Comments on: To tech, or not to tech — that’s not the question

By: Dave

Dave — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 01:33:38 +0000

The postal service has always had schizophrenic direction–such as the service focus and the political patronage kowtowing, when it was still a direct branch of government. Now, of course, its problems have increased: email and package services gnaw at different ends of its traditional market. Somewhere some marketeer thinks it’s a great idea to ask busy people about stuff like certification or, for heaven’s sake, insurance, when all they want to do is mail the package.

This is justified as “informing” or “providing a full range of service,” though I suspect it’s mainly job security for consultants and product managers. Self-stick stamps: good idea. DIY machines to weigh packages and provide postage: good idea. Detaining your actual customers while you blather about arcane services: less so.

The model is turning into the relentless nickel-and-diming mixed with subtle intimidation that makes the auto rental and banking industries so popular with consumers.

By: Jane Bozarth

Jane Bozarth — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 13:00:59 +0000

RE: “If you’ve been to a U.S. post office lately, you’ve probably encountered counterproductive upselling disguised as customer service.”

The postal clerks get graded by Secret Shoppers, who look ONLY for things like this. (Not on, oh, whether the clerks are nice, or competent, or fast.) And there is BIG trouble if the clerks don’t ask each and every question. That’s right– the line you are waiting in grows ever-longer while the postal clerks run through their list of 20 questions with you. Even better: they have to do this even with customers they wait on every day, and who they know wants none of the extras, lest the Secret Shopper be within earshot.

Why can’t the postal service see that this is, as you say, “counterproductive”?

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:38:54 +0000

Tom, I tend to agree that in organizations, learning ought to connect to performance — though I think some of that connection can be indirect. When I worked for GE, some of my professional development would benefit me as an individual in the short run, with benefit to the company harder to make an “objective” case for.

William Horton in one of his books looked with a skeptical eye on ROI and training (to say nothing of performance) because it’s often rater bias dressed up as objectivity.

The largest training effort I ever worked on saw the client’s main product go from 24% of 28% of a highly competitive market in which 1% equaled nearly half a billion dollars. If the employees hadn’t learned the new system, that increase couldn’t have happened. That doesn’t mean we delivered all of that 4% increase, or even one-fourth of it, I don’t think.

The best judgment was that the client came back to us for other projects.

By: Tom Gram

Tom Gram — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 19:48:57 +0000

Dave:
I was thinking about similar concerns with web 2.0 recently. New technologies offer us more and (sometimes) better ways to communicate. This is fantastic for personal learning and networking.

In organizations though, learning is a means to an end…business performance. Learning technologies (learning 2.0)need to be focused squarely on performance goals or, as we are starting to learn, they can generate lots of “behaviour” but very little “performance”.

I posted just today on this…http://gramconsulting.com