I don’t know if this is the sort of question you usually reply to, but recently I had a very frustrating experience with my cellular service provider that I’d like to tell you about. So lately, it seems like every time I watch a YouTube video I see the same ad by [CELLULAR SERVICE PROVIDER REDACTED] telling me I can trade in my old iPhone for a new iPhone 15G, free of charge. But when I tried to take them up on the offer, I got the runaround. First they said my phone was too old, so it didn’t qualify. When I pointed out the offer specifically said ANY model, the sales rep claimed that part of the promotion had already ended. I was then informed that if I wanted to “walk out of the store today” with a 15G, it would be ~$100 plus $22/month for 36 months. That’s like $900! It didn’t help that they weren’t at all sympathetic – and maybe even a little smug. In the end, the only thing I walked out there with was my old phone – but I smell a rat. And by “rat,” I mean a LIAR. And of course the next video I saw on YouTube showed that same stupid ad… – Name withheld
There is, it seems, some debate within the business community as to whether customers should be considered “part” of the organizations they patronize.
Traditionally they have not, as evidenced by the fact that the customer is only very rarely, if ever included as part of the corporate hierarchy, or on the organization chart. Yet there are exceptions. Nordstrom began putting customers on its org chart in the 1970s,[1] and in The Functions of the Executive (1938), Chester Barnard writes:
“[It] appears necessary to regard as part of an organization certain efforts of many persons not commonly considered ‘members,’ for example, customers…”[2]
I share this sentiment – which is my way of saying “yes.” Your experience is very much an appropriate subject for this column. It has everything to do with jobs, work, and perhaps in particular, management.
First of all, anyone who insists ads like one you saw provide consumers with valuable “information” about products and/or services is, well, misinformed. They’re often misleading, skewed, if not outright lies, as you say. The point of course is to convince you to pay more for something than you should, buy something you may not even need, or, as in your case, simply get you in the store.
It’s also tempting to make the customer service representative the focus of your frustration in a situation like this. Nor is that entirely unfair. Had this person really wanted to, they probably could have hooked you up by extending the deal. But in my experience, frontline employees like the one you encountered are just the tip of the bad management “iceberg,” so to speak. Beneath the surface lurks an entire organization’s worth of bad policy, misguided strategy, and poor management practices. Your interaction is but one unavoidable consequence of all this.
For instance, the individual you dealt with is almost certainly on commission. That means there’s no financial incentive for them to let you stroll out the door with a new iPhone – unless you upgrade your plan or something. Nor does it add anything to the company’s bottom line, so they’re not much interested either.
Keep in mind too it certainly wasn’t the sales rep’s idea to run these misleading ads. That decision was likely made by some corporate muckety-muck who doesn’t have to face frustrated customers like yourself on a daily basis. Someone in marketing probably determined that a certain percentage of customers will buy something anyway, meaning the ad “works” in a manner of thinking. I’m not excusing the rep’s behavior, mind you. But if my employer put me in a position where I was forced to confront p***ed off customers day in and day out, I doubt I’d be very understanding either.
So believe it or not, I do have some sympathy for this individual.[3]
What then can you do?
Not much, I’m afraid. You could switch carriers, but we all know what a hassle that can be. Try another sales rep who seems more sympathetic? Write Verizon (oops, it slipped out) an angry email?
Whatever you decide, for me this experience is an apt reminder that so much of what we call “capitalism” is intuitive. Without anyone having to tell you, you understand that as the customer, you are “the boss.” Economists have a term for this: consumers’ sovereignty. It acknowledges that the customer has the upper hand when negotiating with the purveyors of goods and services by virtue of their purchasing power. And it means the businesses you patronize should do everything in their power not just to sell you stuff, but make you happy…or at the very least make sure you don’t leave their store in a tiff.
What’s just as intuitive to my mind is that the job of any manager is one of support. Managers should help their employees to the extent they can so that their employees are able to do their jobs to the best of their ability. When managers don’t commit to this, experience tells me frontline employees don’t commit to giving stellar customer service – and the result is precisely the sort treatment you were subjected to.
This, I think, is in part what Mr. Barnard was getting at when he argued customers should be considered “members” of his organization. And also why I think when Nordstrom chose to include the customer on their org chart, they positioned them at the top.[4]
Anyway, let me know how things turn out. Hopefully you’ll be able to communicate the good news from a brand new iPhone.
NOTES:
[1] The Nordstrom Way (2nd Ed.) by Robert Spector and Patrick McCarthy. 2000 (John Wiley and Sons), p. 96.
[2] Barnard, Chester. The Functions of the Executive. 1938 (Harvard University Press), p. 71.
[3] Of course, that corporate muckety-muck was probably under intense pressure from their own manager to boost sales, and this is the best idea they could come up with in the short term. So I sympathize most with the frontline sales rep, not quite as much with the marketing exec who approved the ad, and least of all with the CEO, board of directors, or shareholders who applied this pressure in the first place.
[4] Nordstrom’s organization chart:
[ 3 Comments ]
This was a fascinating post. I’ve never heard of the concept of including customers in a company’s decision-making hierarchy (maybe I misunderstood and at Nordstrom’s it isn’t actual people but more a symbolic “customer”).
All I can say is: This is an idea ripe with possibilities for meaningful improvement in the lives of front-line employees & customers. But as you alluded to, it flies in the face of what capitalism has become (shareholder profits above aLL else).
Only within the last few years did it finally dawn on me how challenging ALL public-facing jobs – where the interactions are brief and strictly transactional – are. These folks are asked to do the impossible (boiled down to, often, persuade a customer to do something under shady or non-transparent pretenses, to make more profits for shareholders / bosses). It’s a thankless job, filled with stress and an uncomfortably high proportion of customers who enter into the interaction perturbed (or worse).
I have nothing but empathy for these folks and try to be as pleasant as I possibly can in my interactions with customer service people on the phone, door knockers, cashiers at CVS.
It’s about all I can do and while I know it’s obviously not making any dent in the underlying system, I hope it gives a small respite for people paid insufficient wages for very hard work – representing their corporate or small businessperson employer under less than ideal circumstances (which could be closer to ideal with owners’ self-reflection on how to make more money honestly and with integrity).
Thank you for highlighting another vector for potentially improving the world we live in. Official customer involvement in business decision-making may be an alien concept today. But it doesn’t need to be – as there’s very little to lose by implementing it.
(Tho greedy, short-sighted and selfish people will no doubt throw up their arms in outrage. That’s no reason not to keep spreading the idea and figuring out ways to make it happen).
Actually, you’re spot on.
Nordstrom’s inverted pyramid seems to be viewed mostly as a symbol within the company – more a reflection of the organization’s attitude towards the consumer, and customer service, as opposed to depicting their corporate structure. Or at least that’s the impression given by “The Nordstrom Way” (2000), Robert Spector and Patrick McCarthy’s “inside story” of the company and its culture. Their text is punctuated throughout with phrases like “…push decision-making responsibilities down to the sales floor…” (p. 23), “You start at the bottom and do it the Nordstrom Way…” (p. 30), and “We wanted our people to know that they could work their way up” (p. 66). All of this suggests a more traditional, hierarchical management structure rules the day.
Which left this reader wondering: How much more successful might the company be if they actually lived up to this organizational ideal..?
Businesses, and those who lead them, which run their enterprises like ‘business would be much easier if it weren’t for pesky customers’ most often will find they have an insufficient number of customers.