The twin myths of consistency and justice

There are two things in which we all believe, although we may not realise that we do: that things happen for a reason; and that there is a power of justice at work that rewards the good and punishes the bad ... in the long run.

The first belief is important for our sense of consistency, which ties together our fragmentary worlds and our delicate sense of self; this consistency edits our own histories to ensure that we have always believed what we currently believe, have always, deep down, been supposed to be doing what we are doing now; this consistency says we make our own luck and "unlucky" people are simply failing to see the opportunities around them, while good fortune is a natural end product of endeavour; and that the world is not random and, deep down, there is some force that keeps us safe ...

The second belief, in justice, is important so that we do not scream in blind, impotent rage when we see people do bad things and misfortune strike people who are doing good. These are temporary diversions and, in the long run, people get the right punishment and reward. Just you wait. Any minute now. Soon. Well, maybe in the next life, then.

There are various ways of dealing with these myths. They can be accommodated in some religious systems; they can simply be accepted as something that affects Other People But Not Me; or they can be a prompt for a more considerate approach to people doing well and others doing badly. There, but for the grace of God ... and, if you do not believe in God, and even if you do, there is a need to accept that someone down on their luck may not deserve their misfortune, that successful people may be bad and greedy, that the team that wins the match did not 'deserve their victory' simply because they scored more goals, that Little Dorrits do not escape every time. Consistency and judgment are desirable myths, reassuring and universal constructions, without which most people have difficulty in being optimistic.

We do our best not to think for ourselves, but, instead, to follow those heuristic rules of thumb that save us effort; to use processes when we should be exercising judgment. Recognising that consistency and justice are desirable is good, but we need to recognise that they are not hidden hands watching over us. We do not make our own luck, but we do identify our own opportunities, using our own judgment (and sometimes there are no opportunities, so we sit and wait). Our successes are not simply due to effort, or desire; and our failures are sometimes beyond the vision of a seer. Our own misfortunes are usually seen as temporary setbacks, even as tests of our fortitude, and we all hope that people will evaluate us for our potential rather than our success when we feel unfulfilled; contrarily, people will ask to be evaluated on their trappings of success when they have simply stumbled upon good fortune.

Let us be stoical and recognise our own selves are not simply a reflection of the randomness of the world around us. A person's character is independent of their fortune. Let us judge ourselves accurately and then be prepared to value others in the same way.

Gatekeeping should never be a process

I keep finding situations where creative solutions are denied because the gatekeepers are managing a process and not evaluating the situation as unique. From publishing to management to job recruitment, it seems the process constantly gets in the way, ensuring that the solution boils down to more of the same, more of what we already know and what we already have. That is what process delivers. Is that what is required?

Harry Potter was rejected by many publishers because it was about boy wizards and there was no market for books about boy wizards because the publishers didn't publish any. I saw an Internal Communications Management job advertised by a Recruitment Agency where their best fit would be someone with the same understanding of internal communications as them - limited, restricted and ineffectual. I see organisational innovation programmes that are so process driven that they run counter to their objective. And I see customer service where the individual nature of the customer is denied by the proscribed process.

Organisations do not trust their staff to make judgements. So they should train their staff and take risks. Processes are never going to provide the best answer.

Why is bad service so easy to find?

When I am working with a company on service issues, I am often asked to provide examples of organisations that are doing it well. This shouldn't be so difficult! Yet it always seems easier to recount disappointments and outrages than the really surprising successes.

On one level, good service is like a friendly, wise Uncle, knowing better than you what you want and providing it with an amiable flourish, expecting no thanks, simply happy to make you happy. And most of us have that family experience, of parents, grandparents, uncles, aunts and so on - people who can look after us and surprise us with their care and attention. That is the environment that is at the heart of the human condition: we are, after all, family creatures, and modern economic necessity has severely disrupted people's experience of being surrounded by a caring clan. But I digress.

Modern business talks of care, but caring for people demands an individual response, not a process. Processes are pigeon-holes and the process-driven people are focused on finding a box to put the customer in, not what the customer wants. Any customer service environment that is driven by process must limit the chances of providing good service - there will always be people who do not fit the boxes.

Not to mention the limitations of the process, created by a business model and the drive for financial success. I was reminded of this recently when I placed an order for some photographic equipment with Jacobs Digital Photo, an online retailer. One of the items I ordered was displayed as not in stock, but would be available in ten days. I placed my order and waited.

And forgot, until I noticed the full amount on my credit card statement, some forty days later. So what, according to an un-named customer service person at Jacobs, was my problem? They said it wasn't in stock. It was their practice to take payment on order. I would get my stuff. Whenever.

My observations that their site was misleading (it still says available in ten days) and that they should not take payment for goods they could not supply were ignored. The process rules.