Public Servants, or Servants of the Public?

After a recent visit to a government department, I couldn't help but notice that the public servants considered themselves to be too inconvenienced to provide any of their valuable time to serving the public, which, incidentally, pays for their salaries.

I counted 7 different types of verbal abuse to elderly citizens, verbal abuse over the telephone with regards to enquiries, windows being shut down in the face of desperate, tired people, who had waited for hours to be assisted, with the excuse that it was "coffee break time", and to top it off, after the 10 minute coffee break, 40 minutes later, the "customer" being told to shut up, or else they will not have any assistance provided to them.

Whilst waiting for my turn to come up, and three hours later, I started to envisage the same scenario at a multinational fast food establishment.  

In this example, the fast food employee is the public servant, and the customer is the citizen seeking government assistance:

Customer at drive through: "yes, hello, I would like two all beef patties, special sauce, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun"

Pimple faced employee: (shuts window and screams out) "we are all going on a break now"

Customer: "but I've driven for an hour to get here, and I have to go back to work"

Pimple faced employee: "you should have thought about that 2 hours ago, and come earlier, come back tomorrow, or better still, don't come back at all"

Customer: "but, there's nowhere else to go, I'm hungry, and I really needed a two all beef pattie, special sauce, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun"

Pimple faced employee: "are you going to continue with your complaining, because you are wasting my time"

Customer: "sorry, I didn't mean to upset you; I will wait for you to come back"

40 minutes later......

Pimple faced employee: "yes"

Customer: "sorry to interfere with your life, and I apologise for making you work, is it possible for you to be so kind as to give me a two all beef pattie, special sauce, pickled onions on a sesame seed bun?"...

Pimple faced employee: " We ran out 50 minutes ago, come back tomorrow"

Now, why is it that government employees think that they are above everyone else, why do they believe that people depend on them?  People do not depend on the government employee, they depend on the system to help them.  Unfortunately, the rules that apply to private enterprise, that is, to treat the customer with respect and to give proper service, do not apply to this particular sector.   Maybe the government should take its own advice, and offer training to its employees, subsidized by the government  run and funded, Human Resources Development Authority!

..... imagine if the private sector adopted this attitude...!

IQ versus EQ...or should we just consider VQ?

When I was studying Human Resources Management back in the 80's, IQ was considered the most accurate way to test a person's ability to respond to certain job requirements, and to also be able to solve problems or issues in a clever, intelligent and efficient way.  It was a quotient that measured abilities, logic and skills.

In the next decade, we had more discussions and theories about EQ, or Emotional Intelligence as it became more widely known, which focused on people's feelings and their ability to cope emotionally with situations that required more tact, as opposed to more logic.

However, I would like to propose another element in the equation, that of VQ, or "Values" quotient.  I believe that people are greatly motivated by their values, as well as the level of intelligence, or emotional awareness.  I would like to explain this with the following examples:

Two people with the same levels of IQ and EQ, have two different values in life.  One is ambitious, wants to be successful, works hard and wants respect, and even power.  The other, wants a peaceful existence,  a stress free life, and wants to enjoy nature and sharing life's pleasures with others.  With these different values, their roads will be shaped.  One will take the high road to the city, to work in a successful firm, amongst the hustle and bustle, the other will take the low road, leading to a more natural and relaxed environment.

Both people in the example might use his or her IQ and EQ to fight for what they believe in according to their beliefs and priorities in life, but it's the value quotient that will determine how these will be used.

Therefore, it can be said that a lot of business decisions can be made upon each person's values.  If the Top executive in a firm wants power, their IQ and EQ levels will help make the decision, but it's the VQ that will determine what outcome is required. 

Therefore, whether you take the high road or the low road, at the end of the day, it's your values that will give you the job satisfaction that you crave...............

....what are your values?

Dynamics of Branding - A New Approach

For so long now, marketing communication theories and practices have supported strongly the  concept that creating strong brands adds value to the company's asset sheet.

This is particularly true for large corporations and multinational companies that are "faceless", and have a large workforce, as recognising a product because of its brand association is the way companies stay in business.

However, with smaller companies where personal contact is made with customers, especially in Service Industries, the strongest brand element that should receive a good portion of the advertising budget, is the employee!

How can an employee be considered a brand builder?  If we take the simple definition of a brand, which is normally quoted as "the personality that identifies a product, service or company", this fits in perfectly with the premise that employees should be considered as an important marketing communications tool as well!

To date, I haven't read anywhere in  any marketing literature about employees being considered as part of a company's brand in the sense of traditional branding approaches, so, I pose the following:

• If a company has a workforce made up of long term employees, people that are committed and dedicated to the company, and its products and services,  the customers will subconsciencly feel an attachment to these employees.  This is true especially when they see and work with the same people over and over again, closely and over many years, thus brand awareness, and brand reliability, have been created by the employee; 

• If companies with long term employees, who show genuine care for their customers and provide not only service, but a friendly, reliable and trustworthy approach, then the "brand recall", is created by the employee.

The two scenarios above, are only a few of the analogies that can be considered  in correlation to the traditional approach, and the new approach I am suggesting.

If companies spend some time and money developing their employees by considering them as part of brand building strategies, it would add more value to their generic products and services and give them the edge on their competitors. 

We've seen in many management books that labour turnover is costly, but  what about the cost or damage to the "brand"?

There's nothing like visiting your local service centre to find the same technician that repaired your first piece of equipment many years ago, you know him/her inside out, and so does he/she! 

Or booking your holiday with the consultant that has known where you've  travelled for the last 20 years and knows what you like and don't like, where you've been and haven't been! 

Think about it, branding is not just about logos, symbols and signs, it's also about companies investing in developing their strongest brand - people who will keep customers coming back and happy!

Silence of the Spams

What has happened with communication?

We hated it when our parents would tell their friends something about us, or when relatives where updated on what we did and were doing, or going to do...neighbours would stop us in the street and would ask us how "it" went, and before you know it ...the grapevine came back to slap us in the face and choke us up a bit!

We hated the phone, the backyard fence and people coming over, to get that last bit of gossip for the day!

But thanks to technology and developments in communication, and the ease of access to these, we volunteer this information freely and without second thoughts.

The boss asks us how did "it" go, and we stop, look around, laugh with a smirk on our face and say "ah, so you saw it on my wall aye?".

But somehow, this free volunteering of information, "sound" advice to friends or relatives, business information to colleagues or competitors, has to be reviewed by those dishing it out, to ensure that they won't be "dishing it in".

The telephone limited our communication to the person we were talking to, or to those who dared to eavesdrop. These days, the receiver of our communication is not just one, but hundreds of the people we know, multiplied by hundreds and hundreds of the friends of friends of friends of friends, and some enemies!!

Before you know it, we are "coincidently" getting unsolicited messages and advertising about some item that we can buy or send money for, to improve our lives for the next decade in this mixed-up millennium.

Businesses can't afford to have their employees discussing company issues with friends whilst fertilising crops. No one needs to know the boss is a ratbag, chances are everyone has already guessed that for themselves, no one needs to know whether your company's products are not worth buying.... no one needs to know you will be looking for another job during summer break..... no one needs to see you tagged in a photo with a person you don't want your boss, partner, or spouse to know you know of.... etc. etc....

Before liable and slander suits could start flowing, companies, employees and everyone of a communicable age, should consider silencing the spams, and getting back to the traditional methods of communication, where people got together and exchanged ideas and thoughts in privacy....

.... and not in front of a 15inch portal to the world.

You are only as good as the company you keep.....

.... An expression normally used to caution someone about the type of people they mingle with, entertain, or call friends, but this article is geared towards investment in business growth and development, and how every member of the organisation must contribute to this objective in order for a company to survive and thrive.

I liken today’s economy, and what is currently happening with many companies, to an old tree that, after many years of care and bountiful fruit production, has started to wither and become weak.

When first planted, it is nurtured and provided with the care, protection and the sustenance it needs to grow and yield fruit.

Whilst the tree produces fruit, the investment is considered worthwhile. Over the years, it becomes a little neglected and it doesn't receive as much care or attention as in the past, as it is taken for granted that it will continue to produce and survive on its own with minimal attention.

However, its endurance also depends on many other external conditions, which either help it to flourish and grow, or threaten its existence.

Companies, like trees, need to be constantly nurtured. Once set up, they need to constantly grow and develop, and together with the management and the workforce, supported and cultivated so that they can withstand the forces of external threats that could cause its demise.

The current economic environment is not a healthy one and business owners and their employees will need to take some time-out to consider how they could put a bit more love and care into it, by sacrificing profits and affluence at the expense of investment and spending.

Such investment includes time and financial outlays in training the workforce, advertising and research and development. In a period of economic turmoil, spending is the only solution to keep what one has managed to acquire.

Natural disturbances and human intervention shaped the forest of today. Both will shape the forest of tomorrow....

... You are only as good as the Company you keep!

Business Disorganisation, how to avoid it!

Ever since the industrial revolution and the upsurge of commerce and industry, business organisation and development took on a dramatic change from the primitive working practices of the 18^th and 19^th centuries, to high level, forward thinking entrepreneurial strategies, which led companies into the 20^th century.

However those same entrepreneurs who took businesses into the 20^th century are also, in part, responsible for the deterioration of these philosophies in the 21^st century.

Building a successful business from scratch is a huge accomplishment, especially if the business owner had very little education or no formal qualifications. Experience, determination and perseverance, as well as hope of a better future for the family and the economy were probably more of a driving force, than hanging up a qualification on an office wall.

Unfortunately, the factors that contributed to first generation business owners’ success are no longer applicable in today’s business environment.

Other factors, amongst others, that need to be considered are:

• The current economic situation and other macroeconomic factors
  

• Today, a strong reliance on family, friends, relatives, government officials, and other associates is mostly considered as nepotism and bribery

• Children entering the business and starting immediately in management and/or authoritative positions, not from the bottom up, causes rifts with qualified, non-family member, employees

• Family feuding amongst siblings who take over from original owners when they retire, divorce or pass on, could disagree on how and who should run departments or divisions

• Second and Third Generation relatives entering the business, bringing with them their own ideas and philosophies as to how the grandparent should have ran the business, and how Uncle A or Auntie B should have not listened to Auntie A and Uncle C and Brother A should not have said this or that with Cousin B and C!

Nowadays, such companies are suffering from the "Second and Third Generation Syndrome”, and “Business Disorganisation”. The original owners, who may themselves have been deprived of an education and academic achievements, ensured that their children got themselves a first-class education, so that they could enter the company in an important, top executive position, to enable the business to continue to flourish.

For businesses to continue to be successful, they have to be run by fully trained and qualified personnel, who are employed on the basis of doing the job the right way, rather than filling posts with people who oblige the owners to hire them, through some type of “hold” that they have.

Therefore, it is wise to consider that a combination of qualifications, know-how and a zest for purpose and passion for reaching goals will ensure continued growth and development rather than disorganisation.

Is the Customer "Always Right"?

Why would customers need to complain if :

• The service is good;

• The Sales people are courteous and knowledgable;

• The products are of good quality;

• The environment is welcoming and comfortable;

• The after sales service is even better than the pre-sale transaction?

Some of the above points are reasons that make customers feel satisfied and therefore contribute to the value they have received in any transaction made.

If a business doesn't provide any of the above, amongst other factors, then customers are not satisfied and complaints may arise.

"The Customer is Always Right", shouldn't necessarily apply if a business takes due care in ensuring that it provides good quality products and services, an excellent level of customer care, speedy and reliable service and after sales attention.

Therefore, all businesses should aim to limit their customer complaints to ZERO by implementing some form of quality managment.

If a business aims for this "semi" Total Quality Management model, then the only reason a customer would need to complain, would be to satisfy some other need that the customer has, which is not related to the buyer-seller relationship.

Whilst all sales people can be trained to deal with customer complaints concerning the goods and services of the business, they cannot be trained to deal with complaints arising from some other motivator or trigger that is instilled in the mind of the customer that is not related to the transaction.

They just need to ensure that they can tell the difference between the two!