THE DIVISION OF LABOUR
With all the technological advances we've made in the 21st century, the pocket computers offering global connectivity at a tap and tools for sharing with a wider world, it would appear we have advanced our methods of working to bring greater success in business. But in some ways, technology is actually holding us back and without making allowances for the right modern methods to function properly, we are becoming counter-productive in delivering solutions.
The structure of our working model seems to have changed little since the industrial revolution. We still mostly have an office 9-5 clock-in / clock-out, 5 day/40 hour week along with a departmentalised structure and hierarchy akin to that found in the industrialised era factory. For sure, the glass and steel office space may be open plan today and preach messages of collaboration from the walls, but there are great gulfs open between once very close relationship departments and cultural divides between the needs of the workers and wants of upper management. It's quite obvious to see where technology hasn't quite helped improve working practices in the way it should have. When the entire floor of people are visible at their desks and clearly accessible — the preferable modes of communication will be virtual and that brings a division where it needn't be. Colleagues may be merely feet away but may as well be on the other side of the planet when it comes to getting things done.
The structure of our working model seems to have changed little since the industrial revolution. We still mostly have an office 9-5 clock-in / clock-out, 5 day/40 hour week along with a departmentalised structure and hierarchy akin to that found in the industrialised era factory. For sure, the glass and steel office space may be open plan today and preach messages of collaboration from the walls, but there are great gulfs open between once very close relationship departments and cultural divides between the needs of the workers and wants of upper management. It's quite obvious to see where technology hasn't quite helped improve working practices in the way it should have. When the entire floor of people are visible at their desks and clearly accessible — the preferable modes of communication will be virtual and that brings a division where it needn't be. Colleagues may be merely feet away but may as well be on the other side of the planet when it comes to getting things done.
There's a certain mindset when using email and other forms of digital communication for work collaboration, which is completely different from making phone calls or meeting someone in person. Tasks that can be undertaken quickly and easily explained or actioned, can be mis-interpreted, over-complicated and deferred in the time it would have taken to complete them. Removal of the personal approach, can increase distance in relationships and form barriers for progress.
Confining the movement of ideas and collaborations of projects to the 8hr day, keeps us from realising full potential. The consequence: modern-day technology, paired with old fashioned working practices, is creating a glut of extra leg-work, generating a mass of useless output in the process, from which we're having to sift through, for anything of worth. It's two steps forward and one and a half steps back. Everyone seems run off their feet but in reality, they're not getting very far with their efforts.
What we are witnessing here, is the age of non-working work. And here's another couple of examples where we've created barriers for getting things done.
Compartmentalisation
Confining the movement of ideas and collaborations of projects to the 8hr day, keeps us from realising full potential. The consequence: modern-day technology, paired with old fashioned working practices, is creating a glut of extra leg-work, generating a mass of useless output in the process, from which we're having to sift through, for anything of worth. It's two steps forward and one and a half steps back. Everyone seems run off their feet but in reality, they're not getting very far with their efforts.
What we are witnessing here, is the age of non-working work. And here's another couple of examples where we've created barriers for getting things done.
Compartmentalisation
If anyone has tried to sort an IT problem within a large organisation, they will have witnessed the issues behind modern day compartmentalisation in a workforce. Essentially, we can't get anything done, no matter how small, without first making everything quantifiable. What this means, is a job that would take a qualified person no more than 5 minutes to fix, feasibly takes many more times to do. In the first instance, it's 1-2x just to register the job using an online form, the same again to chase up the request with a phone call, another 2-3x answering emails in relation to further information requests and then another 30x or longer timeframe goes by before the fix is actually made.
The data collected in this way, can be cleverly manipulated to show how a high frequency of requests can justify many, many hours of work. But a lot of those hours have been created by the requests and the form filling themselves. Also, the measure of highly-skilled work and quick fixes, are not usually taken into consideration. So the relation of low-grade and in-effective work against actual work is realistically somewhere around 10:1 against. Pretty pie charts, graphs and infographics are generated for maximum effect. Rarely is this data put under the close scrutiny it deserves.
The data collected in this way, can be cleverly manipulated to show how a high frequency of requests can justify many, many hours of work. But a lot of those hours have been created by the requests and the form filling themselves. Also, the measure of highly-skilled work and quick fixes, are not usually taken into consideration. So the relation of low-grade and in-effective work against actual work is realistically somewhere around 10:1 against. Pretty pie charts, graphs and infographics are generated for maximum effect. Rarely is this data put under the close scrutiny it deserves.
Companization
Splitting the workforce into separate factions, is not just a phenomena found in the white collar industry. For example, try dealing with any amenity supplier like the gas, electric or water board. You will first get through to a call centre. They in turn, will delegate to another area of the business that is outside of the call centre and at times, another business altogether. The call centre operative and engineer, will be working to their own measurable, independent KPI's – and that hinders company-wide collaboration. Unless the the call centre operative has experience in the field, they will also have very limited knowledge of the work they are booking in or of the many idiosyncrasies that can affect outcomes.
For example, you have a water bill that's suddenly increased 10x overnight. The computer generated letter gives no indication why this has happened. The call centre assistant has no explanation or immediate way to fix the issue but you spend an hour on the phone. Turns out, there could be a leak at the cause of this issue. So, a man comes to put signage up outside the property. Another guy comes to dig the hole, then another guy checks the leak. Another person fits a new stop cock and another guy fills the hole in.
What's amazing in this real-life scenario, plus, as it turned out, extremely frustrating, in-efficient and time wasting, is that these individuals are all working for separate companies — not just within separate departments of one company, but completely removed from each other. So, when the issue doesn't get resolved as expected, the time and effort required to 'fix' the issue, becomes such a multiplier of time, above and beyond the actual time and effort initially required to deal with the problem, that we massively delay a successful outcome from happening. We then enter into a blame culture divide.
For example, you have a water bill that's suddenly increased 10x overnight. The computer generated letter gives no indication why this has happened. The call centre assistant has no explanation or immediate way to fix the issue but you spend an hour on the phone. Turns out, there could be a leak at the cause of this issue. So, a man comes to put signage up outside the property. Another guy comes to dig the hole, then another guy checks the leak. Another person fits a new stop cock and another guy fills the hole in.
What's amazing in this real-life scenario, plus, as it turned out, extremely frustrating, in-efficient and time wasting, is that these individuals are all working for separate companies — not just within separate departments of one company, but completely removed from each other. So, when the issue doesn't get resolved as expected, the time and effort required to 'fix' the issue, becomes such a multiplier of time, above and beyond the actual time and effort initially required to deal with the problem, that we massively delay a successful outcome from happening. We then enter into a blame culture divide.
In this above example, the problem was with the water board, who had ill-fitted a new stop-cock to replace the ancient (and most likely, perfectly functioning one), before they updated their billing systems. After almost two months of multiple visits by various different individuals from different companies, with specialist equipment, who dug holes, filled, re-dug and filled, plus destroyed an ornamentally tiled Victorian front path, it was discovered that the original work carried out by the water board engineer, as part of their move to make water readings more accurate and billings 'more efficient', had been completed poorly – creating a leak – a problem that wasn't there. This created a knock-on tsunami of problems, along with multiple costs for work that needn't have been carried out, which are ultimately billed back to the consumer.
The potential problem had been flagged very early on by an engineer but as he worked for a 'separate firm', it was out of his remit to fix – he could only do what was allocated for him to work on. Where as self initiatives and common sense solutions would have prevailed in the past, they are now even frowned upon within an organisation. The engineers are booked by call centre operatives via a closed system – so neither the engineer, call centre operative, nor any other contributor along the chain, can easily relay their findings to the others – they have to complete a course of action, regardless of the glaring issues at the outset which they know will affect a successful outcome.
This modern-day inefficiency seems to frustrate the engineers at these companies just as much as it does the clients wanting a solution. Clearly, there's a disconnect between once collaborative members of an organisation where information could have rectified the issue a lot sooner and at much lower expense. But maybe there's a benefit to be had here. More work to fix a problem, means more work for the engineers and more work for the engineers, means more diplomats are required to deal with the disgruntled client and more admin staff who can organise the next batch of engineers to fix the problem.
The potential problem had been flagged very early on by an engineer but as he worked for a 'separate firm', it was out of his remit to fix – he could only do what was allocated for him to work on. Where as self initiatives and common sense solutions would have prevailed in the past, they are now even frowned upon within an organisation. The engineers are booked by call centre operatives via a closed system – so neither the engineer, call centre operative, nor any other contributor along the chain, can easily relay their findings to the others – they have to complete a course of action, regardless of the glaring issues at the outset which they know will affect a successful outcome.
This modern-day inefficiency seems to frustrate the engineers at these companies just as much as it does the clients wanting a solution. Clearly, there's a disconnect between once collaborative members of an organisation where information could have rectified the issue a lot sooner and at much lower expense. But maybe there's a benefit to be had here. More work to fix a problem, means more work for the engineers and more work for the engineers, means more diplomats are required to deal with the disgruntled client and more admin staff who can organise the next batch of engineers to fix the problem.
We're Here To Help
Call centres are portrayed as the representatives of a company but in many cases are separate entities in themselves and also potentially representing a multitude of different companies all at the same time/place.
As much as the voice on the other end of the line may sound up-beat and enthusiastic, these people are really not pleased to hear from you. The call centres are usually abroad in places where wages are low, like India, Egypt or Mexico for USA or in regions of the country where there's historically been high levels of unemployment – Liverpool, Glasgow or Sunderland for UK etc. The job options are limited and so a low-paid call centre is seen as a better option for them than relying on the low benefits they'd receive instead. They take calls all day long, with around 15 seconds break between each one. No matter how frustrated the customer gets, they are meant to stay composed throughout the call – which is recorded for 'training' purposes. These people are watched like hawks.
Their job is to deal with mostly angry people. With limited access to systems for rectifying issues properly, plus a strict set of rules to follow about conversing with the public, they have little scope for dealing with anything more than general tasks. They take a lot of flack from an increasingly frustrated public and that's why many last no more than a couple of years without suffering some kind of psychological damage before quitting. Fortunately for large organisations who allow in-effective systems to function as long as their profits are up, there's a large queue of unfortunate souls waiting in the wings for a job, no matter how depressing it is.
The training in these centres has become fairly standard across the board, because most large corporations now use the same in-house or out-sourced call centres, employing the same techniques for their front line defence. So the same strained voices can be heard and the same in-effective service can be repeated whether it's for managing your insurance, communications, entertainment or banking requirements.
Diminishing Returns
As much as a representative at any of these institutions tries to rectify a situation, the outcome is often insufficiently resolved. We can try the same approach with two, three, four or five customer services individuals and get varying answers or proposed solutions for a fix from each, but the matter is passed on to others outside of their remit. Whether those in the next link in the chain can rectify the problem or not, we can't accurately tell – as we never get access to them. We're completely reliant on the customer services team. It's because it takes so much time to repeat the request with two, three or many more different customer services individuals over a period of time, there's already a massive time drain for all concerned – regardless of whether we get a successful outcome – and that's why many settle for less than a satisfactory end result.
The customer relations departments are designed for a variety of different job roles. One of these roles is to give an illusion of care. If a disgruntled customer can be easily pacified by a customer services individual, then the company they represent can often get away with a poorer service. To resolve issues which are unmet, it will take perseverance and stubbornness to wear down the customer service individuals. At some point, they will register the collective hours everyone has invested to get a positive result and this figure will be measured against the time invested by the many who have given up trying after the first attempt. This equation, along with satisfaction surveys, will help the company decide on the importance for making improvements or not. It's very unlikely businesses will make improvements to services for the minority of complaints until they have significant numbers, so it's necessary for more people to invest more time standing their ground, which generates even more work for call centres, longer waits in phone queues and less enthusiasm for staff to help disgruntled customers.
What's The Solution?
There are many instances where technology can help us get things done. There are also many reasons to stay with a lo-tech options over technology based ones. People are much more collaborative when we build a relationship with them. Therefore it's important to address people in a way where they will want to help. So getting a name and speaking to them in a way you'd want to be spoken to yourself, is one way to cut down on time spent fixing problems. Otherwise, we're just bombarding someone unknown with emails.
Within your own place of employment, it can be possible to meet up for a coffee or a chat to better know a colleague. Unfortunately, for external collaborations or solution finding, the options for building relationships with customers are sometimes deliberately removed by the larger organisations, as a way to avoid empathy from developing. They'd sooner you got fed up repeating the same request and go away than them having to actually fix a tricky situation. So complaining more frequently, is the simplest way to voice your concerns — the more visible these complaints are in the public realm, the better. But complaining will ultimately wear us all down over time...
...so the alternative solution is to avoid institutions that have broken their companies up into multi-factions, who have based their call centres all around the world, (thus leaving us no option for a local fix), that have made so many cost-cutting measures, their product is never going to deliver on it's promise.
We need to recognise and spend more on quality so it can be championed once again. At the end of the day, we all have to decide what's really worth investing our time and money on. And for satisfaction in life, the same principles apply for the office workplace as it does for services provided. Reward the worthy and chastise the in-effective no matter how much time it takes. Eventually, things will improve, but only when it's clearly not working for anybody.
Call centres are portrayed as the representatives of a company but in many cases are separate entities in themselves and also potentially representing a multitude of different companies all at the same time/place.
As much as the voice on the other end of the line may sound up-beat and enthusiastic, these people are really not pleased to hear from you. The call centres are usually abroad in places where wages are low, like India, Egypt or Mexico for USA or in regions of the country where there's historically been high levels of unemployment – Liverpool, Glasgow or Sunderland for UK etc. The job options are limited and so a low-paid call centre is seen as a better option for them than relying on the low benefits they'd receive instead. They take calls all day long, with around 15 seconds break between each one. No matter how frustrated the customer gets, they are meant to stay composed throughout the call – which is recorded for 'training' purposes. These people are watched like hawks.
Their job is to deal with mostly angry people. With limited access to systems for rectifying issues properly, plus a strict set of rules to follow about conversing with the public, they have little scope for dealing with anything more than general tasks. They take a lot of flack from an increasingly frustrated public and that's why many last no more than a couple of years without suffering some kind of psychological damage before quitting. Fortunately for large organisations who allow in-effective systems to function as long as their profits are up, there's a large queue of unfortunate souls waiting in the wings for a job, no matter how depressing it is.
The training in these centres has become fairly standard across the board, because most large corporations now use the same in-house or out-sourced call centres, employing the same techniques for their front line defence. So the same strained voices can be heard and the same in-effective service can be repeated whether it's for managing your insurance, communications, entertainment or banking requirements.
Diminishing Returns
As much as a representative at any of these institutions tries to rectify a situation, the outcome is often insufficiently resolved. We can try the same approach with two, three, four or five customer services individuals and get varying answers or proposed solutions for a fix from each, but the matter is passed on to others outside of their remit. Whether those in the next link in the chain can rectify the problem or not, we can't accurately tell – as we never get access to them. We're completely reliant on the customer services team. It's because it takes so much time to repeat the request with two, three or many more different customer services individuals over a period of time, there's already a massive time drain for all concerned – regardless of whether we get a successful outcome – and that's why many settle for less than a satisfactory end result.
The customer relations departments are designed for a variety of different job roles. One of these roles is to give an illusion of care. If a disgruntled customer can be easily pacified by a customer services individual, then the company they represent can often get away with a poorer service. To resolve issues which are unmet, it will take perseverance and stubbornness to wear down the customer service individuals. At some point, they will register the collective hours everyone has invested to get a positive result and this figure will be measured against the time invested by the many who have given up trying after the first attempt. This equation, along with satisfaction surveys, will help the company decide on the importance for making improvements or not. It's very unlikely businesses will make improvements to services for the minority of complaints until they have significant numbers, so it's necessary for more people to invest more time standing their ground, which generates even more work for call centres, longer waits in phone queues and less enthusiasm for staff to help disgruntled customers.
What's The Solution?
There are many instances where technology can help us get things done. There are also many reasons to stay with a lo-tech options over technology based ones. People are much more collaborative when we build a relationship with them. Therefore it's important to address people in a way where they will want to help. So getting a name and speaking to them in a way you'd want to be spoken to yourself, is one way to cut down on time spent fixing problems. Otherwise, we're just bombarding someone unknown with emails.
Within your own place of employment, it can be possible to meet up for a coffee or a chat to better know a colleague. Unfortunately, for external collaborations or solution finding, the options for building relationships with customers are sometimes deliberately removed by the larger organisations, as a way to avoid empathy from developing. They'd sooner you got fed up repeating the same request and go away than them having to actually fix a tricky situation. So complaining more frequently, is the simplest way to voice your concerns — the more visible these complaints are in the public realm, the better. But complaining will ultimately wear us all down over time...
...so the alternative solution is to avoid institutions that have broken their companies up into multi-factions, who have based their call centres all around the world, (thus leaving us no option for a local fix), that have made so many cost-cutting measures, their product is never going to deliver on it's promise.
We need to recognise and spend more on quality so it can be championed once again. At the end of the day, we all have to decide what's really worth investing our time and money on. And for satisfaction in life, the same principles apply for the office workplace as it does for services provided. Reward the worthy and chastise the in-effective no matter how much time it takes. Eventually, things will improve, but only when it's clearly not working for anybody.
No comments:
Post a Comment