Leaders Defending The Indefensible

If the client complains directly to your staff member about their poor service, should you go to bat for your team member?  Should you publicly apologise and deal with the errant staff member privately?  Should you make a public show of solidarity with the staff member and criticise the manner in which the complaint was made?  Should you aggressively argue the point with the client?  Should you just ignore it and get back to other pressing matters? 

The answers to these real life situations will differ, depending on the culture of your society and your legal system.  America is a very litigious society and there seems to be a built in reflex to not admit guilt, accountability or responsibility.  The upshot of this positioning is to ignore what was said to your staff member and hope it goes away naturally, after the client has gotten their complaint off their chest.  Privately, the boss can then commiserate about the “nasty” client and bond with the staff member.

Loopholes are always in high demand in these tense situations.  The favourite one is to complain about how the client communicated the complaint.  If the client is really losing it and abusing the staff member, that is great for the boss.  Now their high horse can be mounted and a full attack on the unreasonableness of the client can be commenced.  It is a bit trickier when there is no name calling and no florid abuse of the staff members stupidity.  A clear outline of the staff member’s failings by the client is annoying, because it is hard to beat it back. An attack on the language can be made anyway and various deductions made about the “accusatory” nature of the remarks and appeals made for fair play.  If the labour market is tight, the boss may be prepared to lose a client in order to retain a key staff member.

How about Japan?  Arguing the point with the client is unthinkable.  The same applies to taking responsibility and accountability.  Japanese clients expect this and if it is not forthcoming, they will keep pushing until they get it.  No sweeping under the tatami is acceptable here in Japan.  The concept that the client has to be moderate in their communication of their complaint is a non-starter.  The client is allowed to be as obstreperous as they like and the guilty party has to accept it.

So as the boss, how do you deal with your staff member?  Do you hang them out to dry and bear the full force gale of invective from the client, as a good lesson in client service requirements?  Do you stand up for them and defend them against the client’s claims, while privately reading them the riot act?  Do you decide the staff member is someone you would rather retain than the client? 

I have recently been in all three of these scenarios. 

I have been the aggrieved client, observing the American style of “shift the blame back to the complaining client” model.  I stood by my team member’s claim against the service provider and went hard to support the argument that the service provision wasn’t good enough.  When the shape shifting kicked off, I went even harder to counter that nefarious attempt to slip out of the noose. 

I have fired the client.  A very unpleasant client began belittling one of my salespeople, when speaking about her.  I did not accept that libellous affront and staunchly defended the staff member, without hesitation.  I then told my salesperson to fire that client and don’t deal with them ever again and to keep a note in our CRM, for when they get fired and pop up in another company.  Life is short and they are not the type of person we want to spend any time with, so we should get rid of them forever.  And we did.

I have screwed up.  I have had to go hat in hand and apologise to the client for my shortcomings.  I have had to sit there and be berated by the client, at length and in great detail, for the error.  I had to be not only accountable, but also sincerely remorseful and apologetic.  I had to determine to give the money back, without ever being asked to do so.

In principle, we should accept responsibility for our service or product provision and when it is inadequate we should accept the blame and do everything we can to fix it. No mealy mouth platitudes or counter offensives about “inappropriate language”.  We should be the one to bear the client’s wrath and deal with our staff members in private.  Is the client always right – no.  We should stand ready to fire the client too, if that is what the situation calls for. 

None of this is easy, but we have to determine what we mean, when we say we are in the business of serving clients.  We have to set the example for everyone to follow and we have to be consistent.