/bks/images/image-o0b82.png)
Over the last couple of weeks, quite coincidentally, I’ve had to contact a surprising number of customer service desks. This has included IT, hotels, airlines, banks, and stores etc. These required me to interact with FAQs, text bots, live chat, voice activated option bots (speaking/listening), and in most cases, I ended up 'communicating' in some way with a real person - because, well, if I couldn't figure it out with the huge amount of information that is available, then I needed help.
Of course, there is the usual range of frustrations:
And so on ....
A truly tiresome process.
Then, one day I called a bank help centre - in Europe - and that just put everything in perspective. The call was answered pretty much straight away. The sound quality was perfect, the person, while having to follow a strict process for checking security, remained 'human' throughout. They listened to my questions, and even helped me articulate my problem, before solving it. While the overall call was focused and efficient, we had time for a few 'genuine' pleasantries along the way, and even some laughter. How refreshing - problem solved, and I came away feeling good.
As I considered my recent interactions, a bizarre irony became apparent: we’re trying to make bots sound ever more human, while pushing humans to act ever more like machines. How crazy is that?
In Organisational Design, when we are considering how to best implement process improvements (which should also include consideration of the quality of output as well as eventual outcome), we strive for a balance between involving people, process, and systems, all wrapped in the appropriate culture.
Back in the 1950s, the idea of the Socio Technical System (STS) was first formalised (building on knowledge that had been around since at least the beginning of the industrial revolution). STS emphasised designing work so that both the technical (machines, processes, IT) and the social (human skills, needs, and motivations) are optimised together. The key principle is joint optimisation: machines do what they’re best at (speed, repetition, precision), while humans contribute judgement, adaptability, and creativity. Rather than forcing people to behave like machines, and vice verse, we recognise the capabilities and benefits of using each appropriately.
Now, we recognise that there is a cultural and procedural continuum that ranges from tightly controlled on one extreme to chaotic and ad-hoc-cratic on the other. Human beings generally don't fare well at either extreme - there is a sense of loss of control. And even within that continuum, too little structure and people flounder; too much structure and initiative is stifled.
But somewhere along that continuum, there is an optimal balance point - a 'sweet spot' where there is just enough structure/framework so that people can know where their boundaries and expectation are, and enough freedom that then lets them use their innate creativity and initiative to apply judgement and solve problems. This spot is often called the enabling structure. It is where humans become their most creative and productive, and where they derive the greatest job satisfaction.
As I interacted with the variety of 'help desk' people, just where they were on that continuum quickly became apparent - I could hear it in their voices, their tone, their approaches. Only one was on that sweet spot - and it really showed.
So .... where does your organisation sit on that continuum? Are your people empowered to work in that “sweet spot"? And what is the consequence of that?
Ad Futurum
Graham
~ Press 3 if you think we’ve forgotten that humans are at their best when they’re allowed to be human.