When Outside-In Meets Inside-Out

I'm sitting here thinking about a couple of exchanges I've been party to recently. They both have to do with responding to "customer needs" when often the Provider balks and says "what you need we can't help you with right now, sorry, come back later".  Or, "we don't have the capability to do this for you right now", or "the rules say you have to do the following" with no alternative(s) being advanced to the customer on how to meet their need. More of an “inside-out” response rather than responding “outside-in” based on the customer need.

Over the past week I've been an informal participant between an internal IT (enterprise) infrastructure Provider and a Program Manager overseeing a multi-billion program (yes, billion with a "B"). The setting is the PM is facing relocation of the program to another facility. He is working to a deadline and smooth transition is paramount to maintain momentum and productivity. The infrastructure Provider is putting up roadblocks potentially delaying the move. Further the PM is asking for specific infrastructure capabilities that will enhance program productivity but the internal provider is saying, "sorry, we don't have the capability to service that request". And, oh, BTW, what you are asking for will be $100K, we think that is too expensive and you'll have to justify that expenditure".

The PM is livid. He said "I'll pay for it out of my own (multi-$B) program funding, so funding and justifying the expenditure is not an issue", and continuing, "my weekly burn rate is measured in $M, are you kidding me????". "Sorry" said the Provider representative, "come back later when the rules say we can do this and we have the capability to deliver". "When will that be?" asks the PM, "not sure" said the Provider representative.

The two part and I'm left talking with the Provider representative. Turns out the representative was under strict orders by his boss that they had to follow the rules and that "we are working on building our service capability and capacity, it is our number one priority". Why? "Because out customer satisfaction numbers are dismal...fixing that is our priority". "Oh really...you’re not really on the path to get there" I thought to myself.

So, I said to the representative, "do you mind if I offer a few comments"? "Sure, go ahead" he says. "Ok, first, in building your service capability to be more responsive to customers, have you thought about doing that with customers?, particularly like the PM you talked to? I'm sure he'd oblige. That way you'll inject the Voice of Customers into design and development of your service capability, think of it as a use case, or a pilot. I'm sure he'd be open to that".

I also asked, "have you heard the terms customer experience management (CX) and the customer journey"? "Hmmm, I think so" the representative said vaguely. I told him that customer experience management focuses on the customer journey of finding, accessing, using, and getting support for an organization's products and services. That the journey frames customer interactions with the Provider across the service cycle, that their overall impression of the organization is the sum of all interactions across the journey. I suggest that framing the customer journey interacting with his organization would be a good way to inject the Voice of the Customer into designing responsive service capability. He seemed genuinely interested in the concept. I think he got it! 

Finally I suggested, here's a PM with a very real need with a $M weekly burn rate. Giving him the stiff arm for a $100K expenditure? Really? "But our boss says...", "OK, I get it, but how about this, rather than simply say this is what we can and can't do, how about trying to understand the PM's need and jointly thinking of alternatives? To be advisory rather than just shut him down...and to meet the immediate need for which you say you don't have current capability, are their alternative sources of supply?". "Well yes...". "Then consider those, focus on the customer need, put yourself in his shoes, help him find a solution, even if it is outside your current service capability, he's willing to pay for it..."

"Hmmm, yes I see" said the representative. I advised him to contact the PM to explore alternatives and he agrees. But I detected apprehension in his voice. What I'm suggesting is "outside the rules" that the boss has set. He's personally willing to do it and knows it is the right thing to do, "but the boss won't like it...and going outside our supply base for alternatives is frowned upon" I see that it is going to be challenging for him to pursue the course of action.

Does this scene sound familiar to you? It is the classic "inside-out" response. It is classic development of service capability "inside-out" absent the Voice of Customers and in this case to "improve our customer satisfaction". Really? What's wrong with this picture? Unfortunately, it is the dominant reality in many organizations. Leadership (the boss) has to create a safe environment to promote outside-in behavior. Interesting in the example I described, the representative wants to do it but he fears retribution.

I'll end this post linking customer interaction points across the journey of engaging with an organization to the concept of Moments of Truth. Richard Nomann was the originator of the concept of moments of truth and the virtuous cycle of positive customer experience. Quoting from his seminal book Service Management: Strategy and Leadership in Service Business he states: “an assessment of customer experience starts with the moment of truth, at the customer - provider interface, where quality as perceived by the customer is created" and the customer feels “uplifted by the interaction in some way." That their need is satisfied and it is a positive emotional experience for them.

Does the experience I described above sound like a positive moment of truth? Obviously not, it was decidedly negative. Which leads me to a final thought, the representative seemed intrigued and interested in what I saying, but I could see apprehension and fear in his eyes of venturing in this direction. Fear of retribution.

Often, leadership may desire a positive customer experience, and perhaps promote desirable behavior, but they have to "walk the talk", they have to cascade it to middle management, what I call the middle linchpin. Normann called it the virtuous internal circle reinforcing desired behavior at the moment of truth. He stated that when the virtuous internal circle (middle management and supervisory norms, values, and beliefs) is not congruent with desired behavior at the moment of truth, that people will find this schism "untenable" and will conform with dominant management beliefs.

The moral of the story? Leadership needs to align middle management and supervisory behavior with desired behavior at the moment of truth, otherwise you're swimming against the tide and you'll never get there! 

Your thoughts?