful & disappointed (not loyal in attitudinal terms, certainly not an advocate!) and yet loyal in behavioural terms – all at the same time.  I believe that this is kind of what I was pointing towards in one of my earlier posts.

A genuinely customer-centric organisation would have won James trust and advocacy by being genuinely customer-centric!

If James does not trust you to look after his best interests then he will not be loyal to you and he will not be an advocate.  How do you win him over?  By being genuinely customer-centric.  What does that involve?  It involves giving up the pretense to the outside world and lying to yourself.  It means recognising that behind the find words and the excuses you are simply exploiting the customer as best as you can.  And it means giving that up.

The access to customer loyalty and advocacy is simply HONESTY – being a honest broker. Do what you say and say what you do.  You might just want to read this short post by Seth Godin which gets to the heart of the matter.  Or you might want to revisit one of my posts on what it takes to cultivate trust:

Service Providers: why trust matters and what you can do to cultivate it (Part I)

Service Providers: why trust matters and what you can do to cultivate it (Part II)

Want a breakthrough in customer-centricity in 2012?  Start with ‘Integrity’

Where does HONESTY start?  With the people at the top.  I assert that the fundamental task of Tops who espouse customer-centricity is to be HONEST with their customers.  And if the Tops are not willing to do that then they should give up claiming their ‘love of the customer’.  Why?  James is not easily fooled – sooner or later ‘dishonesty’ shows up and occurs about as inviting as walking into a room full of elephant dung!

‘Integrity’, leadership, communication and performance: the most valuable post you will read this year?

This post is associated with and follows on from the previous post: Want a breakthrough in customer-centricity in 2012?  Start with ‘Integrity’.  This post clarifies what I wrote in the earlier – some people did not get what I was getting at and I take responsibility for that – and extends ‘Integrity’ into the domain of leadership and business performance.  If you are up for being customer-centric and improving the performance of your organisation then you absolutely have to grapple with the domains of ‘Integrity’ and leadership and connect the two together.  So let’s take a deeper look at these and how they fit together.  This is a long post AND you can get a lot of value out of it if you take the time to really read it and digest it.  Some of you are going to find all kind of issues (too long, too boring, too preachy…) with this post.  How do I know?  Because we ‘resist’ that which ‘confronts’ us and spoils the picture of the world that we are attached to – especially if it means giving up some of our self-serving habits. 

When I speak/write ‘Integrity’ I am not pointing at morality and virtue!

If you take a look at the dictionary you find the following definitions for integrity:

  • The quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness –  e.g. he is known to be a man of integrity
  • The state of being whole and undividede.g. upholding territorial integrity and national sovereignty
  • The condition of being unified, unimpaired, or sound in constructione.g. the structural integrity of the novel

When I use the term ‘Integrity’ I am NOT talking about, not pointing towards, nor interested in the first definition.  I am talking about and pointing towards the second and third definitions.  Why?  Because I am concerned with the domains of ‘workability’ and ‘performance’.   Allow me to illustrate this through a personal experience and a concrete example.

Recently I jumped into my Honda Accord and drove fours hours to spend some time with my parents.  I noticed that the car was ‘dirty-messy’ on the outside and on the inside.  I also noticed that when I pushed the accelerator down hard there was a delay of several seconds before the car responded and when it did the response was sluggish and the engine made a noise that suggested that I was asking it do more work than it was able/ready to do.  Finally, I noticed that at certain speeds the steering wheel vibrated suggesting wheel balancing and tracking issues.  Whilst I was at my parents I shared my experience of driving the car with my brother (who runs a car business) and asked him to fix the issues and get the car back into ‘Integrity’.  After examining the car he replaced the spark plugs, he topped up the fluids, balanced the wheels, took care of the tracking to make sure the wheels were in alignment and cleaned the car – inside and out.  When I drove the car back home my driving experience was completely different: instant response from the car when I hit the accelerator, no noise from the engine, no steering wheel vibration, crystal clear windscreen, sparking interior…..

Why the difference in performance of the car as I experienced it?  When I was driving to my parents my car had been out of ‘Integrity’.  It was not whole and complete.  It was not a condition of being unified, unimpaired or sound in construction: the spark plugs were not working, the power transmission was less than it needed to be, the wheels were not balanced, the wheels were not aligned…. When I drove back to my parents my car was in ‘Integrity’:  all the components that had to be there for the car to be whole and complete (sound, unimpaired) were there and so the performance of the car was transformed.

Now is the time to address the question: why are you ignoring the first definition of integrity that of moral uprightness?  Different people have different ideas about what is moral.  Different groups of people have different ideas on what is and is not moral.  Morality is simply a social agreement between a group of people: is some groups of people (Christians say) it is moral to eat pork, in others (Muslims say) it is immoral to eat pork; in some groups of people it is moral to make use of all the latest technology (most of us), in others (e.g. the Amish) it is immoral to make use of electricity, phones etc.  Now here is the thing to get no matter what we decide is ‘moral’ regarding my car, in the real world having in place faulty spark plugs or unbalanced and misaligned wheels degrades the workability and performance of my car – that is simply what is so in the real world no matter what I, you, they, we believe about it.   Get it?

What would be present in your life (including your organisation) if ‘Integrity’ was present?

Werner Erhard has done great work on ‘Integrity’ and I cannot explain it any better than he has written it.  So I am going to use his words (I hope that is ok with you Werner and I thank you for putting this into the world):

“What would your life be like, and what would your performance be, if it were true that:

You have done what you said you would do and you did it on time.

You have done what you know to do, you did it the way it was meant to be done, and you did it on time.

You have done what others would expect you to do, even if you never said you would do it, and you did it on time, or you have informed them that you will not meet their expectations.

And you have informed others of your expectations for them and have made explicit requests to those others.

And whenever you realised that you were not going to do any of the foregoing, or not going to do it on time:

You have said so to everyone who might be impacted, and you did so as soon as you realised that you wouldn’t be doing it, or wouldn’t be doing it on time, and

If you were going to be do it in the future you have said by when you would do it, and

You have dealt with the consequences of not doing it on time, or not doing at all, for all those who are impacted by your not doing it on time, or not doing it at all.

In a sentence, you have done what you said you would do or you have said you are not doing it; you have nothing hidden, you are truthful, forthright, straight and honest.  And you have cleaned up any mess you have caused for those depending on your word.

And almost unimaginable: what if others operated this way with you?”

‘Integrity’ and communication go together

If you read what Werner has written you get that ‘Integrity’ and communication go together – think of them as two sides of the same coin.  Being ‘in Integrity’ means ‘being in communication’.  How?  Why?  We live in relationship with one another and we progress our ‘projects’ (and an organisation exists to progress specific ‘projects’)  by making, accepting, declining, renegotiating, fulfilling requests of one another – these requests can be implicit (implied) or explicit as is clearly set out by Werner.  Making, accepting, declining, renegotiating, fulfilling requests how is this done?  Surely it is done through language – right?  That is to say through speaking and listening – whether that is face to face, on the phone, email, SMS…

Let me put it more bluntly when you are part of a group – and we are always part of a group as we exist in relationship – not ‘being in communication’ with the group is being ‘out of Integrity’.  That is simply so even if you did not promise to be in communication.  Why?  Because it our normal functioning to expect the people in our group to ‘be in communication’ – to let us know what is going on.  How do you feel when your son or daughter does not let you know what is going on his/her life?  How does your mother feel if you turn up and tell her that you have been experiencing a really difficult time for the last year?  Does she berate  you for not sharing?  Does she say that you should have called her and shared your pain?  I hope you get what I am saying.

‘Integrity’ and leadership

One of the people who read my last blog on ‘Integrity’ made the comment that his organisation (he is the CEO) relies on a contract manufacturer and fulfillment partner to honor its promises to its customers. He also pointed out that this contract manufacturers is out of ‘Integrity’: this organisation has committed never to be out of stock and to despatch order within one day and it is regularly out of stock and often takes up to five days to despatch orders to my readers customers.  Bob (the reader) also stated that whilst the CEO of the contract manufacturer is in ‘Integrity’ the people in his organisation are out of ‘Integrity’ – else the organisation would honour the agreements around stock and fulfillment.  My response: bull***t!

What goes with being the CEO (the leader) of an organisation?  When I or you step into the CEO role you automatically become responsible for the ‘Integrity’ of the whole organisation!  That is what is so.  The CEO is the top dog and rightly or wrongly we (customers, partners, employees, suppliers, regulators) expect the CEO to make sure that his organisation works:  it does what it says (keeps promises) and says what it does (honesty, authenticity).  So the hallmark of effective leadership is taking the stand: I am responsible for the ‘Integrity’ of the organisation that I lead.  What goes with this stand?  It involves setting up an ‘existence structure’ that regularly gets me present to where the organisation is out of ‘Integrity’ and another (or perhaps the same) ‘existence structure’ for taking action to get the organisation back into ‘Integrity’.  Any fool can take responsibility for his own (personal) integrity it takes a special fool to take responsibility for the group of people – family, organisation, community, society.

Does you CEO relate to himself as the person who is responsible for the ‘Integrity’ of the organisation he leads?  And when the ‘Integrity’ of the organisation is out does he/she ask the question: who am I being such that the ‘playing field’ that I have created (upon which the organisation plays the game of business) gives rise to the organisation that I lead being out of ‘Integrity’?   Or does he/she simply point the finger of blame at other people in or outside the organisation?   Why do I say outside of the organisation?  Because the CEO is also responsible for the ‘Integrity’ of value chain partners!  When I, the customer, order from Amazon I expect Amazon to be accountable for getting what I have bought to me by the promised date.  I do not care if Amazon has outsourced part of the value chain to another party e.g. the end delivery to a fulfillment company like Yodel – I hold Amazon responsible!

‘Integrity, leadership, communication and performance – how are they connected?

By now you should be clear that ‘being in Integrity’ can only occur if you are also ‘being in communication’.  You should also be clear that ‘being in Integrity’ for the organisation as a whole is related to leadership.  And you should know that ‘being in Integrity’ is desirable because when any ‘system’ is not in ‘Integrity’ then workability and performance of that ‘system’ degrades.  So I’d sum it up as follows:

  • Leaders are responsible for the performance of their organisations;
  • Performance (the output) is correlated with the ‘Integrity’ of the organisation (the ‘system’) – ‘Integrity’ gives rise to workability and performance;
  • Leadership is fundamentally about being a stand for the ‘Integrity’ of the entire organisation (including value chain partners) and setting up ‘existence structures’ to quickly detect where the organisation is ‘out of Integrity’ and then taking prompt, effective action to put the organisation back ‘into Integrity’; and
  • Communication is essential to ‘Integrity’ and so leadership about effective communication – communication that tilts the table towards the organisation being ‘in Integrity’ rather than being ‘out of Integrity.

I have covered a huge amount here.  If you take the time to digest it you should get it.  And if you get it then you can dispense with a library of books on leadersip, organisation development and business performance.   Really you can!  You don’t agree with me?  OK where have I gone wrong?  Please educate me – I am listening and everything that I can do today is because someone took the time to educate me.

Service Providers: why trust matters and what you can do to cultivate it (Part I)

Thomas Cook – one of the big brand name UK based travel companies – has seen it share price drop by 85% to 10p and have now bounced back up to 30p.  Why? The shares dived when investors lost confidence in Thomas Cook’s ability to survive.  The shares recovered when Thomas Cook was given a lifeline of £100m.  Competitor – Thomson – has made the most of this opportunity with its latest advertising: “You can smile with Thomson because you’re in safe hands. Another holiday company may be experiencing turbulence, but we’re in really great shape.”  Clearly Thomson is seeking to undermine customer trust in Thomas Cook whilst building up confidence in itself.  This got me thinking about the critical role that trust plays in the commercial relationships – in winning new customers (expanding market share) and retaining existing customers (customer loyalty) – especially in services businesses like travel, insurance, banking, telecommunications etc.

What do we know about trust and why it matters?

We, human beings, do not like to be faced with uncertainty, vulnerability or risk – these three factors take an emotional toll on us.  We prefer to work on ‘autopilot, which is simply another way of saying that we prefer to trust and developed societies work on the foundations of trust.  Just think if you were not able to trust anyone for anything: what would life be like?  Here is what the literature says on trust:

Trust rests on three complimentary pillars: competence, integrity and benevolence

I am likely to trust you if you occur to me as being credible, honest and benevolent.  Said differently: “Customer trust is based on the expectations that the service provider can be relied on to deliver its promises, to care for customer needs and demonstrate competence”.

Everything (all touchpoints) contribute to trust

The organisation (corporate reputation), the front line employees, marketing communications and self-service technologies all play a part in trust.  Trust in the overall organisation (like Thomas Cook) is based on what customers hear and read about the organisation – that includes management polices and practices.  Trust is also a function of the customer’s interactions with representatives of the organisation.

Trust has two dimensions: rational and emotional

Think of trust as a two sided coin, one side of trust is based on a rational process and the other side on an emotional process.  Using the rational process the customer determines the service providers competence and reliability – its ability to keep the promises it makes to customers.  Through the emotional process the customers comes to a conclusion about how much (or little) the company cares about customers and their needs.  Customers look for indicators like responsiveness, flexibility, willingness to compromise and act beyond the profit motive.  This is where being known as a company that values both social good and profit matters – it helps customers form that emotional bond quicker.

Here is my take on this: whilst both rational and emotional matter the emotional bonds matter more.  Why?  I don’t care how competent you are if I suspect that you do not care about me – that you are simply in it for the money.  Given the choice I will look for someone who shows me that they care about me and are competent in their chosen profession.

Building trust takes time

Trust builds up through the accumulation of previous experiences (interactions) with the services provider.  Experience is a lived phenomenon and customers can accumulate these experience by directly interacting with the service provider  and by exposed to / tapping into word of mouth and corporate reputation.  For the first time in history, I, the customer can determine how much to trust you simply by tapping into social media where your customers are already talking about you which is why sites like TripAdvisor are incredibly popular and influential. Last week I drove 60 minutes to see an optometrist when there is one within ten minutes of my home. Why? Because this chap came recommended through my personal network.  I was not disappointed and I’d happily drive 60 minutes to see him again.

Trust takes the risk out – it acts as a safety net

Why did I turn to my personal network for a recommendation and then drive 60 minutes to see the recommended optometrist? Because my son’s wellbeing was at stake and I did not want to take any chances.  This is what the literature says:  “In situations of  perceived risk or vulnerability, trust has the role of a safety net, helping the customer to make a decision by minimising uncertainty and risk. The insecurity about the long term horizon of delivery, as well as the inability to test the service before actual consumption makes trust a valuable decision factor for customers of service organisations.

I will set out what you can do to cultivate trust in Part II (coming soon).

Why culture is the Achilles Heel of your customer experience efforts (Part I)

The future of most customer efforts has already been written: take a look at your culture

I came to see, in my time at IBM, that culture isn’t just one aspect of the game – it is the game.”  Lou Gerstner

Many large companies are playing the Customer game and most of them will fail.  They may succeed in improving marketing campaign ROI and reducing churn through customer analytics.  They may succeed in reducing customer service costs by implementing making it harder for customer to contact the call centres and by replacing people with self-service systems.  Yes, they may win a ‘battle’ here and their.  Nonetheless, at the strategic level (‘war’) they will fail: they will fail to build customer loyalty and reap the rewards of that loyalty.  Why?

Culture.  If you scratch the surface you find the culture within many large established companies is one of “do whatever it takes to make the numbers!”  Why is that?  Because the Tops are judged by only one thing: making the numbers.  In general, Tops do not care about people – not the flesh and blood ’employees’, nor the flesh and blood suppliers/partner, nor the flesh and blood ‘customers’.  Nor do they care about or have an intimate understanding of operations.  How can they?

They are embedded in a structure (‘system’) which views customers as objects to be manipulated and wallets to be emptied; employees are simply resources which inconveniently come in a human form and are costly hence the focus on replacing them with technology; suppliers are also resources and the objective is to pay the lowest price; laws are simply inconvenient hurdles that one can find ways around; and the rightful role of the Tops is generalship (‘strategy’).  In the world of the Tops (business or politics) the only thing that matters is making the ‘numbers’: the end justifies the means.

This grim picture is mostly hidden from view.  It is the elephant in the room that no-one wants to acknowledge as it is too threatening – it conflicts with our espoused words and values.  Yet, occasionally this elephant burst on to the world stage in a dramatic fashion:  in the USA there was Worldcom, Enron, Andersen and recently the financial crisis; and in the UK we had the MPs expenses scandal, the financial crisis and recently the News of the World phone hacking scandal.

When you exit the ‘matrix of customer babble’ you will tend to find that the real agenda and system structure can best be described as “extracting maximum value at the expense of the customer” – to borrow Fred Reicheld’s words.  Large companies and the people within them resort to any manner of tactics to pry open the customer’s wallet and get as much out of it as possible right now in this transaction, in this quarter, in this year – to make the numbers.   You can see it in the marketing dept where marketers are busy devising all kinds of ‘bait and switch’ tactics.  You can also see it in the love of ‘neuromarketing’ using insight into the human mind to manipulate customers to do what we want them to do.  You can see it in the relentless dumbing down and depersonalising of customer service…….

What is usually missing is any genuine interest in the flesh and blood customers (or employees, suppliers and partners).  And this is obvious to many of us customers and that is why we use TripAdvisor or Epinions or turn to our social networks to get at the ‘truth’ rather than the marketing claptrap.

What is often missing is any sense of fair play: honesty and integrity between words and actions.   Who is best placed to know the reality of organisational life?  The employees.  In one large publicly quoted company the Tops forced all the Middles and Bottoms to sign an ethics policy.  The following week I learned that these honorable Tops had devised a way to get around the law by using a Greek smuggler to do the dirty work and thus distance themselves from any risk.  Does that sound remarkably similar to the News of the World where policeman and private detectives were used to the dirty work.

Is my experience unique?  Not according to employee surveys, one survey that springs to mind highlighted the following:

  • 49% of employees (who responded to the survey) do not have “trust and confidence” in their company’s senior management;
  • Only 36% of employees believe that their leaders “act with honesty and integrity”;
  • 76% of employees stated that, during a recent one year period, they have personally illegal or unethical behaviours at their companies.

How can you build any kind of meaningful relationship with customers with a culture like that?  I will examine that question in part II of this post – coming soon.

2011: are you ready to move beyond the 4Ps and the 4Cs to embrace the 5Hs?

In the period of 1950s the concept of the marketing mix was introduced and this led to the birth of the 4Ps: Product, Price, Place, Promotion.    This has been extended  to include another 3Ps: People, Process, Physical Evidence.

With the birth of the Customer age in the 1990s Robert Lauterborn proposed the 4Cs: Customer, Cost, Convenience, Communication.  Whilst this is a move in the right direction it is not enough.   To my mind it smacks of the abstract, the intellectual, a machine way of thinking and talking.  A move forward yet still within the Newtonian paradigm of the universe (including human beings) as a gigantic clock.

How about embracing the 5Hs: Human, Heart,  Honesty, Hospitality and Harmony?

Human:

Get that you are dealing with flesh and blood human beings and treat your customers as human beings.  Strive to treat them with the best of our humanity: kindness, benevolence, humaneness.

Being human, we notice, even if it is at a subconscious level, when these qualities are present or not.  Given the choice we walk towards organisations that have a human look and feel:  that are humane and treat us as human beings not machines.

How about starting with a small step that makes a huge difference: speaking with a human, conversational, voice?

Heart:

As the expression goes “Have a heart!”.  What does that mean?  In a word it means compassion.  The ability and willingness to put yourself in the shoes of your customer.  To see life through her eyes, to experience what she is experiencing.  It means following the golden rule “Treat your fellow man/woman in the manner in which you would like to be treated if you were in his/her shoes?  Go further and embrace the platinum rule “treat your customer as he/she would like to be treated”.

How about following Zappos and making it easy for your customers to reach out and speak with you?  To reach out to you – via chat, click to call etc – when she is shopping and needs guidance or reassurance?  To reach out to you when she needs help in using your product or service?

How about making it easy for customers to make complaints?  How about making it easy to return faulty goods?  And so forth.

Honesty:

Let go of the spin and be honest with people in a tactful way.

Human beings stay clear of people who they find to be dishonest.  When you are honest I may not like what you say yet I will respect you for being honest.  Tell it as it is – upfront – it will save you a lot of pain later on: sooner or later your true colour will show especially in this densely connected world.  When I catch you being dishonest (including omitting stuff that you do not want me to know) then I no longer trust you.  If I don’t trust you then you are going to have to pay in way or another if you want to do business with me.

Put bluntly put as much focus on the steak – the product, the service, the reality – as you do to the sizzle of advertising and other marketing messages.   Another way of saying this is to say ensure that there is a harmony between the sizzle and the steak.

Hospitality:

Be a good host, be hospitable – to prospects, new customers, existing customers and customers who have either left or are on their way.

When you are being a good host you take the time and trouble to think of your guests and their needs.  You do your best to welcome them, to make them feel at ease, to introduce them to people that they will find interesting or useful. And when the time comes for them to leave, a good host will see them to the door and wish them well and mean it!  How about behaving the same way with your prospects, new customers, existing customers etc?

How about inviting your customers into the business?  To listen, to share, to collaborate on new product ideas, product development, marketing communications, customer services and so forth?  Incidentally, the important part about ‘social media’ is not the media, it is the social.  In a social environment your character, your reputation and your manners speak so loudly that few listen to your words.  A good host is mindful of this and acts accordingly.

Harmony:

As human beings we love harmony and we strive after it.  Harmony is pleasing as it gives us peace of mind.  So how about focusing your efforts on creating harmony?  What does that mean in practice?  Lets take a look at the dictionary definition: “the just adaptation of parts to each other, so as to form a complete, symmetrical or pleasing whole”.

How about a harmony between the promises made and the experience delivered?   How about orchestrating harmony between all the silos that impact the customer experience?  How about harmony between the short-term and the longer term?

It is my belief that if you don’t get the social part – that is the human desires for beauty, for meaning, for connection, for honesty…. – you are going to be increasingly lost in the 21st century.    Maybe I am deluding myself.  What do you think?