Search This Blog

Thursday, September 22, 2011

Customer Service


A funny and telling definition of Customer service has been put this way – “Apologizing to total strangers for things over which you have no control”


As both a Customer and  a Customer Service “Representative” (or “CSR” )  I have had a few thoughts on this topic of Customer Service and how we treat people in this industry.

1) The first point I would like to make is this – as customers we have to distinguish our feelings for the corporation from our feelings toward the level entry worker you most often encounter (and on whom we often take out our wrath.)

As a customer I can understand the anger we can feel towards the corporation in question ( which ever that may be) , however it is a huge mistake to take out your anger against the corporation on the store associate who is lucky enough to get your complaint.

The average customer service worker – whether they be a cashier, a waitress, a drive through attendant, a telephone support worker  or a big box store floor worker (hereafter referred to as the CSR )   - is not responsible for corporate policy.

To boot -  They are often poorly paid and poorly trained – and that, again,  is the fault of the corporation.

Of  course -  they are responsible for their own personal conduct, their patience, their effort in helping you and their attitude in general…. But not the edicts passed down from “Head Office”.

When it comes to issues of price and policy – don’t shoot the messenger. 

Perhaps you should ask to talk to a manager (they are paid more and trained more and are expected to take on more responsibility). 


You may not know this but the average CSR is held to at least 3 “metrics” or standards.

a) They are expected to have great customer satisfaction .  This is usually measured by telephone, online or “fill out the card” surveys.   However the  customers  often fill out their surveys only when  they are angry – and the even then it is usually with things beyond the CSR’s control. 

Its also interesting to note that in a lot of businesses unless the CSR gets an “Extremely Satisfied” , they actually get docked points.

In other words when we customers fill something out as “Fairly” or “Somewhat” satisfied – the employee gets a big fat 0 , just the same as if you had said “Extremely Unsatisfied”.

Unfortunately . The systematic measuring of customer satisfaction of the CSR in the industry is extremely inaccurate and not true to life.

b)  Quality control – the CSR is also responsible for upholding company policy to a “t” .  This often handcuffs them in their attempt to please the customer – an example:

If you are on a phone, the common rule is that the CSR is not allowed to even let you talk to a supervisor until you have asked 3 times!  If they give you to a supervisor before then they will get docked in their Quality Control metric – this in turns affects their review and possibly their employment.

c) To add to these things, the average CSR is also expected to get things done fast or to increase sales or production . In other words, taking the time to make sure the customer is satisfied is often discouraged by the fact that their  “call time” is now too long ( or drive through time too slow , or sales too low etc…)

One other note – We all know how annoyed we get when the person on the other end of the phone support has a thick accent. But once again, are you really mad at them?  Are you mad that they took a well-paying job to provide for themselves and their family ?

No, the corporation again must be held accountable for their decisions and policies.

2)      The second principle I believe we need to remember when dealing with those in the customer service industry is simply this  - 

The universal law of “Love your neighbour” does not go out the window just because you are spending money.  The CSR should still be treated with courtesy and respect.  Believe it or not  - we are not better then them.

Christians -  re-read that last paragraph.


Now I am not out to vilify all corporations as some are great employers and they too have their challenges ( if the company doesn’t make any money, we all lose) .

Nor am I excusing the poor effort or bad attitudes put forth by some CSRs – as I said above - they are responsible for their own personal conduct, their patience, their effort in helping you and their attitude in general .

But lets just take a few moments to think before we are rude, angry or just plain disrespectful to that person in the customer service industry.


See MSN's Customer Service Hall of Shame ;)

http://money.ca.msn.com/savings-debt/gallery/customer-service-hall-of-shame?cp-documentid=30689754


My friend Joel had this to add on as a comment - I wholeheartedly agree!

Joel Boismier 
I can't seem to make the comment section work on your blog so I'll put my comments here:

Being in a customer service based industry I can definitely verify that the comments in the blog are correct and that we all encounter the crazy customers who make our lives difficult. But there is also the plus side of the job too when we have great customers who understand and work with you.

Typically the reason I encounter rude or irrate customers is when it comes to money. Money is such a driving force in our world that ones own money usually comes before anything else. The returns policy, bargining and the price of items are what draw customers into and drive them out of a store.

Honestly though, I am happier to work with and find work arounds for dilemmas that arise when a customer is level headed over a customer who is tearing a strip off of you. Respect, what I'm getting at, goes both ways!

Saturday, September 17, 2011

Worldliness ( and its definition)

"The Biblical idea of the believer's separation from the World ( i.e. Society, Pop Culture etc in the negative sense*) is not to be isolated from it but rather to be insulated from it by the Holy Spirit and our pursuit of personal holiness."

Adapted from William MacDonald

(Please see below for further definition of the term "world" as used in the Bible and Koine Greek)


Jhn 17:13 "But now I come to You, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have My joy fulfilled in themselves. 


Jhn 17:14 "I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 


Jhn 17:15 "I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one. 

Jhn 17:16 "They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 

Jhn 17:17 "Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth. 

Jhn 17:18 "As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world.

Jhn 17:19 "And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth.

Jhn 17:20 "I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will 
 believe in Me through their word;

Jhn 17:21 "that they all may be one, as You, Father, [are] in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.    

---------------------------------

Further definition of the term "world" as used in the Bible and Koine Greek



Personal note:  I do not think it is wrong to use an appropriate "Pop Culture" reference in order to illustrate a Biblical point - Paul, himself, does this in his Mars Hill address when he quotes a famous poet off the day (Acts 17:28) 


*  Strong's:  Kosmos


1) an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government


2) ornament, decoration, adornment, i.e. the arrangement of the stars, 'the heavenly hosts', as the ornament of the heavens. 1 Pet. 3:3

3) the world, the universe


4) the circle of the earth, the earth

5) the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family

  As in:  Jhn 3:16 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.



Negatively:

6) the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ


7) world affairs, the aggregate of things earthly

a) the whole circle of earthly goods, endowments riches, advantages, pleasures, etc, which although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce from God and are obstacles to the cause of Christ

As in John 17 (above) and 

Jam 4:4 Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.

 
Also note: 

There are several different words in the original New Testament  that are translated in the common version by this one English word, WORLD; the two principal ones are æon  and kosmos. Though both of these words are usually rendered world, yet they are really very distinct, and different in their meaning, and ought to have been rendered respectively age and world. 
 



Worldliness 1

Definition: The quality of being worldly; a predominant passion for obtaining the good things of this life; covetousness; addictedness to gain and temporal enjoyments; worldly-mindedness. 

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

The Straw Man Argument



I'm posting this because it's good information for anyone anywhere in the world to know...

A note to Christians - this fallacy has been used both to defend our position and to criticize it. 

Let's be careful not to use it  - or fall for it!

 

Straw man

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Straw man argument)



A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]

Origin

The origins of the term are unclear. One common (folk) etymology given is that it originated with men who stood outside courthouses with a straw in their shoe in order to indicate their willingness to be a false witness, but it is unlikely that individuals would publicly declare their willingness to commit a crime outside a courthouse.[3][4] Another more popular origin is a human figure made of straw, such as practice dummies used in military training. Such a dummy is supposed to represent the enemy, but it is considerably easier to attack because naturally, it neither moves nor fights back.

[edit]

In the UK, the adversary is sometimes called Aunt Sally, with reference to a traditional fairground game.

[edit]Reasoning

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

1.   Person A has position X.
2.   Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. Thus, Y is a resulting distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:

1. Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position.
2. Quoting an opponent's words out of context — i.e. choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).[2]
3. Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments — thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[1]
4. Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
5. Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.

3.   Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious, because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position.

[edit]Examples

Straw man arguments often arise in public debates such as a (hypothetical) prohibition debate:
Person A: We should liberalize the laws on beer.
Person B: No, any society with unrestricted access to intoxicants loses its work ethic and goes only for immediate gratification.
The proposal was to relax laws on beer. Person B has exaggerated this to a position harder to defend, i.e., "unrestricted access to intoxicants".[1] It is a logical fallacy because Person A never made that claim. This example is also a slippery slope fallacy.
Another example:
Person A: Our society should spend more money helping the poor.
Person B: Studies show that handouts don't work; they just create more poverty and humiliate the recipients. That money could be better spent.
In this case, Person B has transformed Person A's position from "more money" to "more handouts", which is easier for Person B to defeat.

[edit]See also

§         List of fallacies
§         Ad hominem
§         Cherry picking (fallacy)
§         Straw man proposal
§         Straw man (law)
[edit]