It's a "trust thing"!

In all my years of being either a leader and/or a consultant (now a total of well over 45 years) there is one factor that I have found to be consistent if an organisation is to be successful in both the short term and the long term. There needs to be a high level of internal trust at and across all levels and areas of the organisation while simultaneously there needs to a high level of trust between the organisation and its customers and potential customers.  In other words, ultimately success is based on trust.

And that is one of the prime reasons why I am worried about the current Australian Federal Government.

On September 7, 2013 the Australian people threw out the incumbent Labor Government primarily because it had lost their trust. A key factor in them losing much of this trust was the behaviour of Tony Abbott. As Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott ensured that any failing of the government was highlighted and that any discrepancy between what had been promised and what was done was well and truly advertised. He was, as I have said before, certainly the most effective Leader of the Opposition in recent memory and probably among the best Leaders of the Opposition that Australia has ever had.

However, from published opinion polls as well as from discussions with a wide variety of people it is clear that our current Federal Government is rapidly losing the trust of the Australian people. Everyone with whom I speak, no matter what their political leanings may be, tells me that this losing of trust is because of the behaviour of Tony Abbott. A previously highly successful Leader of the Opposition is currently widely seen as a mediocre Prime Minister at best. Under his reign, the Liberal-National Coalition seems to lurch from one self-inflicted crisis to another. The examples I am quoted include:

• The apparent rorting of parliamentary expenses by politicians in both sides of Parliament including Tony Abbott himself
• The intransigence of rhetoric against the Indonesians when it emerged that the previous government had tapped the phones of the President of Indonesia, his wife, and his closest confidants - President Obama had given a case study in how to defuse such a situation yet, probably for ideological reasons, this example was totally ignored
• The buying in to a dispute between China and Japan regarding airspace over islands whose ownership is disputed between the two countries and which has nothing whatsoever to do with Australia
• The fake military secrecy over asylum seeker boats arriving into Australian waters and the attempted politicising of an Army General in an attempt to ensure the Australian people are kept in the dark and fed bovine excrement
• The absolute fiasco over the reform of education funding with a series of insults to the Australian people over what was said and what was believed to have been said followed by a backflip worthy of a series of 10's at the Olympics' high diving competition
• The use of the Australian Secret Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) to seize evidence and to prevent a key witness from traveling in order to try and impact on a case (currently before the International Court in The Hague) that claims Australia acted immorally (and probably illegally) when negotiating oil and gas rights in the Timor Sea during 2004 because it bugged the Cabinet Room in East Timor and the information thus obtained was used for commercial purposes rather than for matters of Australia's national security.
• The public disclosures from a senior member of Tony Abbott's own Coalition Government that the Prime Minister's office is obsessive about controlling information and micro managing its own people and activities - the very factor (obsessive control) that was a direct cause of the demise of previous Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.

And, given that its not yet December 7, all this within 3 months of being elected!

There is good news and bad news in relation to all of this. The bad news is that trust - an essential ingredient of success - is being lost and goodwill squandered by what appears to be ineptitude from Tony Abbott and his Ministers. The good news is that there are almost 3 years to go before a new Federal election must be called and so Tony Abbott and his government have time to turn the situation around.

I have said before that, when there is inappropriate behaviour evident at any level of an organisation, the root cause of this is found in what the Chairman does and/or doesn't do. The "buck stops" with the chairman. Tony Abbott is, in effect, the Chairman of the organisation "Australia". We need to see some proper leadership from him - and right now that's another missing ingredient.

For those who want to ponder a little more widely, there are some messages here for those running commercial organisations, too.

I'd love to know what you think. Please make your comments below.

More information about Doug Long at http://www.dglong.com

Why Don't We Get What We Want?

It is now late November 2013 and two different national Opinion Polls released yesterday and today both show a similar story - the current Australian Government, elected only a month or so back, is losing the confidence of the Australian people. In fact, according to one Poll, the decline of the party in power (the Liberal-National Coalition) has been the fastest in Australian history.

To say that this decline is extremely surprising to many of us is to use strong understatement.

On 7 September 2013 Australians elected the Liberal National Coalition as Australia's Federal Government. The result was clear and unequivocal. In the House of Representatives the Coalition received an unassailable majority and in the Senate it was clear that the conservative vote (even if not for the Coalition per se) meant that the new Senate will be dominated by basically conservatives. Yet now, not 3 months later, the Polls say that, if an election had been held last week, the result may have been quite different - almost certainly the Coalition would still have won but its majority would have been significantly less.

As the late Professor Sumner Miller used to say, when speaking of science matters on Australian TV, "Why is this so?"

I suggest there are 2 reasons why this has occurred. I also suggest that failure to deal with these reasons could, potentially, lead to the previously unthinkable scenario that was suggested to me last week at a workshop I was conducting for senior business leaders. At that workshop a very senior leader with extremely strong Liberal Party connections and a person who is very much "in touch" with public opinion stated that we needed to face the possibility that the Abbott Government could be a "one-term" Government!

So let's look at the two reasons:

1. Getting rid of what you don't want is vastly different from getting what you do want.
2. The very things that have made you successful in the past are the same things that can stop you being successful in the future.

Getting rid of what you don't want is vastly different from getting what you do want.
During its period in power, the Labor Government under both Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard had become increasingly dysfunctional. It had done some good things under both Prime Ministers but the factional in-fighting and the increasingly poisonous relationship between Kevin Rudd (and his supporters) and Julia Gillard (and her supporters) meant that there was increasing disenchantment with the Government and a reluctance to believe that it had any answers to the issues facing Australia. Accordingly, at the election on September 7, there was a strong consensus that "this lot has got to go". It was widely felt that anything would be better than what we had!

I think that what this first round of Polling is telling is that right now, based on what we have seen over the past couple of months, lots of people are saying "despite our earlier optimism, unfortunately right now we can't see that this current Government is the utopian answer for which we had been seeking."

The very things that have made you successful in the past are the same things that can stop you being successful in the future
Some 20 years ago I was at a conference in California where one of the key speakers was a successful businessman named Jim Belasco (author of the book "Teaching the Elephant to Dance"). Belsaco said that over his years in business one of the hardest lessons he had to learn was that those very behaviours that had made him successful in the past were the very behaviours that would stop him being successful in the future. The further he moved up the hierarchy, successfully encountering new challenges meant that he needed to use new behaviours.

There is no doubt that Tony Abbott, Australia's current Prime Minister, was one of the most effective Parliamentary Opposition Leaders in Australia's recent history - and possible the most effective. His pugnacious, take-no-prisoners, approach in which he largely succeeded in dictating the political agenda meant that he dominated the media and facilitated much of the negative perception with which the Labor Government came to be seen. As a Rhodes' Scholar, Tony Abbot was a Boxing Blue and I am sure that during this period he learned that there is a huge difference in the behaviour required of a challenger as opposed to that of a defending title holder. He needs to apply this knowledge now - both Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard failed to appropriately change behaviours and I doubt that Tony Abbot wants to be in the same camp as them.

"So what," you may say. "This was the first set of Opinion Polls for the new Government and there is a long time before the next Federal election must be called." Very true and I, for one, am always sceptical of opinion polls because they can become self-fulfilling. I know about "lies, damned lies, and statistics!". But, in this case, it may be an early warning sign - something that says "here's something to be aware of but don't be too concerned at this stage".

In my latest book Delivering High Performance: The Third Generation Organisation (2013, Gower Publications, London) I make the point that there is plenty of evidence worldwide to support the view that the Chairman of any organisation sets the tone for the entire organisation and that, where inappropriate behaviour is found anywhere in the organisation, it is usually quite easy to show a direct linkage between the behaviour exhibited and the standards set and policed by the Chairman. Tony Abbott is, in effect, the Chairman of the organisation "Australia". Already since September 7 we have been regaled with possible abuses of the Parliamentary expenses system across both major parties and involving senior members of the Government (including Tony Abbott himself). Already we are seeing the same pugnacious, "I'm not going to listen to what the people say", approach from Ministers of the Crown as they showed when Opposition Spokespeople on various Ministries. This isn't going down well with lots of people and I think these first 2 Opinion Polls indicate this.

It will be interesting to see if Tony Abbott, an undoubtedly highly intelligent person, can make the necessary behavioural transitions from being a highly successful Leader of the Opposition to now become a highly successful Prime Minister. Kevin Rudd couldn't.

I'd love to know what you think. Please comment below.

More information about Doug Long at http://www.dglong.com

The Real Trouble With Free Speech

In his excellent book, "Worse Than War" (2009, Public Affairs, New York), Daniel Jonah Goldhagen explores the issues of "genocide, elimination, and the on-going assault on humanity". At the end of Chapter 9 he makes the comment "actual minds create actual worlds". His point is that what we think about other people and what we believe should be "our" world eventually becomes the "actual world" for us. When an opportunity then arises where we can bring that world into being, we tend to grab it with both hands. If our thinking is around the exclusiveness of our family, our group, our race, etc then, when given the opportunity we will try to ensure everyone else acknowledges this and yields to our wishes. "We are in control". The result is often "worse than war".

I've been thinking about this a lot lately as the issue of free speech has been debated in the Australian media. In an earlier blog, talking about the incidence which started this latest discussion on free speech, I said:

"Before I proceed, let me make some things clear. First in relation to free speech. In my new book "Third Generation Leadership and the Locus of Control: knowledge, change and neuroscience" (2012, Gower Publications, UK), I make the following statement:

I have spent my life believing in the power of a democratic society where the rule of law ensures that people will not be imprisoned without trial; that habeas corpus is a vital component of a free society; that secret police and interrogation without legal representation is wrong and an abuse of power; that freedom of faith, speech and association are inalienable rights – even if I disagree totally with what you say, believe or with whom you associate, you have an absolute right to say what you want, follow the faith or non-faith of your choice, and associate with whoever you wish."

There are many people in every society who don't think critically about what they hear on the radio, see on TV or in the movies, or read in the newspaper. People who specialise in propaganda (from Goebbels down) have known and do know this. The result is that they are fully aware that if you say something often enough and authoritatively enough, eventually many people will believe it even if it is palpably untrue. For this reason every person and/or party pushing a particular agenda seeks to ensure that their message is propounded strongly and often. The role of "shock jocks" in the media is often critical in this.

Some would argue that this then becomes an abuse of "freedom of speech". I disagree. The real trouble with freedom of speech is that, all too often, the right to speak out is too seldom used by those of us who do apply our critical faculties to what we hear, what we see, and what we read. This failure by us to speak out ultimately runs the risk of letting "the inmates run the asylum". If that happens then, as Goldhagen makes very clear, the following words by Pastor Martin Niemoller (which originally applied to Nazi Germany) could have increasing relevance in today’s society no matter where that society may be:

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

What sort of "actual world" do you want? If we are concerned about the messages promulgated by radio, TV, films and/or newspapers our response should not be to advocate some form of censorship. Rather our response should be to ensure that our voices are heard along with the others. But let's make sure we do this in an acceptable and respectful manner. A mark of true leadership is that we ensure all voices are heard - not just those who promote bigotry and discrimination.

What do you think?

More about Doug Long at http://www.dglong.com

How you respond tells a lot

 Recently I made a serious mistake. A week or so back I read a magazine and thought the material in it was interesting and informative. It contained an article on leadership and I wondered whether the publishers were interested in extending this to a dialogue. So I submitted a brief (1100 words) article and asked whether they accepted unsolicited material. I have done this before and, in a number of instances, my material has been edited and printed – invariably with the result that more articles appeared from other people and some good dialogue took place.

Yesterday I heard back from the publishers who told me that their contributors all paid for the privilege of having their articles published. I was offered a deal of 3 articles providing I paid $900 (plus GST) for each one. Over the years I have submitted many articles to newspapers and magazines (and have been paid by the magazines every time a submission has been accepted) but this is the first time that any publication anywhere in the world has asked me to pay to have a submission published. I politely refused the offer, explaining: “It appears as though I totally misunderstood your magazine – I didn’t realise that its articles were actually advertising promotions rather than informative material to foster general understanding and debate”. I also pointed out that nowhere in their magazine could I find anything to indicate its articles were actually paid advertising.

Did I get a response? Sure did and it amazed me. Within minutes the publisher replied:

Dear Doug,

Thank you for your prompt response. I believe that some part of the society under the influence of the current government and their green comrades has stopped realising that we still live in a capitalistic society and all products in the market place must be paid for.

Thank you for your help and please let all your associates and business friends know that they shouldn’t expect something for nothing from others trying to increase their business profile and/or sell their valuable knowledge and products. I received 4 requests including your kind offer just today to provide my business services for free.

We also have a very informative and self-explanatory website where you and your associates can easily find all the information on how to advertise and contribute an article in ZZZ Magazine.

I wish you all the best in helping others and yourself release your and their potential in yourself, themselves and others.

Yours truly,

ZZZ

PS I suggest you to request help from comrades in ABC for some free media space.

I have talked a lot over the years about the areas of our brain that control how we think and act. Regular readers will be fully aware of the “red zone” – “blue zone” dichotomy that impacts and determines whether we are predisposed to a First Generation Leadership, a Second Generation Leadership, or a Third Generation Leadership approach. My new book, Third Generation Leadership and the Locus of Control: knowledge, change and neuroscience (2012, Gower Publications, UK) sets this out in some detail.

Clearly the publisher of the magazine with which I was in contact operates from the “red zone”. The result is that an innocent attempt to develop a dialogue draws a response that tells us more about the responder than perhaps he realises.

One of the major problems I see in society today is that the “red zone” is the default for most of those in roles of leadership, authority, and influence. This is seen across the board whether we are talking politics, business, religion, or anything else. The result is a closing down of real dialogue and an attempt to “put down” or denigrate those who may have an opinion or stance that is different from one’s own. All too often it leads to extreme “right wing” and/or “left wing” positions that do little, if anything, to bring about a creative, innovative society.

Unconditional respect for all people regardless of any discriminating factor is the underlying concept of Third Generation Leadership and of the “blue zone” area of our brain’s locus of control. A key aspect of unconditional respect is that it never insults or denigrates the thinking of another. This publisher’s response adds reinforcement to the call for us to embrace a new way of interacting.

Do you ever ponder on what the responses you make or receive really tell the recipient? I do!

I’d love to know what you think.

More information about Doug Long at http://www.dglong.com

What Alan Jones’ comments really tell us

Over this past weekend it has become clear that one of Australia’s most influential broadcasters – someone who is sometimes labelled a “shock jock” grossly overstepped the mark in a virulent and totally offensive set of remarks about the Prime Minister and the very recent death of her father.

   

Before I proceed, let me make some things clear. First in relation to free speech. In my new book "Third Generation Leadership and the Locus of Control: knowledge, change and neuroscience" (2012, Gower Publications, UK), I make the following statement:

I have spent my life believing in the power of a democratic society where the rule of law ensures that people will not be imprisoned without trial; that habeas corpus is a vital component of a free society; that secret police and interrogation without legal representation is wrong and an abuse of power; that freedom of faith, speech and association are inalienable rights – even if I disagree totally with what you say, believe or with whom you associate, you have an absolute right to say what you want, follow the faith or non-faith of your choice, and associate with whoever you wish.

Second, in relation to politics. I am a past member of the Liberal Party in Australia and was once asked to nominate for Federal Parliament. I am no longer a member of any political party and, again as I say in "Third Generation Leadership and the Locus of Control: knowledge, change and neuroscience", I think a strong case can be made for arguing that the rise of political parties is a sign of the decline of democracy. For that reason I support independent candidates at elections.

In other words, I write this with no political agenda and from a perspective which believes Alan Jones (and anyone else) has an absolute right to free speech.

I believe that attacks such as this one by Jones tells us a lot about Jones and, from the fact that, with one exception, no-one at the function where he made the remarks appears to have been offended by them, we learn something about the people who were present that evening. It tells me that these people have no real concept of the unconditional respect for a person that ought to be the hallmark of leaders and aspiring leaders. It indicates to me that these people are ones who are lacking in true self-confidence and who compensate for this lack by a retreat into some form of fundamentalism and attack. In "Third Generation Leadership and the Locus of Control: knowledge, change and neuroscience", I say:

Self-confident people are those who understand that there is no need for any form of ‘talking down to’ or ‘putting down of’ other people. Self-confident people are those who always treat others with respect and who, as a result, ultimately expect to earn trust and respect for themselves ... A self-confident person is one who is always cognisant of the fact that everyone has his or her own issues with which they have to deal. .... Self-confidence is not weakness or any behaviour that indicates a lack of personal resolve. But neither is it the bold, brassy over-confidence that is encountered in the worst examples of some who seek to place unacceptable levels of pressure on people in order to achieve results.

Alan Jones (and his supporters) exhibits all the signs of a G1 Leader and of what I term "First Generation Leadership” – an approach that became challenged during the 1950’s and which has long since reached its “use-by” date. This is a male-dominated, “born-to-rule” approach in which the leader considers himself (it is usually a male) beyond reproach and with no need to show any respect to others unless they comply with his thinking and demands. Invariably First Generation Leadership and bullying are inextricably intertwined.

If a person wants to be a grub and/or a bully, that is their prerogative. But the existence of grubs and bullies should alert us to the need to change both what we look for in leaders and how we behave as leaders. What do you think?

More about Douglas Long at http://www.dglong.com

Your trumpet calls

Yesterday I was doing some shopping and, while waiting for service, I casually read the signs alongside the counter. One in particular caught my eye. Written in red on a white background was an A4 card with the words "HFM only stock Australian product".

Over recent months there has been much in the press about retailers sourcing product from outside Australia. Go to your local butcher, fishmonger, fruit and vegetable vendor, and, especially, your major supermarket chains and the probability is that much of the product is sourced from outside Australia. Many in the Australian community are concerned about this and people such as the entrepreneur Dick Smith constantly exhort us to think about the source of product when we are buying anything.

I'd never seen this sign before - I buy from specialist shops rather than from supermarkets wherever possible because I believe the supermarkets need competition and small local retailers are the best source of this. But the sign still made a difference in my attitude to HFM - it made me feel even more positive towards them.

I looked again at the prices shown in the shop where I was waiting. They were very comparable with those in the supermarket next door - clearly no premium for buying the Australian product. When, a few seconds later, I was served, I commented that the sign ought to be larger and that HFM should make more of this. The person at the counter didn't really seem to understand what I was saying. He smiled and agreed but, today, nothing had changed.

The statement that "HFM only stock Australian product" is a strong marketing claim that sets it aside from its larger competition. It is a critical point of differentiation. Yet it seems to have been made almost as an aside by someone who obviously knows its important yet doesn't seem to know how to make the message stand out.

It set me thinking.

How often do all of us have clear and important points of differentiation yet we either fail to recognise them or we fail to make them clearly and prominently enough. I, for one, am sure that this is an area in which I screw up quite often.

It reminded me of a statement I heard long ago: "If the trumpet doesn't make a clear call, who will get ready for battle?" And also of another statement once heard at a seminar: "if you don't blow your own trumpet, someone else may use it as a spittoon!"

In today's highly competitive environment, whatever goods and/or services we are offering can easily be confused with commodities - the similarities are such that prospective customers/clients bag everything together and, in lieu of clear differentiation, make buying decisions on price or familiarity. This can make things especially difficult for the small operator or for the new entrant to any field.

Points of differentiation should be trumpet calls.

How clear is your trumpet call of what makes you different and why people should buy from you? It needs to be very clear. It needs to be loud. And it needs to be frequent.

More about Doug Long at http://www.dglong.com

Poor Customer Service Reflects PPM

Don't you just love Apple stores. As you walk past you see all these exciting pieces of electronic equipment and the place is staffed by such happy, helpful people. There's an immediate reaction: "I like the look of this place and I've just got to go in." Now that's pretty good as far as it goes.

But what if you've got a small problem - like your IPhone's playing up? Just supposing you're close to an Apple store when this happens. You walk in and its one of those times when there's a lot more staff than customers. Staff are standing around chatting to each other but a receptionist quickly comes to attend to you. You explain the problem - and suddenly the famed Apple service disappears. "I'm sorry," you are told, "we're too busy to help you with this right now. You have to go on line and make an appointment." You look around. Staff are still chatting to each other - clearly not busy either with technology or customers: "Oh,", you say, "what about someone from over there? Can they have a quick look at it?" "No," comes the reply, "you will have to go on line and make an appointment."

Suddenly having anything other than Apple equipment seems to be a good option!

Now, as you might suspect, this isn't just a hypothetical example. It happened this morning at an Apple store in Sydney.

I can understand making an appointment when a store is packed with customers. I can understand that whatever is wrong with the phone might require a technician to examine it. I can understand that the problem may take a little time to be fixed and that there might be no phone for a short time.

What I can't understand is why, in a store that is obviously not busy, no-one can even make a brief examination of the phone and perhaps be able to help solve a reception issue. Somewhere in Apple is a manager - perhaps more than one - who is more concerned with process than with customers. And that's PPM - piss poor management.

What do you think?

More about Doug Long at http://www.dglong.com

PPM and customer service

Last week I had an interesting interaction with Virgin Australia. I wanted to make significant changes to a booking and I understood that there would be a fee involved. To check on the process I phoned Virgin and received clear instructions on how it could be done on line and what the fee would be. I then went on line to make the changes but, no matter what I tried, something wouldn't work. I again phoned Virgin, spoke to a different person, and was then told that the changes could only be made over the phone and that, because I was doing it by phone, there would be further charges! Even though Virgin Australia's policies may have no such intention, the person with whom I spoke left me with the impression that some form of price gouging may be involved. When I asked to speak to a supervisor or manager I was told that this wasn't possible and that, even if I did speak with one, I would be given the same message!! So much for Virgin Australia Service!

Two phone calls. Two different "service" people. Two totally different messages. I find it very easy to forget the first, helpful person and very easy to remember the second, very unhelpful and uncooperative person. Unfortunately for Virgin, as is usually the case in customer service interactions, it is the negative experience which tends to dominate.

I have written quite a few blogs on customer service (they're all available below). It is a sad fact that today, with organisations' emphasis on short term to medium term results and the use of outsourced and casual staff, cultures of relatively short term expediency seem to be replacing service and commitment. As I have said before about PPM (Piss Poor Management), it starts at the top by actions of commission and/or omission. In the case of my recent experience with Virgin Australia I suspect the "omission" aspect applies as contradictory messages (both direct and implied) were given.

Today's business environment is increasingly competitive and customers are increasingly price conscious. Things like air travel that once were "special" are now a commodity. Those supplying commodities need to offer something special to set themselves apart and to encourage customer/client loyalty - and "loyalty programs" don't fit this bill. Good management and good leadership recognises this and works constantly to ensure this "something special" is always on show and applied.

"We the people" are happy to respond positively when we feel that service providers really are providing service. Don't we?

What do you think? Please make your comments below.

More about Doug Long at http://www.dglong.com

Bullying - a clear indicator of PPM

The Macquarie Dictionary defines a bully as "someone who hurts, frightens, or orders about smaller or weaker people". It goes on to suggests synonyms that include "bulldoze, coerce, intimidate, threaten, tyrannise".

Leaders and good managers understand that bullying is oxymoronic. A leader and/or a good manager cannot be a bully and a bully cannot be a leader and/or a good manager. We need to remember this because every time we see a so-called leader indulging in coercion, intimidation. making threats etc that person has immediately forfeited his or her right to be called a leader. They may be in command or in charge, they may be #1 in their hierarchy or organisation or on the airwaves (all of which are perfectly legitimate roles) - but they are not a leader and they are not a "good manager".

Over recent blogs I have explored the issue of PPM (Piss Poor Management) and common to every example I have provided - and common to every example provided to me by other people - is the fact of one person using their position, title, money, power, physique, or some other part of their persona to coerce, intimidate, or threaten others. The result is that the other person felt a degree of insecurity, apprehension or fear in relation to their physical, emotional, psychological, or employment security. In other words, the person with the power has created an environment in which increased productivity, creativity, commitment, and motivation are highly unlikely to continue. People have been set up for failure rather than for success.

In my last blog I suggested the media should consider a "bullying index" that they put alongside all reports relating to politicians, captains of industry, talkback radio hosts, union officials, etc - in other words against every person seeking to exercise power and authority in every area of the community. The media often advocates naming and shaming for various other matters - why not for bullying?

If we're serious about eradicating bullying among young people then we've got to stop it in their role models!

Whoever you are; whatever your position in society; no matter what your wealth, status or anything else, you are a role model to someone. What sort of role model do you provide?

You don't have to be a bully! You can choose to be a leader.

What do you think? I'd love to know - please make your comments below.

More about Doug Long at http://www.dglong.com

The Bullying Curse

At least in Australia (and probably elsewhere), today has been designated as one devoted to awareness of bullying. On the news this morning, there was a lot of attention paid to the issue of both physical and cyber bullying in schools and among youth in general. This is a good thing.

But I wonder if it doesn't miss the point.

Children absorb lessons from role models - that is the message clearly and consistently given by educators, psychologists, and everyone else concerned about society. If this is so (and I believe it is) then surely the place to start in combating bullying is with the role models.

When I read a newspaper, listen to the radio, or watch TV I am constantly aware of bullying by those with power and authority. Some examples:

• Politicians bullying others through sarcasm, denigration, and outright abuse that is supported by constantly seeking to portray their opponents in a negative light
• Mining magnates bullying the country by lobbying and threatened legal action against any attempts to more equally distribute the mining wealth
• Australia's richest person threatening her children with bankruptcy and enlisting the support of prominent politicians in order to maintain control of huge trust funds then using the legal process to try and ensure the Australian public is kept ignorant of what is going on
• Business leaders using the threat of moving jobs off-shore unless employees agree to reductions in working conditions and lower remuneration increases while their own salaries and their organisation's profits soar
• Union leaders threatening industrial action quite early in negotiations unless they get what they demand for their members
• Radio hosts and journalists who push their own agendas then ridicule or denigrate those who seek to challenge what is presented
  

I suggest that its no wonder we find bullying in schools when the rich and powerful in society are so blatant in their own bullying while decrying that which occurs amongst children and young people.

Bullying is bullying is bullying - no matter who does it, where they do it, or the guise under which they do it.

When I was a child my parents taught me that bullying always indicated insecurity and feelings of inadequacy in a person. "Be sorry for the bully," I was told, "they're the person with problems. They are so obsessed with themselves that, no matter what their pretence, they have no real interest in others - or in the truth."

Its not easy to ignore the bullies. Like most other empty vessels, they make the most noise. But we need to be very careful about encouraging them.

Perhaps all forms of media should have a bullying scale that they present alongside all reports that show words and/or actions of those who purport to be role models. A type of "name and shame" to combat bullying everywhere.

What do you think? Please post your comments below.

More about Doug Long at http://www.dglong.com

The PPM issue!

Last week I wrote about my daughter's experience with PPM (Piss Poor Management) and I have now received numerous accounts from others about their experiences. These anecdotes include:

• A manager who refused to employ people who knew more than he did, or to promote people who challenged him
  
• A manager in a children's day care centre who, when asked for some guidance on doing a new task, ridiculed the a staff member involved in front of parent clients
• A manager in a major not-for-profit organisation who delayed investigation into an issue relating to remuneration because "your complaint makes me look bad!"
• A manager who was so concerned about her boss that, every time her boss was seen talking with a staff member, would find an excuse to get involved so as to ensure that she knew everything that was being said

What these illustrate is that PPM is not confined to the retail sector - it is alive and flourishing across the board.

Management education and training (whether from educational institutions or private training organisations) has been teaching good management practices for at least 40 years. Virtually everyone currently practicing PPM has almost certainly been exposed to good management practices in some way or another, yet PPM prevails. Why?

PPM in organisations is characterised by creating a situation in which employees feel their jobs are under threat - reach the performance targets set or be sacked/demoted/moved etc. - and such sanctions, in turn, could threaten my financial security and/or perceived social status. This threat of dismissal or other sanctions may be real or imagined. Its symptoms are people in supervisory/ management roles who refuse to question "the boss" or who will support "the boss" even when this means disillusionment and possible loss of good staff. My self interests and general concern for "me" takes precedence over everything else. These people can be described in the old saying: "they're not 'yes-men': they say 'no' when the boss does!"

I suspect that, deep down, PPM is caused by basic insecurity or fear.

Fear is one of the most basic and powerful factors in all animal life. It is multifaceted and encompasses physical and psychological/emotional aspects of life. It drives us to aggression, to frozen inaction, and to escapism through such avenues as physical removal from a situation, through to such behaviours as abuse of alcohol and drugs. It underlies all bullying and much of the antisocial behaviour we encounter. It underpinned the "cold war" - the West refused to accept that the East may not want world dominance (and vice versa); it underpinned the fiasco around the USA's invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq; and it underpins the current preoccupation with what Iran may or may not be doing in its (currently) totally legitimate enrichment of uranium. Fear is used by politicians and managers to drive people towards a solution that meets the ego needs of the powerful regardless of what is really good for the company or country or whatever.

I believe that, despite the best efforts and intentions of those propounding good management practices, PPM will continue to be prominent until we learn how to shift our brain's locus of control away from the "fear centre" and into the "courage centre". As I have said in earlier blogs, its the issue of "red zone" versus "blue zone" in terms of the way in which our brains work - but it starts in myself, the individual, rather than in someone else. (There are some pointers in how to make this shift at http://www.evancarmichael.com/Leadership/5178/7-Steps-To-Realising-Your-Potential.html)

The thing to remember is that, ultimately, no-one has to put up with PPM in any organisation. We may not be able to change the situation; we may not be able to change how others behave; but we can change our response. We can walk away - but, ideally, find your next job first!

What do you think? I'd love to hear your comments.

More about Doug Long at http://www.dglong.com

You've got to love those skinks!

The skink was back on Sunday.

Well, I'm not really sure if it was the same skink about which I wrote a week or so back, but there certainly was a skink back in the kitchen - and the cat was still around.

For those of you not familiar with Australian fauna, the common garden skink (Lampropholis guichenoti) is found virtually everywhere in South East Australia. It has a smooth dark greyish body with a dark stripe running along each side - a very beautiful creature that is totally harmless, good for the garden, and enjoys sunning itself on rocks and ledges. From tip of nose to end of tail the ones around here seem to be about 18 cm (about 7 inches) long.

But we seem to have a skink with a penchant for danger - or one that knows that there is a short cut between the front and back gardens if one goes through the house! The cat was sleeping near the door when the skink arrived on the porch, paused, looked at the cat, then scurried inside close to where I was reading a newspaper. There were a few moments of activity then, safely caught in a bag, the skink was removed and released into the front garden.

Now I know that skinks can't think rationally (and probably can't really think at all) but I had to wonder why a creature with no defence mechanisms other than flight or freeze would stray into the path of danger (the cat) and away from an environment in which it can find plenty of places to safely hide. And that got me thinking about the behaviour of people. How often do we act without thinking (virtually operating on 'auto pilot') and put ourselves and others in some form of danger?

We all see it every day. Someone puts an item on the stove (or a bench, or a table), close to the edge and with a handle sticking out in such a way that it could be easily bumped and dislodged; someone listens to music or talks on their phone whilst walking along a street totally oblivious to other people, traffic, or immoveable objects; people remove children and/or items from their car using the door that juts out into the traffic flow endangering both themselves and that which they are moving and passing traffic; people in shops block an entire aisle with their shopping basket or while chatting with a friend; and so on. There are myriad everyday examples, with which we are all aware, of unthinking risky behaviour. People operating on auto pilot with no manual override apparently present!

We all have 2 minds - a childlike mind that operates without thinking and an adult mind that is capable of rational thought, of planning, of "thinking outside the square", and generally enabling us to be creative, exciting people who are aware of others and our surroundings and who seek to operate safely and successfully without endangering ourselves or others. A childlike mind is totally acceptable in a child - in fact it is one of the endearing factors of children - but its not the best mind from which to operate when we're grown up.

You can shift your brain's control to the adult mind. Its not all that hard - all you've got to do is to access something that is already there; that you use frequently; and make it your default way of thinking and acting. There's some more information about how you can do this on http://www.evancarmichael.com/Leadership/5178/summary.php

Why not let me know what you think? You can place your comments below.

More about Doug Long on http://www.dglong.com

A Skink's View of Life!

We have skinks at our place. For the technically minded, they are Common Garden Skink (Lampropholis guichenoti), but we simply call them “skinks”.

We also have a cat.

The two tend to be mutually exclusive – so, as far as possible, we protect “the skink” from “the cat”.

The other day I was pottering in the kitchen when I saw a skink running across the floor. I also saw “the cat” sitting on the back porch – right in the skink’s path. I moved to catch the skink and then commenced a game of hide and seek that took me about 30 minutes to win. Fortunately “the cat” didn’t see “the skink”!

Eventually, securely apprehended, “the skink” was taken out another door and released into the safety of the garden.

Got me thinking.

My intentions towards “the skink” were entirely honourable – I wanted to save its life. The skink also wanted to save its life – survival is a strong instinct. We were in total accord – except the skink couldn’t get the message. It was totally unable to move its brain’s area of control out of “the red zone” – mainly because it has no “blue zone” – so it got increasingly traumatised and ran around oblivious to the real danger – “the cat”.

Fortunately there was a happy ending this time, but, as I say, it got me thinking.

How often are the threats from which we run not really threats at all?

Our “red zone” of brain control can’t tell what “threats” are real and what are not. When our brain is under the control of our red zone, anything different or that challenges our comfortable way of thinking and acting can be seen as a threat – even when, at the worst, it is benign or, at the best, it is very positive. Our red zone can prevent us from responding appropriately. We will respond to “the threat” by fight, flight, or freeze no matter what.

All too often our daily living reflects a skink’s view of life!

Of course this skink’s view of life in encouraged by irresponsible media who fail to call the government to account (Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Israel-Palestine relationships are cases in point) and by those who have a vested interest in keeping us scared so they can exercise control and explain how “they” can keep us “safe” by taking actions “they” deem appropriate.

But we’re not skinks. People have a blue zone – and we can learn how to shift our brain’s area of control into the blue zone so that we can live differently.

I can help you make this shift.

More information about me at http://www.dglong.com

What do you think? Please make your comments below.

Focus on the Horizon

Very recently I drove a rally car and I have the video to prove it!

For my birthday last year, the family gave me a voucher for a rally car driving experience - drive 2 different cars, each for 8 laps, then do a "hot lap" with an experienced (and in my case, luckily, a very successful) rally car driver. It was great fun. I thoroughly enjoyed it and I learned quite a bit about handling a car under vastly different conditions from what are experienced in day-to-day road driving.

Lesson 1: focus on the horizon
Many years ago my first driving experiences were on rough roads in country areas and farms. I thought I understood how to control a vehicle on greasy road surfaces. I learned that there is a big difference between driving a car very slowly on mud and gravel when compared with driving it fast. When driving fast I have learned to focus on the horizon, keep the wheels pointed in the direction I want to go, and to be careful not to try and correct too much for all the slipping and sliding that occurs. It is counter-intuitive.

Lesson 2: transfer the weight
The cars I drove were either front wheel or all-wheel drives (one of each). I learned that braking hard transferred the weight of the car from the front wheels to the rear wheels and that, if I needed to make a sudden or sharp turn, the best way of doing this was to brake hard, turn the wheels in the direction I wanted to go, then let the car do the work. By braking hard when I came to a turn, letting the car do the work, then accelerating out of the corner I could achieve my objectives while maintaining control.

Lesson 3: listen to the experts
Over the years I've driven a wide range of vehicles (including tractors and ambulances) at just as wide a variety of speeds under almost every possible road condition. I approached this adventure secure in the knowledge that I was a highly experienced driver with a very good record regarding accidents. At the safety briefing all of those doing the course were advised to listen to the instructor who would be sitting beside us on the track. I'm glad I heeded this. My instructor had won a number of international car rallies and could see things I couldn't in regard to my driving. Listening to him enabled me to start slowly then develop to quite fast circuits - and I only spun out twice! Listening to the expert saved me embarrassment and possible injury while simultaneously enabling me to have fun and achieve my objectives.

Seems to me that there's some pointers there for business as well as for life in general.

I'd love to know what you think. Let me know in the comments below.

More about Doug Long at http://www.dglong.com

2012 - How Will You be Remembered?

The other day I was chatting with some friends when one commented that "John Howard was the worst Prime Minister in Australia's history!" Now, as my friends know, I am pretty a-political - I dislike equally all politicians and political parties - but I was amazed. I was even more amazed to find myself defending Howard and commenting that a good case can be made for him being one of Australia's best Prime Ministers. When I pressed my friend to explain her comment, the emphasis was on Howard getting Australia involved in Iraq and Afghanistan - for both of which there is a very strong argument that Australia should never have got involved - she had forgotten his introduction of the GST (which, prior to the election, he had promised would never be introduced) which has helped transform the Australian economy. She had forgotten his strong leadership regarding gun control following the Port Arthur Massacre. And so on. All she remembered was the invasions - the negatives.

But this got me thinking. How do we remember people and how will we (and they) be remembered at the end of 2012?

My mind wandered to one of my more pleasant brushes with fame. Back in 1977 I was visiting Sydney and staying at the Boulevard Hotel. Together with a few friends, on the Saturday, I went to Doyles Restaurant in Rose Bay - then a justifiably famous and popular seafood restaurant. During the meal we became conscious that the folk music singer, Burl Ives, was also lunching there - in fact he was only 1 table away. Lunch went on and eventually the crowd thinned until there was only Burl Ives and his party as well as me and my friends present. One of Doyles staff came and spoke with the great man and, after a few minutes, left before returning with a guitar. For the next 30 or so minutes, Burl Ives entertained us with an impromptu concert. It was great. A little later, after returning to my hotel. I got in an elevator to again find myself face-to-face with Burl Ives. We chatted and I was impressed with his friendliness and obvious enjoyment from engaging with his public. I'll bet that Burl Ives never remembered meeting me, but 35 years later I still remember meeting him!

When I think back over recent years I am sure that people have mixed memories of me. I certainly don't think there would be agreement that accorded with how I would like to be remembered. And those memories significantly impact on how these people think of and interact with me today.

Its like our current crop of political leaders. My view of the Prime Minister, based on her performance in 2011, is that of an ambitious, possibly Machiavellian, person who is prepared to compromise at times in order to get legislation passed - 2011, despite there being a "hung" parliament, saw an almost record number of pieces of legislation passed. Based on her past performance, I suspect a lot more legislation will pass this year. My view of the Leader of the Opposition, is that of an equally ambitious, possibly Machiavellian, person who has a limited vocabulary - he knows how to say "No!" Based on his past performance I suspect we will see a continuation of this in 2012.

My perceptions may be quite wrong - I've never met either of them. They may both be very nice, approachable, highly principled people who are very positive and strong on engagement. Both may act quite differently this year. But my views are based on what I've seen and heard up to the end of 2011.

I don't make New Year's Resolutions, but thinking about all of this has given me a drive to be a bit different this year. At the end of 2012 I'd like to find that there was a pretty good agreement between the way I think of myself and the way others think of me. And that will mean I have to make some behaviour changes.

At the end of 2012, how will you be remembered? What are you going to do in order to bring a greater consistency between the way you see yourself and how others see you?

I'd love to know your views. Your comments are welcomed.

More about Doug Long at http://www.dglong.com

Engagement brings service brings profit

Some years ago I was staying at the Sheraton Towers in Singapore. One morning I was meandering through the hotel lobby and obviously appeared a little lost. A person cleaning the floor greeted me warmly, asked if there was anything I needed and, on being told I was simply going out for a walk, offered guidance as to the nearest train station and the shortest route to Orchard Road. Having been to Singapore many times and being very familiar with the city, I didn't really need his help but, without disclosing this to him, I thanked him for his interest and went on my way. That one experience did more to make me a "Sheraton fan" than did anything else in the hotel.

Back in 1990 I was in England when I got a phone call saying my father was in hospital and I should return to NZ as quickly as possible in order to see him before he died. My flight itinerary was with Finnair and I immediately contacted them to see if, under the circumstances, I could change my flights to another airline as Finnair had no appropriate scheduled flights to Bangkok - the transfer point. I was told "no". I phoned Qantas, explained the situation, and was told to get myself to Heathrow Airport, identify myself to the staff there, and that they would guarantee to get me on the first flight home. They did. I have never since flown Finnair (and have no intention to do so) and I became a Qantas fan.

Now I do not know what training they give cleaners at the Sheraton or to call centre staff at Qantas, but I do know that these two people gave me service that was exemplary and which put their organisations in a very positive light. I have used these experiences to recommend the Sheraton Towers ever since and, until the tragic demise of their service over recent years, I was a fervent advocate of Qantas

My point is simple. Two small actions by people very low in their organisation's hierarchies meant I changed brand allegiance as well as recommending to others that they change their brand allegiance too. This isn't unusual. Market research has for years made it clear that both good and bad service get talked about and shared. Good service can bring about increased market share while bad service can bring about decreased market share. Increased market share can bring about increased revenues and profits.

We all know we are living in a tough economic environment. We all hear organisations bemoaning the fact that business success is getting harder. But instead of increasing service to customers and clients we find reductions in front line service people and an increasing (and to many of us) infuriating reliance on automated responses and machines that are totally unable to provide the flexibility and commonsense that is usually needed. Machines and automation are great for totally standard issues but abysmal at anything requiring thought.

If organisations today seriously want to improve their revenues and their profits they need to improve their service. This is especially the case with retail and "service" organisations. Provide the leadership that creates an environment where you can be successful.

What do you think?

More about Doug Long at http://www.dglong.com

Leadership: what a pity there's so little of it!

The other day I was asked for my views about political, business, and religious leadership both worldwide and in Australia. I replied that it was hard to find any - there is plenty of power and authority; there is plenty of command and control; there is plenty of talk - but precious little leadership.

Back in the mid 1990's I conducted a number of surveys in Australia, New Zealand, and South East Asia to ascertain who and why people considered to be leaders. I then interviewed 15 of these and the result was my book Leaders, Diamond or Cubic Zirconia? (1998). In the introduction to that book I make the comment "I am not making any judgement as to whether or not any or all [of those listed] are "diamonds or cubic zirconia". That is a conclusion that must be drawn by the reader."

Today I am far less circumspect. As said at the start - I see precious little leadership today no matter what is the arena in which I look for it.

Over the past 20 or so years we have seen flashes of political leadership - then Australian Prime Minister John Howard's response to the Port Arthur Massacre and his driving through of gun control and current Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard's recent driving through of the pollution levy are good examples. But these flashes are few and far between. In the main we have the unedifying sight of political point scoring and power plays masquerading as "leadership". The party in power (whether in Australia or anywhere else) wants to remain in power and the opposition parties want to take over so anything goes no matter what is really best in the long term for the world, the country, or the populace.

Business, religious, social etc "leadership" is little different. Leadership in these areas seems to be primarily about numbers - market share, revenues, "value" etc (although these may actually be expressed through using one or another synonym) and in enhancing the personal and positional power and influence of those in charge. CEO's and executives seem to act as though they have forgotten that, in reality, they are every bit as much "employees" as are those in entry level positions. This is often seen by the seeking and accepting huge remuneration packages for themselves while fighting against remuneration increases for lower levels and/or otherwise taking action that adversely impacts the well-being and life quality of "employees". Most religious leaders, despite their words, seem to be far too often primarily concerned about narrow sectarian issues and show little or no real concern for refugees, the disadvantaged, and those outside of their immediate area of pastoral responsibility. And so I could continue.

Cubic zirconia abounds!

When I was researching for my latest book my surveys asked a wide range of people for their understanding of leadership. The messages I got back can be summarised as : "a leader is someone who I can trust and respect and who enables me to get things done and who, in the process, inspires me to do my best and to achieve results."

As I replied to my questioner, there is plenty of power and authority; there is plenty of command and control; there is plenty of talk - but precious little leadership. And that's a tragedy.

What do you think?

More about me at http://www.dglong.com

No there's not!

I use public transport whenever possible - it saves the hassle of traffic and parking even if, at least in Sydney, it can sometimes be unreliable.

One of the benefits of using public transport is that it gives me the opportunity to observe people. Yesterday, for example, there was a young man who got on the train a few stations after me. I'd guess he was early 20's, big build, and, from his clothes, was clearly involved in some form of manual work. He was heavily tattooed and sat in the seat in front of me where he openly indulged in drinking a large bottle of beer. The impression I got was "don't mess with me!" We reached his station and, as he stood up to alight, a woman, probably in her 80's and using a cane for support, also stood up from a few seats away. The train lurched and she stumbled. Like lightening the young man reached out, saved her from falling, then gently assisted her down the stairs, out the door, and onto the platform. As the train moved off he was walking and chatting with her and ensuring she was ok.

I couldn't help but compare this experience with one a few days previously when a group of school children got on the train. From their uniforms this very neat and tidy group (males and females) were all from prestigious private schools on Sydney's North Shore. They were aged around 16 and, as is often the case with young people, were talking loudly about their day's experience. At first glance this group appeared to be self-assured and confident. But, as with my experience yesterday, appearances were deceptive. Everyone in the carriage was quickly aware that the boys had sat some form of test and one boy in particular had not done as well as expected. He commented that his father would be furious about the results. One of the girls suggested he discuss his father's expectations with his father and the boy was obviously terrified at the thought. After some further discussion, and as the doors closed after the group alighted, I heard another of the boys then suggest: "Well, if its that bad, there's always suicide!"

Its a very long time since I was a school boy. As the train moved off I thought about my experiences with school tests and exams in the late 1950's. Neither I nor anyone I knew always got the results that our parents expected and there were times when we took results home very apprehensively! Like this group, we too talked about our results vis a vis parental expectations - but I have no recollection of anyone ever suggesting suicide as an option - even in jest.

I find it a sad commentary on our society when a child shows fear in relation to talking with parents and even more sad when, even if in jest, another child can suggest suicide as the solution.

Many years ago (1946) Victor Frankl, a Concentration Camp survivor, wrote a book called "Man's Search for Meaning" in which he recalled the desperation of concentration camp existence. He concluded that it is in knowing that we matter to someone somewhere that gives life meaning. Our society seems to have degenerated into an economic rationalist abyss where all that matters is "the bottom line". In this world, for far too many people, suicide is always an option. And tragedy can strike again.

Every person matters. Every person is important. Every person is deserving of respect and consideration. Every person can make a positive contribution to society. That is the message we need to get out alongside the emphasis on bottom line results. When it is again realised that, despite the rhetoric, we actually do live in a society not an economy then, when someone says "there's always suicide" the response can be "no there's not!"

What do you think?

More about Doug Long at http://www.dglong.com

Not the event but the reaction

Death is something we all know will occur yet, whenever it happens to a loved one, it is always heart wrenching. Over recent months 3 of my friends have had their wives die and other friends had their baby twins die a few days after birth. Although I have experienced bereavement in the death of my parents, I have never experienced what these people are going through and I marvel at the dignity and courage they showed at funerals and elsewhere.

Someone once said words to the effect of "life is what happens to you when you're doing something else." I take that to mean that no matter how organised and controlled you are; no matter what plans you may have made or are implementing; no matter what you may think or believe, there will always be things happening that are unexpected and, possibly, unwanted. I know from bitter experience just how easy it is to react inappropriately when bad things hit you out of the blue.

I've thought a lot about this over the past weekend as we've all remembered the events of 9/11 in 2001. It was a world changing event that caused huge reactions at least in the USA, the UK, and Australia. Some of these reactions were appropriate - the grief, the changing of laws to ensure that everything relating to terrorism was a criminal offence, and the heightening of public awareness of risk. But other of our reactions went too far - certainly that would apply to laws which remove basic rights and which cut across ordinary common law civil liberties. This morning's news report in which the most senior military officer in the USA spoke of the "vengeance" (his word not mine) being exacted for 9/11 also falls into this area.

One of the things that makes us human is our ability to control how we react to both the good and the bad when it hits us. With the bad, its easy to stay in "the red zone" and then find that we are exacerbating rather than resolving the situation. I suspect we're doing that with the issue of terrorism.

Shifting our brain's locus of control from the red zone to the blue zone enables higher level learning to take place. Operating in the blue zone also enables us to examine things in a way that encourages creative and innovative solutions to replace past inappropriate actions. Our emotions remain the same - the way we handle these emotions changes.

I've watched 4 families handle tragedy recently. I admire the blue zone control each has shown. Would that we had more blue zone control in the wider spheres of local and international business, social, diplomatic and all other arenas.

What do you think?

More about Doug Long at http://www.dglong.com

Is "customer service" an oxymoron?

I have just come off the phone from talking with Optus. Here in Australia they are purported to be a communications company. Can you guess what's coming next?

You got it!

Optus suck at communicating - at least with me.

Let me bore you with the details. Recently a mobile phone was stolen and the appropriate steps were taken to notify the Police, cancel the sim card, and make an insurance claim. Today I received notification that the claim was approved and I was given a number to call in order to arrange settlement of the claim. This should be easy, I thought, and phoned them! I spent the next 30 minutes in a never ending loop that took me back to the same place 4 times. Yes, my patience wore thin and I eventually hung up.

A cup of tea later and I tried again. This time what a difference. I was fortunate to strike an agent who was different - he wanted to help. With his help I was through the system in just over 5 minutes and everything was finalised. What a pity he's possibly the only person like that at Optus! I hope they pay him more than the CEO - he deserves it.

Having just come off some pretty spectacular examples of really good customer service (see my recent blogs) I found today particularly frustrating. Big companies like Optus just don't seem to get it. They confuse "service" with telephone prompts that have rigid specifications and are often confusing in themselves.

So let me spell it out for Optus and others who are confused.

Customer service means individual attention to the needs and concerns of another individual. It involves the investment of some time by a knowledgeable person who is willing and able to listen to the needs and concerns of another person then help resolve whatever it is that needs attention. Computers can't do this. Harried, poorly trained call centre people who are under pressure to minimise the time they spend with each customer can't do this. Forcing customers into interactions with these will simply add to blood pressure levels and an increase of complaints to the appropriate authorities.

Its not rocket science.

People like me want customer service when we have a problem and we expect to receive it given the charges that are made for telephone services, banking services, government services and the like. Failure to provide the service we want and need results in blogs like this, then customer churn, then reduced profits, and so on. Its a leadership issue and, Optus, you're failing the leadership test.

Organisations like Fantastic Furniture, JaxQuickfit Tyres, and the NSW Fire Brigades get it. Why can't Optus?

What do you think?

More about Doug Long at http://www.dglong.com.