Creating the Ultimate Customer Experience with AI

Leave a reply

Delivering Real Value the Key

Creating the Ultimate Customer Experience with AI

GUEST POST from Shep Hyken

Whenever I get the chance to interview the CEO of a major CX company, I jump at the chance. I recently conducted a second interview with Alan Masarek, the CEO of Avaya, a company focused on creating customer experience solutions for large enterprises.

My first interview covered an amazing turnaround that Masarek orchestrated in his first year at Avaya, taking the company through Chapter 11 and coming out strong. Masarek admits that even with his extensive financial background, he’s always been a product person, and it’s the combination of the two mindsets that makes him the perfect leader for Avaya.

In our discussion, he shared his view on AI and how it must deliver value in the contact center. What follows is a summary of the main points of our interview, followed by my commentary.

Why Customer Service and CX Are Important: Thanks to the internet, it’s harder for brands to differentiate themselves. Within minutes, a customer can compare prices, check availability, find a company that can deliver the product within a day or two, or find comparable products from other retailers, vendors and manufacturers. Furthermore, while the purchasing experience needs to be positive, it’s what happens beyond the purchase that becomes most important. Masarek says, “Brands are now trying to differentiate based upon the experience they provide. So any tool that can help the brand achieve this is the winner.”

Customer Service Is Rooted in Communications: Twenty years ago, the primary way to communicate with a company was on the phone. While we still do that, the world has evolved to what is referred to as omni-channel, which includes voice, chat, email, brand apps, social media and more. As we move from the phone to alternative channels of communication, companies and brands must find ways to bring them all together to create a seamless journey for the customer.

Organizations Want to Minimize Voice: According to Masarek, companies want to move away from traditional voice communication, which is a human on the phone. That “one-to-one” is very expensive. With digital solutions, you have one-to-many. Masarek says, “It’s asynchronous. And the beauty is you can introduce AI utilities into the customer experience, which creates greater efficiency. You’re solving so many things either digitally or deflecting it altogether via the chatbot, the voice bot or what have you.”

AI Will Not Eliminate Jobs: Masarek says, “There’s a bull and a bear case for an employment point of view relative to AI. Will it be a destroyer of jobs, a bear case, or will it grow jobs, the bull case?” He shared an example that perfectly describes the situation we’re in today. In the 1960s, Barclay’s Bank introduced the ATM. Everyone thought it would be the end of tellers working at banks. That never happened. What did happen is that tellers took on a more important role, going beyond just cashing checks or depositing money. It’s the same in the customer service world. AI technologies will take care of simple tasks, freeing customer service agents to help with more complicated issues. (For more on how AI will not eliminate jobs, read this Forbes article from September 2023.)

The Employee Experience Drives the Customer Experience: AI is not just about supporting the customer. It can also support the agent. When the agent is talking to a customer, generative AI technology can listen in the background, search through a company’s knowledge base and feed the agent information in real time. Masarek said, “Think about what a pleasant experience that is for both the agent and the customer!”

Innovation Without Disruption: A company may invest in a better customer experience, but sometimes, that causes stress to the organization. Masarek is proud of Avaya’s value proposition, which is to add innovation without disruption. This means there’s a seamless integration versus total replacement of existing systems and processes. Regarding the upgrade, Masarek says, “The last thing you want is to rip it all out.”

The Customer-In Approach: As we wrapped up our interview, I asked Masarek for one final nugget of wisdom. He shared his Customer-In approach. Not that long ago, you could compete on product, price and availability. Today, that’s table stakes. What separates one brand from another is the experience. Masarek summarized this point by saying, “You have to set your North Star on as few things as possible. Focus wins. And so, if you’re always thinking Customer First and all your decisions are rooted in that concept, your business will be successful. At the end of the day, brands win on how they make the customer feel. It’s no longer just about product, price and availability.”

Image Credits: Pixabay

This article was originally published on Forbes.com.

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

Embracing Failure is a Catalyst for Learning and Innovation

Leave a reply

Embracing Failure is a Catalyst for Learning and Innovation

GUEST POST from Stefan Lindegaard

“Failure is simply the opportunity to begin again, this time more intelligently.” – Henry Ford

The Insight: Viewing failure not as a setback but as a vital part of the learning process is a transformative approach for any leader. This mindset shift from fearing failure to embracing it as an opportunity can significantly enhance a team’s creativity, adaptability, and resilience.

The Research: While I can’t cite specific new studies, foundational research in organizational behavior underscores the value of embracing failure. For instance, Amy C. Edmondson’s concept of psychological safety, detailed in her work, highlights how creating an environment where team members feel safe to take risks and learn from failures leads to higher levels of innovation and performance.

Similarly, the principles of resilience, as discussed by Martin E.P. Seligman, suggest that learning from setbacks is crucial for developing a more agile and robust team. These theories support the idea that a culture tolerant of failure fosters an atmosphere where creativity and growth are not just encouraged but flourished.

Implement & Grow: To nurture a culture that embraces failure, start by openly discussing both successes and setbacks. Highlight the lessons learned from each failure and how these can drive future successes. Encourage your team to experiment and take calculated risks, reassuring them that failure is a step toward innovation, not a reason for punishment. Remember that the key about failure is learning.

This practice not only promotes a growth mindset but also strengthens the team’s cohesion and drive for continuous improvement.

Thus, by redefining failure as a cornerstone of learning and innovation, leaders can unlock their team’s potential and pave the way for groundbreaking achievements.

This is another post in my series on Strategies for Team Dynamics + Leadership Growth. Stay tuned for more!

Image Credit: Pixabay, Stefan Lindegaard

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

ISO Innovation Standards

Leave a reply

The Good, the Bad, and the Missing

ISO Innovation Standards

GUEST POST from Robyn Bolton

In 2020, the International Standards Organization, most famous for its Quality Management Systems standard, published ISO 56000, Innovation Management—Fundamentals and Vocabulary. Since then, ISO has released eight additional innovation standards. 

But is it possible to create international standards for innovation, or are we killing creativity?

That’s the question that InnoLead founder and CEO Scott Kirsner and I debated over lunch a few weeks ago.  Although we had heard of the standards and attended a few webinars, but we had never read them or spoken with corporate innovators about their experiences.

So, we set out to fix that.

Scott convened an all-star panel of innovators from Entergy, Black & Veatch, DFW Airport, Cisco, and a large financial institution to read and discuss two ISO Innovation Standards: ISO 56002, Innovation management – Innovation management systems – Requirements and ISO 56004, Innovation Management Assessment – Guidance.

The conversation was honest, featured a wide range of opinions, and is absolutely worth your time to watch. 

Here are my three biggest takeaways.

The Standards are a Good Idea

Innovation doesn’t have the best reputation.  It’s frequently treated as a hobby to be pursued when times are good and sometimes as a management boondoggle to justify pursuing pet ideas and taking field trips to fun places.

However, ISO Standards can change how innovation is perceived and supported.

Just as ISO’s Quality Management Standards established a framework for quality, the Innovation Management Standards aim to do the same for innovation. They provide shared fundamentals and a common vocabulary (ISO 56000), requirements for innovation management systems (ISO 56001 and ISO 56002), and guidance for measurement (ISO 56004), intellectual property management (ISO 56005), and partnerships (ISO 56003). By establishing these standards, organizations can transition innovation from a vague “trust me” proposition to a structured, best-practice approach.

The Documents are Dangerous

However, there’s a caveat: a little knowledge can be dangerous. The two standards I reviewed were dense and complex, totaling 56 pages, and they’re among the shortest in the series. Packed with terminology and suggestions, they can overwhelm experienced practitioners and mislead novices into thinking they have How To Guide for success.

Innovation is contextual.  Its strategies, priorities, and metrics must align with the broader organizational goals.  Using the standards as a mere checklist is more likely to lead to wasted time and effort building the “perfect” innovation management system while management grows increasingly frustrated by your lack of results.

The Most Important Stuff is Missing

Innovation is contextual, but there are still non-negotiables:   

  • Leadership commitment AND active involvement: Innovation isn’t an idea problem. It’s a leadership problem.  If leadership delegates innovation, fails to engage in the work, and won’t allocate required resources, you’re efforts are doomed to fail.
  • Adjacent and Radical Innovations require dedicated teams: Operations and innovation are fundamentally different. The former occurs in a context of known knowns and unknowns, where experience and expertise rule the day. The latter is a world of unknown unknowns, where curiosity, creativity, and experimentation are required. It is not reasonable to ask someone to live in both worlds simultaneously.
  • Innovation must not be a silo: Innovation cannot exist in a silo. Links must be maintained with the core business, as its performance directly impacts available resources and influences the direction of innovation initiatives.

These essential elements are mentioned in the standards but are not clearly identified. Their omission increases the risk of further innovation failures.

Something is better than nothing

The standards aren’t perfect.  But one of the core principles of innovation is to never let perfection get in the way of progress. 

Now it’s time to practice what we preach by testing the standards in the real world, scrapping what doesn’t work, embracing what does, and innovating and iterating our way to better.

Image credit: Pixabay

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

Building Competence Often More Important Than a Vision

Leave a reply

Building Competence Often More Important Than a Vision

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

In 1993, when asked about his vision for the failing company he was chosen to lead, Lou Gerstner famously said, “The last thing IBM needs right now is a vision.” What he meant was that if IBM couldn’t figure out how to improve operations to the point where it could start making money again, no vision would matter.

Plenty of people have visions. Elizabeth Holmes had one for Theranos, but its product was a fraud and the company failed. Many still believe in Uber’s vision of “gig economy” taxis, but even after more than 10 years and $25 billion invested, it still loses billions. WeWork’s proven business model became a failure when warped by a vision.

The truth is that anyone can have a vision. Look at any successful organization, distill its approach down to a vision statement and you will easily be able to find an equal or greater success that does things very differently. There is no silver bullet. Successful leaders are not the ones with the most compelling vision, but those who build the skills to make it a reality.

Gandhi’s “Himalyan Miscalculation”

When Mahatma Gandhi returned to India in 1915, after more than two decades spent fighting for Indian rights in South Africa, he had a vision for the future of his country. His view, which he laid out in his book Hind Swaraj, was that the British were only able to rule because of Indian cooperation. If that cooperation were withheld, the British Raj would fall.

In 1919, when the British passed the repressive Rowlatt Acts, which gave the police the power to arrest anyone for any reason whatsoever, he saw an opportunity to make his vision a reality. He called for a nationwide campaign of civil disobedience, called a hartal, in which Indians would refuse to work or do business.

At first, it was a huge success and the country came to a standstill. But soon things spun wildly out of control and eventually led to the massacre at Amritsar, in which British soldiers left hundreds dead and more than a thousand wounded. He would later call the series of events his Himalayan Miscalculation and vowed never to repeat his mistake.

What Gandhi realized was that his vision was worthless without people trained in his Satyagraha philosophy and capable of implementing his methods. He began focusing his efforts on indoctrinating his followers and, a decade later, set out on the Salt March with only about 70 of his most disciplined disciples.

This time, he triumphed in what is remembered as his greatest victory. In the end, it wasn’t Gandhi’s vision, but what he learned along the way that made him a historic icon.

The Real Magic Behind Amazon’s 6-Page Memo

We tend to fetishize the habits of successful people. We probe for anomalies and, when we find something out of the ordinary, we praise it as not only for its originality, but consider it to be the source of success. There is no better example of this delusion than Jeff Bezos’s insistence on using six-page memos rather than PowerPoint in meetings at Amazon.

There are two parts to this myth. First is the aversion to PowerPoint, which most corporate professionals use, but few use well. Second, the novelty of a memo, structured in a particular way, as the basis for structuring a meeting. Put them together and you have a unique ritual which, given Amazon’s incredible success, has taken on legendary status.

But delve a little deeper and you find it’s not the memos themselves, but Amazon’s writing culture that makes the difference. When you look at the company, which thrives in such a variety of industries, there are a dizzying array of skills that need to be integrated to make it work smoothly. That doesn’t just happen by itself.

What Jeff Bezos has done is put an emphasis on communication skills, in general and writing in particular. Amazon executives, from the time they are hired, learn that the best way to get ahead in the company is to learn how to write with clarity and power. They hone that skill over the course of their careers and, if they are to succeed, must learn to excel at it.

Anyone can ban PowerPoint and mandate memos. Building top-notch communication skills across a massive enterprise, on the other hand, is not so easy.

The Real Genius Of Elon Musk

In 2007, an ambitious entrepreneur launched a new company with a compelling vision. Determined to drive the shift from fossil fuels to renewables, he would create an enterprise to bring electric cars to the masses. A master salesman, he was able to raise hundreds of millions of dollars as well as the endorsement of celebrities and famous politicians.

Yet the entrepreneur wasn’t Elon Musk and the company wasn’t Tesla. The young man’s name was Shai Agassi and his company, Better Place, failed miserably within a few years. Despite all of the glitz and glamour he was able to generate, the basic fact was that Agassi knew nothing about building cars or the economics of lithium-ion batteries.

Musk, on the other hand, did the opposite. He did not attempt to build a car for the masses, but rather for Silicon Valley millionaires who wouldn’t need to rely on a Tesla to bring the kids to soccer practice, but could use it to zoom around and show off to their friends. That gave Musk the opportunity to learn how to manufacture cars efficiently and effectively. In other words, to build competency.

When we have a big vision, we tend to want to search out the largest addressable market. Unfortunately, that is where you’ll find stiff competition and customers who are already fairly well-served. That’s why it’s almost always better to identify a hair-on-fire use case—something that a small subset of customers want or need so badly they almost literally have their hair on fire—and scale up from there.

As Steve Blank likes to put it, “no business plan survives first contact with a customer.” Every vision is wrong. Some are off by a little and some are off by a lot. But they’re all wrong in some way. The key to executing on a vision is by identifying vulnerabilities early on and then building the competencies to overcome them.

Why So Many Visions Become Delusions

When you look at the truly colossal business failures of the last 20 years, going back to Enron and LTCM at the beginning of the century to the “unicorns” of today, a common theme is the inability to make basic distinctions between visions and delusions. Delusions, like myths, always contain some kernel of truth, but dissipate when confronted with real world problems.

Also underlying these delusions is a mistrust of experts and the establishment. After all, if a fledgling venture has the right idea then, almost by definition, the establishment must have the wrong idea. As Sam Arbesman pointed out in The Half Life of Facts, what we know to be true changes all the time.

Yet that’s why we need experts. Not to give us answers, but to help us ask better questions. That’s how we can find flaws in our ideas and learn to ask better questions ourselves. Unfortunately recent evidence suggests that “founder culture” in Silicon Valley has gotten so out of hand that investors no longer ask hard questions for fear of getting cut out of deals. \

The time has come for us to retrench, much like Gerstner did a generation ago, and recommit ourselves to competence. Of course, every enterprise needs a vision, but a vision is meaningless without the ability to achieve it. That takes more than a lot of fancy talk, it requires the guts to see the world as it really is and still have the courage to try to change it.

— Article courtesy of the Digital Tonto blog and previously appeared on Inc.com
— Image credits: Pexels

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.






How to Cultivate Respect as a Leader

1 Reply

How To Cultivate Respect As A Leader

GUEST POST from David Burkus

Margaret Thatcher once famously quipped that “Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren’t.” As a leader, the same could be said about respect. If you wonder if you’re team respects you, they probably don’t.

Being a leader is not just about having authority and power; it’s about earning the respect and trust of your team. Your title may have made you the boss. But your team’s respect makes you the leader.

In this article, we will explore how to earn respect as a leader through five essential actions that earn respect and create a positive work environment. By following these strategies, leaders can not only gain the respect they deserve but also motivate and inspire their team members to perform at their best.

Set The Example

The first way to earn respect as a leader is to set the example. Leaders must lead by example. One way to earn respect is by acting in a fair and equitable manner. The team needs to see that you’re not playing favorites or political games. Additionally, meeting deadlines and being punctual demonstrates reliability and professionalism. If you set high standards, they need to know you hold yourself accountable to those standards as well.

Another crucial aspect of setting the example is upholding the core values of the organization. When leaders align their actions with the values they expect from their team, it establishes a strong foundation of integrity and consistency.

Ask For Their Input

The second way to earn respect as a leader is to ask for your team’s input. Great leaders understand that they don’t have all the answers. They recognize the importance of seeking input and feedback from their team members. By actively listening and valuing their opinions, leaders create an inclusive and collaborative work environment.

Brainstorming options collectively before making decisions is another effective way to involve the team in the decision-making process. This approach not only encourages creativity and innovation but also fosters a sense of ownership and commitment among team members.

Explain Your Decisions

The third way to earn respect as a leader is to explain your decisions. Leaders often find themselves in situations where they need to referee conflicts and make final decisions. However, it is essential to consider the input received from the team and explain the reasoning behind those decisions. By doing so, leaders demonstrate transparency and fairness, which helps team members understand and accept the outcome.

Furthermore, leaders should take the time to consider rejected options and highlight their strengths. This shows that all ideas were valued and considered, even if they were not ultimately chosen. Additionally, training the team to understand the leader’s thought process can help them align their own thinking and decision-making with the overall goals of the organization.

Protect Your People

The fourth way to earn respect as a leader is to protect your people. Leaders have a responsibility to protect their team members from negative influences within the organization. This includes addressing and resolving conflicts, promoting a culture of respect, and ensuring that team members are treated fairly.

Additionally, leaders should ensure that their team has the necessary resources and support to perform their tasks effectively. By providing the tools and guidance needed, leaders empower their team members and enable them to succeed. Understanding the team’s capacity and preventing overload is also crucial. Leaders should be aware of their team members’ workload and ensure that they are not overwhelmed with excessive tasks. This demonstrates care and consideration for their well-being, which in turn fosters trust and respect.

Respect Them First

The final way to earn respect as a leader—and maybe it should have been the first—is to respect the team first. Respect is a two-way street. To earn respect as a leader, it is essential to show respect and appreciation for the contributions of your team members. Recognizing the value and strengths of each individual creates a positive and motivating work environment.

Leaders should respond positively to their team members’ ideas and feedback, encouraging open communication and collaboration. By actively acknowledging and considering their input, leaders empower their team members and make them feel valued. Creating a culture of respect and appreciation is crucial for building strong relationships within the team—and as a leader, you go first in extending that respect.

Earning respect as a leader is not an easy task—it doesn’t come with the new title or the corner office (assuming you’re not just working from a spare bedroom in our house). But it is essential for creating a positive and productive work environment. By setting the example, asking for their team’s input, explaining decisions, protecting their people, and respecting them first, leaders can establish trust, loyalty, and mutual respect. These strategies not only enhance the leader’s reputation but also inspire and motivate team members to do their best work ever.

Image credit: Pexels

Originally published on DavidBurkus.com on August 28, 2023

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.






Give Love and Truth to Everyone

Leave a reply

Give Love and Truth to Everyone

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

If you see someone doing something that’s not quite right, you have a choice – call them on their behavior or let it go.

In general, I have found it’s more effective to ignore behavior you deem unskillful if you can. If no one will get hurt, say nothing. If it won’t start a trend, ignore it. And if it’s a one-time event, look the other way. If it won’t cause standardization on a worst practice, it never happened.

When you don’t give attention to other’s unskillful behavior, you don’t give it the energy it needs to happen again. Just as a plant dies when it’s not watered, unskillful behavior will wither on the vine if it’s ignored. Ignore it and it will die. But the real reason to ignore unskillful behavior is that it frees up time to amplify skillful behavior.

If you’re going to spend your energy doing anything, reinforce skillful behavior. When you see someone acting skillfully, call it out. In front of their peers, tell them what you liked and why you liked it. Tell them how their behavior will make a difference for the company. Say it in a way that others hear. Say it in a way that everyone knows this behavior is special. And if you want to guarantee that the behavior will happen again, send an email of praise to the boss of the person that did the behavior and copy them on the email. The power of sending an email of praise is undervalued by a factor of ten.

When someone sends your boss an email that praises you for your behavior, how do you feel?

When someone sends your boss an email that praises you for your behavior, will you do more of that behavior or less?

When someone sends your boss an email that praises you for your behavior, what do you think of the person that sent it?

When someone sends your boss an email that praises you for your behavior, will you do more of what the sender thinks important or less?

And now the hard part. When you see someone behaving unskillfully and that will damage your company’s brand, you must call them on their behavior. To have the most positive influence, give your feedback as soon as you see it. In a cause-and-effect way, the person learns that the unskillful behavior results in a private discussion on the negative impact of their behavior. There’s no question in their mind about why the private discussion happened and, because you suggested a more skillful approach, there’s clarity on how to behave next time. The first time you see the unskillful behavior, they deserve to be held accountable in private. They also deserve a clear explanation of the impacts of their behavior and a recipe to follow going forward.

And now the harder part. If, after the private explanation of the unskillful behavior that should stop and the skillful behavior should start, they repeat the unskillful behavior, you’ve got to escalate. Level 1 escalation is to hold a private session with the offender’s leader. This gives the direct leader a chance to intervene and reinforce how the behavior should change. This is a skillful escalation on your part.

And now the hardest part. If, after the private discussion with the direct leader, the unskillful behavior happens again, you’ve got to escalate. Remember, this unskillful behavior is so unskillful it will hurt the brand. It’s now time to transition from private accountability to public accountability. Yes, you’ve got to call out the unskillful behavior in front of everyone. This may seem harsh, but it’s not. They and their direct leader have earned every bit of the public truth-telling that will soon follow.

Now, before going public, it’s time to ask yourself two questions. Does this unskillful behavior rise to the level of neglect? And, does this unskillful behavior violate a first principle? Meaning, does the unskillful behavior undermine a fundamental, or foundational element, of how the work is done? Take your time with these questions, because the situation is about to get real. Really real. And really uncomfortable.

And if you answer yes to one of those two questions, you’ve earned the right to ask yourself a third. Have you reached bedrock? Meaning, your position grounded deeply in what you believe. Meaning, you’ve reached a threshold where things are non-negotiable. Meaning, no matter what the negative consequences to your career, you’re willing to stand tall and take the bullets. Because the bullets will fly.

If you’ve reached bedrock, call out the unskillful behavior publicly and vehemently. Show no weakness and give no ground. And when the push-back comes, double down. Stand on your bedrock, and tell the truth. Be effective, and tell the truth. As Ram Dass said, love everyone and tell the truth.

If you want to make a difference, amplify skillful behavior. Send emails of praise. And if that doesn’t work, send more emails of praise. Praise publicly and praise vehemently. Pour gasoline on the fire. And ignore unskillful behavior, when you can.

And when you can’t ignore the unskillful behavior, before going public make sure the behavior violates a first principle. And make sure you’re standing on bedrock. And once you pass those tests, love everyone and tell the truth.

Image credit: Dall-E

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.






The Role of Respect in Customer Service

Leave a reply

The Role of Respect in Customer Service

GUEST POST from Shep Hyken

Some of you will not recognize the name Rodney Dangerfield, who was one of the funniest comedians of his time, if not all time. He passed away in 2004. (For those who aren’t familiar with Dangerfield, go to YouTube and search for his name, but only if you want to smile and laugh. And just a warning, some of his comedy club material is R-rated.)

Dangerfield had a signature line: I don’t get no respect. For example, “I don’t get no respect …

… When I was a kid, I played hide-and-seek. They wouldn’t even look for me.

… When I was a kid, my parents moved a lot, but I always found them.

… When I was a kid, I was so ugly my parents had to hang a pork chop around my neck to get the dog to play with me.”

That was fun, but it’s time to get serious. I was recently asked about the Pillars of Customer Service. Specifically, I was asked what I thought was the most important pillar.

Respect Cartoon from Shep Hyken

First, there are many “Pillars” of customer service, and if you do a little research, you’ll find articles by experts and examples from companies’ vision statements. As I thought of many of these, one immediately came to mind as an overarching important pillar:

“Respect the Customer.”

It may seem obvious that we should respect our customers. After all, without them, we don’t have a business. So, with that in mind, here are three of my favorite stats and findings about customer respect from my annual customer service research:

  • 61% of customers don’t think companies or brands respect their time! Ouch! This is because customers don’t like to wait on hold for long periods of time, or anything else that seems like a waste of their precious time. And speaking of making customers wait on hold …
  • 51% of customers are likely or very likely to switch companies or leave a brand because they had to wait too long on hold. It’s impossible to never make a customer hold. And, the concept of “too long” is different from one customer to the next. However, to mitigate the appearance of disrespect, at least let your customers know how long they will have to wait, and even better, give them the option of being called back.
  • 60% of customers are likely or very likely to switch companies or leave a brand because the company didn’t respond fast enough. This goes back to respecting your customers’ time. How long do they have to wait for a response?

While these findings focus on respecting the customer’s time, there are many other areas and opportunities to show respect to your customers. So, sit down with your team and discuss the answer to this simple question: Do you show your customers respect?

Image Credits: Pexels, Shep Hyken

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.






Projects Don’t Go All Right or All Wrong

Leave a reply

Projects Don't Go All Right or All Wrong

GUEST POST from Howard Tiersky

What The Heck Went Right?!

Have you found yourself working on a project that’s having problems, missing deadlines, over budget and/or full of defects?

Or have you launched new products only to discover that they didn’t get the uptake you had hoped in the market?

On most such projects, at some point, someone will say “when this is all over we need to do a post-mortem” to determine what went wrong and how we avoid these kinds of problems in the future. This is certainly an important and worthwhile activity. In Agile practices, we refer to this as a “retrospective” instead of using the term “post-mortem.” We do this partly to avoid the ever so slightly negative death-related connotations of the term “post-mortem;” also because anything named in Latin tends to sound intimidating. But most importantly because we take the mindset that a retrospective should not be triggered because “there was a problem” (or death!) but rather should be part of the completion of every project (or even a phase of a project).

In fact, I recommend you don’t view the retrospective being exclusively, or even primarily about identifying “what went wrong” on a project. The first and primary focus of every retrospective is what went right. The recommended guideline is that over 75% of the time in every retrospective should be spent on what went right. Why is that?

What went right is more useful than what went wrong.

Sure, its good to understand what went wrong, but even once you’ve done that you have a lot more work to do. Just knowing what went wrong doesn’t make the next project more successful, you then need also to figure out what you will do differently to make that “wrong” thing not happen again. And then even once you have “figured that out,” the reality is you may or may not have gotten it correct. Your “fix” is not yet proven.

So, there is yet a third step to try that “fix” on another project and see if it has the desired effect. Hopefully, it does and if so, great. In fact, I heartily recommend you do take this three-step approach when looking at “what went wrong.” But, let’s contrast that with how many steps it takes to benefit from what went right. Step 1- determine what went right. Step 2- determine why that thing went right (which is usually a lot easier than finding the root cause of problems).

And once you have figured out what went right and why you just need to keep doing that thing. So it’s simpler to get future benefit from what’s right vs. what’s wrong.

Now I can hear your wheels spinning, and you may be thinking “yeah, but come on if we are already doing something right, why would we stop doing it anyway? We are already doing that thing; we aren’t going to get any “incremental value” by praising what we already know how to do! We should focus on improvements! I’d like to say, “good point,” but I can’t.

It’s a terrible point, and here is why.

This line of thinking is based on a fallacy. The fallacy is that good and beneficial practices sort of automatically perpetuate themselves. Having worked with scores of large enterprises, I have not found this to be the case. In fact, when project teams retrospect on “what went wrong,” very often the root cause of the problem was a failure to engage in practices which they have done in the past that led them to success.

There are many reasons for this – efforts to seek efficiency, change in project leadership, a desire for variation, or just old-fashioned “forgetting to do it.” That’s why it’s incredibly valuable to reinforce what went right, so we don’t forget to keep doing it, and we acknowledge the value of the practices that led to the successful outcome.

But here’s another reason to focus most of your time on “what went right.”

Talking about “what went right” makes people feel good.

Perhaps you are thinking, “Come on, this is a place of business! We don’t come here to feel good; we come here to get things done! You can feel good at home!” In reality, many studies have shown morale is a hugely important component of productivity. In one study, the Gallup organization estimated that low morale in the form of worker “disengagement” costs the US economy as much as $350 billion a year. Giving people the opportunity not just to say “good job” but really “get into” what was done right, by who and why is a huge morale booster for everybody.

And here’s one final benefit to focusing on “what’s right,” when it comes time to get to that last 25% of your retrospective where you do want to talk about “what can we do better next time,” the team is going to be a lot less defensive and a lot more open to acknowledging problems and responsibility if it’s preceded by discussion of the positive aspects of the project. Furthermore, when team members become accustomed to retrospectives being positive experiences, they are less likely to procrastinate scheduling them, less likely to find an excuse to miss them, and less likely to show up in a defensive posture. All good things.

And I’ll anticipate one final question; you may be thinking, “But what if nothing went right on the project, it was a total disaster?” Believe this; something always went right; you just aren’t seeing it. Just like something can always be improved. On super successful projects its still very valuable to consider whether there are “things that went wrong” (once you’ve thoroughly covered what went right) and even on the most messed up projects, it’s worth digging to find what went right, it might be more than you think and its working from those past aspects of success, however small, that you will build towards an even more successful future.

This article originally appeared on the Howard Tiersky blog

Image Credits: Unsplash

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.






Why Neglecting New Hire Ideas Hurts Revenue

Leave a reply

The Cost of Silence

Why Neglecting New Hire Ideas Hurts Revenue

GUEST POST from Robyn Bolton

Stop me if this sounds familiar. A new hire bounces into your office and, with all the joy and enthusiasm of a new puppy, rattles off a list of ideas. You smile and, just like with new puppies, explain why their ideas won’t work, and encourage them to be patient and get to know the organization. 

Congratulations!  You just cost your company money. Not because the new hire’s idea was the silver bullet you’ve been seeking but because you taught them that it’s more critical for them to do their jobs and maintain the status quo than to ask questions and share ideas.

If that seems harsh, read the new research from Harvard Business School professor Amy Edmondson.

Year 1: Rainbows and Unicorns (mostly)

From 2017 through 2021, Dr. Edmonson and her colleagues collected data from over 10,000 physicians.  Using biannual (every two years) surveys, they asked physicians to rate on a 5-point scale how comfortable they felt offering opinions or calling out the mistakes of colleagues or superiors. 

It was little surprise that agreement with statements like “I can report patient safety mistakes without fear of punishment” were highest amongst people with less than one year of service at their employer.

These results all come down to one thing: high levels of psychological safety.

Years 2+: Resignation and Unhappiness

However, psychological safety erodes quickly in the first year because:

  • There’s a gap between words and actions: When new hires join an organization, they believe what they hear about its culture, values, priorities, and openness.  Once they’re in the organization and observe their colleagues’ and superiors’ daily behavior, they experience the disconnect, lose trust, and shift into self-protection mode.
  • Their feedback and ideas are rebuffed: This scenario is described above, but it’s not the only one.  Another common situation occurs when a new hire responds to requests for feedback only to be met with silence or exasperation, a lack of follow-through or follow-up, or is openly mocked or met with harsh pushback
  • Expectations increase with experience: It’s easier to ask questions when you’re new, and no one expects you to know the answers.  Over time, however, you are expected to learn the answers and you no longer feel comfortable asking questions, even if there’s no way you could know the answer.

20 years to regain what was lost in 1

According to Edmondson’s research, it takes up to 20 years to rebuild the safety lost in the first year.

As a leader, you can slow that erosion and accelerate the rebuilding when you:

  • Recognize the Risk: Knowing that new hires will experience a drop in psychological safety, staff them on teams that have higher levels of safety
  • Walk the Talk: Double down on demonstrating the behaviors you want. Immediately act on feedback that points out a gap between your words and actions.
  • Ask questions: Demonstrate your openness by being curious, asking questions, and asking follow-up questions.  As Edmonson writes, “You are training people to contribute by constantly asking questions.”
  • Promises Made = Promises Kept: If you ask for feedback, act on it.  If you ask for ideas, act on some and explain why you’re not executing others.
  • Be Vulnerable: Admit your mistakes and uncertainties.  It sets a powerful example that it’s okay to be imperfect and to ask for help. It also creates an environment for others to do the same.

The Cost of Silence vs. The Cost of Time

Building and maintaining psychological safety takes time and effort.  It takes 5 minutes to listen to and respond to an idea.  It takes hours to ensure new hires join safe teams.  It takes weeks to plan and secure support for post-hackathon ideas. 

But how does that compare to 20 years of lost ideas, improvements, innovations, and revenue?  To 20 years of lost collaboration, productivity, and peak effectiveness? To 20 years of slow progress, inefficiency, and cost?

How many of your employees stick around 20 years to give you the chance to rebuild what was lost?

Image credit: Pixabay

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

AI Requires Conversational Intelligence

Leave a reply

AI Requires Conversational Intelligence

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

Historically, building technology had been about capabilities and features. Engineers and product designers would come up with new things that they thought people wanted, figure out how to make them work and ship “new and improved” products. The result was often things that were maddeningly difficult to use.

That began to change when Don Norman published his classic, The Design of Everyday Things and introduced concepts like dominant design, affordances and natural mapping into industrial design. The book is largely seen as pioneering the user-centered design movement. Today, UX has become a thriving field.

Yet artificial intelligence poses new challenges. We speak or type into an interface and expect machines to respond appropriately. Often they do not. With the popularity of smart speakers like Amazon Alexa and Google Home, we have a dire need for clear principles for human-AI interactions. A few years ago, two researchers at IBM embarked on a journey to do just that.

The Science Of Conversations

Bob Moore first came across conversation analysis as an undergraduate in the late 1980s, became intensely interested and later earned a PhD based on his work in the field. The central problems are well known to anybody who has ever watched Seinfeld or Curb Your Enthusiasm, our conversations are riddled with complex, unwritten rules that aren’t always obvious.

For example, every conversation has an unstated goal, whether it is just to pass the time, exchange information or to inspire an emotion. Yet our conversations are also shaped by context. For example, the unwritten rules would be different for a conversation between a pair of friends, a boss and subordinate, in a courtroom setting or in a doctor’s office.

“What conversation analysis basically tries to reveal are the unwritten rules people follow, bend and break when engaging in conversations,” Moore told me and he soon found that the tech industry was beginning to ask similar questions. So he took a position at Xerox PARC and then Yahoo! before landing at IBM in 2012.

As the company was working to integrate its Watson system with applications from other industries, he began to work with Raphael Arar, an award-winning visual designer and user experience expert. The two began to see that their interests were strangely intertwined and formed a partnership to design better conversations for machines.

Establishing The Rules Of Engagement

Typically, we use natural language interfaces, both voice and text, like a search box. We announce our intention to seek information by saying, “Hey Siri,” or “Hey Alexa,” followed by a simple query, like “where is the nearest Starbucks.” This can be useful, especially when driving or walking down the street,” but is also fairly limited, especially for more complex tasks.

What’s far more interesting — and potentially far more useful — is being able to use natural language interfaces in conjunction with other interfaces, like a screen. That’s where the marriage of conversational analysis and user experience becomes important, because it will help us build conventions for more complex human-computer interactions.

“We wanted to come up with a clear set of principles for how the various aspects of the interface would relate to each other,” Arar told me. “What happens in the conversation when someone clicks on a button to initiate an action?” What makes this so complex is that different conversations will necessarily have different contexts.

For example, when we search for a restaurant on our phone, should the screen bring up a map, information about pricing, pictures of food, user ratings or some combination? How should the rules change when we are looking for a doctor, a plumber or a travel destination?

Deriving Meaning Through Preserving Context

Another aspect of conversations is that they are highly dependent on context, which can shift and evolve over time. For example, if we ask someone for a restaurant nearby, it would be natural for them to ask a question to narrow down the options, such as “what kind of food are you looking for?” If we answer, “Mexican,” we would expect that person to know we are still interested in restaurants, not, say, the Mexican economy or culture.

Another issue is that when we follow a particular logical chain, we often find some disqualifying factor. For instance, a doctor might be looking for a clinical trial for her patient, find one that looks promising but then see that that particular study is closed. Typically, she would have to retrace her steps to go back to find other options.

“A true conversational interface allows us to preserve context across the multiple turns in the interaction,” Moore says. “If we’re successful, the machine will be able to adapt to the user’s level of competence, serving the expert efficiently but also walking the novice through the system, explaining itself as needed.”

And that’s the true potential of the ability to initiate more natural conversations with computers. Much like working with humans, the better we are able to communicate, the more value we can get out of our relationships.

Making The Interface Disappear

In the early days of web usability, there was a constant tension between user experience and design. Media designers were striving to be original. User experience engineers, on the other hand, were trying to build conventions. Putting a search box in the upper right hand corner of a web page might not be creative, but that’s where users look to find it.

Yet eventually a productive partnership formed and today most websites seem fairly intuitive. We mostly know where things are supposed to be and can navigate things easily. The challenge now is to build that same type of experience for artificial intelligence, so that our relationships with the technology become more natural and more useful.

“Much like we started to do with user experience for conventional websites two decades ago, we want the user interface to disappear,” Arar says. Because when we aren’t wrestling with the interface and constantly having to repeat ourselves or figuring out how to rephrase our questions, we can make our interactions much more efficient and productive.

As Moore put it to me, “Much of the value of systems today is locked in the data and, as we add exabytes to that every year, the potential is truly enormous. However, our ability to derive value from that data is limited by the effectiveness of the user interface. The more we can make the interface become intelligent and largely disappear, the more value we will be able unlock.”

— Article courtesy of the Digital Tonto blog and previously appeared on Inc.com
— Image credits: Pixabay

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.