Fumbling Customer Service Handoffs

Source: NY Times

In healthcare, practitioners have been paying attention to "handoffs" for quite some time in an effort to improve patient safety.  An handoff is when a patient is transferred from one clinical team to another, or when critical information about a patient is transferred from clinician to clinician.  Fumbling a handoff can lead to a serious medical error.

Now, KPMG's Scott Lieberman argues that similar fumbled handoffs lead to many customer service problems at companies.  In Fast Company, Lieberman writes:

Ask your department heads how things are going, and you’ll hear good news. Leads and engagement are up, sales hit quota, and customer service is chipping away at response time. Every dashboard is green.

But ask your customer, the one that’s been passed along three times in five minutes between chatbots and agents and intervention specialists, and you’ll get a different report. Because she’s explaining her story for a fourth time: This company knows my birthday, my shopping history, and my shoe size. But they can’t remember the conversation they had with me 60 seconds ago.

And yet both things are true. Your dashboard is green, and your customer is on a hamster wheel. That’s the trap. Companies grade their performance one department at a time. But your customer is grading based on her experience of one company, start to finish, and the whole operation’s getting a D-plus.

The gap between those two scorecards lives in the handoffs—the moments a customer passes from one team to another—and that’s precisely where most companies are struggling.

Lieberman's description rings true for those of us who have called a customer service center recently.  The process can be maddening, particularly when you are transferred from one department to another.  Understanding how customers live through an entire process is critical.  How often must they be transferred? For what reasons?  How often do they get frustrated and hang up?  What information must be constantly repeated because it is not transferred effectively?   Solving these pain points requires understanding the ENTIRE customer journey, and that often can be very complicated.  

Too Many Meetings? But Are They The "Broccoli of Work?"

Source: Getty Images

Day after day, I read articles in which employees complain about too many meetings and writers offer advice for eliminating the unnecessary meetings that clog our schedules.  Yet, a new study offers strong empirical evidence of the value of meetings.  David Deming and his colleagues have authored a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper that describes meetings as "the broccoli of work – widely disliked, but probably good for us anyway."  

Deming and his colleagues used a unique Norwegian dataset to study the value of meetings.  They collected data from administrative registers compiled by Statistics Norway.  This dataset contained information about employee careers, mobility, and wage growth from 2022-2024.  They also compiled survey data from approximately 10,000 individuals.  

The study finds that meetings do account for a substantial chunk of worker time.   Meetings most often involve planning, coordination, problem solving, and project updates.  While meetings are time consuming and come with opportunity costs, they provide critical value.  The scholars find that, 

"Meeting frequency and intensity are positively related to worker wage growth. Workers in meeting-intensive firms report greater on-the-job learning, and interactions with more senior colleagues are associated with stronger wage growth, suggesting that knowledge transmission within firms is an important mechanism."

Thus, the scholars conclude that meetings are similar to eating broccoli.  We may not enjoy them, but perhaps they are quite good for us.  Why?  They are critical sources of organizational and personal learning.  The human connection matters.  We learn when we interact with others, ask questions, listen to them, and share our ideas.  We cannot replace that source of learning with brief exchanges via technological platforms such as email, text, Slack, etc.   Therefore, perhaps we should complain less about how many meetings we must attend, and focus more on how to make them more productive.  

Overreliance on our Willpower

Getty Images

How can we break a bad habit at work or in our personal lives?  Well, we just have to muster enough willpower.  That's what many of us tell ourselves.  The old cliche is clear:  When there's a will, there's a way.  Of course, an alternative strategy exists.  We could employ commitment strategies, or put another way, some external form of assistance.  For example, we might team up with a friend who helps us be accountable for achieving certain results (such as going to the gym on a regular basis). Or, we might commit to a negative repercussion if we fall back into a bad habit (such as forcing ourselves to refrain from watching our favorite Netflix show).

New research by Ariella Kristal and Julian Zlatev suggests that many people may be relying far too much on willpower rather than employing an effective commitment strategy.  HBS Working Knowledge recently published a feature story about their research and identified three main conclusions that may explain why we rely far too heavily on willpower when we try to break a bad habit:

1. "People trust others who use willpower more than commitment strategies. "

2. "People question the integrity of those who choose commitment strategies."

3. "People worry that using a commitment strategy makes them look bad."

In short, our worries about others' perceptions and judgments cause us to rely too heavily on our own willpower when trying to break a bad habit.  We think that we are signaling virtue, but in so doing, we are choosing a far less effective strategy.  Consider that finding the next time you think that willpower alone will help you avoid unproductive patterns of behavior. 

New Apple CEO John Ternus on Confidence & Humility

Source: NBC News

Fortune's Emma Burleigh has a short feature on new Apple CEO John Ternus. This week, he takes over as chief executive at Apple, succeeding long-time leader Tim Cook. Burleigh writes,

“Always assume you’re as smart as anyone else in the room, but never assume that you know as much as they do,” Ternus told University of Pennsylvania’s engineering graduates in 2024. “With this mindset, you’ll find the confidence you need to push forward, but more importantly, the humility to ask questions and learn.”

“I’ll always be grateful that I wasn’t afraid to ask for help when I needed it,” Ternus said. “Because being around people that care that deeply, it won’t just make you want to stretch your limits and see how far you can go, but they’re also the best people to help you understand how to get there."

I love the distinction that Ternus has made here.  He's arguing that we should be confident in our abilities - our intelligence and our potential.  At the same time, he's advocating for humility.  He's arguing that we should recognize that, in any given situation, there are others who know things that we do not know.  We need to acknowledge the limits of our knowledge, be curious, and ask questions.  By seeking to uncover what others know, we can make better decisions.  In short, we should be confident in our capacity to solve problems and make good choices, but humble about the knowledge that we possess before we have begun to engage with, and learn from, others around us.   

Overcoming Success Theater at Meetings

Source: CNBC

Do you focus only on success at your team’s weekly meetings?  When Larry Culp took over at GE, the company was in big trouble.  Some thought the company could not be rescued. Yet, Culp noticed that meetings often devolved into “success theater.”  They only talked about what was going well.  Culp notes, “In the old GE, messengers got shot.  I wanted to create a market for problems.”  Larry Arduini, President and CEO of GE Healthcare explains, “Larry made airing problems not something to be feared, but a goal.  He called it ‘Embracing Red’.”  You can read more about the GE turnaround under Culp in Fortune this week. 

The description of success theater reminds me of the culture at Ford Motor Company when Alan Mulally took over two decades ago.  He too tried to make it ok to identify the projects and initiatives that were blinking red.  Famously, he noticed that “all the charts were green” in his first few months at Ford, despite billions in operating losses.  When a brave executive first presented a red chart, he applauded vigorously and then asked, “Is there anything we can do to help you?” As the culture of these meetings changed, the charts became a rainbow of green, yellow, and red. 

Success theater afflicts many companies. People use staff meetings to talk about what’s going well. By the time people finish bragging about the key performance indicators that are green, there’s very little time left to surface and discuss the problems and concerns within the organization. Therefore, I suggest that leaders not only “embrace the red” but rethink their meeting agendas as well. They need to make space for open discussion of new problems, challenges, and obstacles. Otherwise, all the talk of success crowds out any opportunity to surface concerns. Make it a regular practice to put “surfacing the reds” on the agenda for each key meeting. Then, take great care regarding how you react when people share bad news. Be curious and open-minded, and don’t punish the messenger. Ask questions, listen attentively, and don’t jump to conclusions.

Eliminating Friction at OpenAI

Fidji Simo, CEO of Applications, recently said, “Companies rarely become bureaucratic all of a sudden. It happens one unnecessary meeting, one extra approval, one small frustration at a time. Each makes it only 1 or 2% harder to do your job, which is why they’re easy to ignore, but those frictions compound.” She offered this quote in the context of an article about OpenAI's process for identifying "friction" within the company and cutting through the bureaucracy to eliminate these pain points. Fortune's Emily Forlini explains:

At OpenAI, a special process—and a magic word—helps employees instantly cut through layers of bureaucracy and clear bottlenecks slowing things down.  It’s called “friction.” And it has the power to supersede just about anything a team is doing, often carrying the force of CEO Sam Altman or President Greg Brockman with it.  The process starts when someone emails a special friction@ address to report an internal bottleneck. The issues range from a technical system that isn’t working, a process that’s not having the intended result, or office-related frustrations, such as there not being enough IT vending machines. OpenAI’s leadership team triages the emails sent to friction@, moving forward with ones they deem worthy. To help alleviate full parking lots, for example, the company started a pilot to prioritize spots for those with long commutes. Another time, employees asked for a better process to grant API credits reliably and at scale. If the matter is considered important enough, Altman or Brockman will get involved to ensure it’s resolved.

A former OpenAI employee who spoke to Fortune praised the friction system as an effective way for leadership to get ground-level feedback. The process helps teams keep moving forward, tackling issues before they can fester, the person said. That’s especially important as OpenAI’s headcount grows to more than 8,000 employees expected by the end of this year, with offices across the U.S. and the globe. “It’s a good thing—literally anybody can complain about big company bullsh*t directly to Sam and they can act on it,” the former employee said. “If you want to ruthlessly cut through bureaucracy, you have to be ruthless about it.”

The process reminded me of the fantastic book, The Friction Project: How Smart Leaders Make the Right Things Easier and the Wrong Things Harder, by Stanford Professors Bob Sutton and Huggy Rao.  Perhaps Altman and Simo read the book and built this process in light of those insights about eliminating friction.  One word of caution though - Forlini writes in the article that some employees have complained about the tremendous burden and pressure it puts on people to drop everything and address an issue that has suddenly been escalated to Altman and Simo.  As always, balance and moderation is critical.  You want a process for cutting through bureaucracy, but you don't want it to become abused by those annoyed at small inconveniences, or by those trying to reallocate resources to their pet projects or ideas.  

Career Advice: Run to the Mess

Several years ago, former Market Leader and Likewise CEO Ian Morris spoke to my students at Bryant University (where Ian graduated with a Bachelor's degree in the early 1990s before completing his MBA at HBS).  Ian offered a few wonderful pieces of career advice.  First, he always told the students to "leave well" when changing jobs.  Give extra notice, help train your successor, and preserve relationships.  You never know when you will cross paths with those people again. Second, Ian suggested that they "run to the mess" if they want to build new skills and accelerate their career progression. Ian mentioned that many people avoid difficult situations because they fear failure. Yet, he described these tough circumstances as the best opportunities to truly shine, to make your mark.

A recent Stanford interview with Jane Fraser, CEO of Citibank, reminded me of Ian's advice. Fraser also commented on the value of taking on the tough jobs during her career, even if they were not the ones that others found attractive and interesting. Fraser said,

Interviewer:  Why did you pick these tough jobs?

Jane Fraser: Yeah. I mean, because someone once asked, “Is it because none of the men wanted to take them?” There might be a bit of truth in some of that. I think one of the things, I’m not a tweaker so I never wanted a job where you’d just be tweaking things to make it better. I think I’d be awful at it. I think a lot of people in this room would be awful at tweaking jobs too. It’s more fun to be bold in making changes. And then if something’s not in great shape, it’s amazing how you get left alone to fix it. Whereas if something is actually going well, you have everybody giving you helpful advice and opinions on what you can be doing better. So one of the fun things about turnarounds or changing things more radically, quite often you’re left a little bit more on your own.

Then when it starts getting successful, then everyone jumps onto the train and heads that way. But I’ve always quite enjoyed transforming things a bit more and then you learn a playbook of what you need to do and you can repeat a lot of it in different situations like get the team in place that you need as a first step because otherwise you’re going to be doing everybody else’s job and be really lousy at the one you’ve actually been put in to do. So there’s just different steps that I put in place each time now and they’ve been helpful so far.