Dear Mr. Tan,
I was reading your blog entry titled: Excellent Customer Service. I also understand that you used to communicate with customers directly when you were a CEO, is that what you mean by being "accessible"?
I can't figure out the rationale behind needing to have top people who are accessible to customers. Personally, as a buyer of a service or product, I do not really care about who solved my problems when they arise, I do not go directly to the highest level but work my way up until my problems are fixed. So if an organisation is able to hire and train good customer service officers, I do not see the need to have access to the top people.
I must say though, to have a very good customer service team is not easy. As a customer or shareholder of a company, I don't think it's a good idea to have the top people handling customers, as I think the cost will have to be passed on somehow, either to the customer or the organisation's bottom line will suffer. I hope and would appreciate if you could enlighten me.
REPLY
Most customers have their issues solved at the lower levels. Only a small number of cases go to the top. Some customers write an email to me (3 to 5 per day). It was quite easy for me to handle them.
I give them an immediate reply (usually a partial reply) and forward the issue to the right people to handle it. It worked quite well.
If the top person is not accessible, an angry customer has to write to the press. This is what happened recently with the long delay in the Incomeshield claim.
ReplyDeleteDuring TKL's time, he was accessible to customers and could sort out the matter in a satisfactory manner. The new CEO and his new management are not accessible, so the customer had to write to the paper. This is happening quite often now in NTUC.
Especially when there is mis -selling and non disclosure you don't expect the front line people to enlighten you. They will try to play 'taichi' and eventually it comes to the top.
ReplyDeleteWhen people know the top isn't helpful or very 'toa' they go the press.
Anyway, Income loves publicity as being #i in complaint. Lately Income has been in the news for frolicking and harassing the public by the top agents. Did you see them in the Sunday times today? Do you recognise them at the roadshows? Do you see them as consultants or salesmen? Consultants don't peddle products like 'koyok' salesmen at roadsides. None looks consultant , more like snake oil product peddlers. So you see it is necessary that the CEO's door is open and nothing is too trivial for him to handle.
Hi Mr. Tan,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your reply, I have a better understanding of this point now.
I guess your vision of customers come first actually flowed down the whole organisation, which was reflected by the negligible number of customers you needed to handle per day(as compared to the number of people insured), by simply acknowledging them and passing their cases to the right people to handle.
I believe the need to access the top people(or the press) arises when there are weak links at the customer service level(which might be affected by the management style), and there could be a group of people who like the top down approach and will go all the way to the top when problems arise.
The other very important factor that has been overlooked by arrogant management who thinks they only need to respond to ministers and VIPs is that Mr. Tan Kin Lian showed by example that no complaint is too small for him. By doing so, the message he is sending to all his staff is to take every feedback seriously, so over time, it becomes the culture of the company to respond effectively to feedback. A CEO who thinks his time is only reserved for his superiors and the board will be signalling to all lower staff that it is alright to act big and that feedback is dependent upon the person making it and not on the substance of the complaint. Such a CEO will not last long or the company that he is heading will also go down the slippery road of irrelevance over time. This is the example of the present NTUC Income in time to come.
ReplyDelete