Easily, one of the most important (business? life?) lessons I learned was while I was working in a computer store (yes. geek!), which was owned nand operated by a local businessman. This business pre-dated the appearance of the first PCs by a number of years, and is still there today. So by most standards, they are reasonably successful.

One of our best (regular visits, and purchasing often, at many price levels and price points) customers came into the store fuming about something he had recently purchased. I was there, along with the store manager and another employee. the customer began a fine rant (Partially deserved, too, but not much that we had direct control over.), and then veered into a zone he shouldn't have entered. The owner of the business came out of his office at that point.

He listened for a little bit. Then, during a break in the rant, he asked the customer to leave, saying he was very sorry to ask him that, and said we would not be able to keep him as a customer any longer. He explained we simply did not have the resources (or the control over all of the factors involved) to meet these expectations, and it was obvious we wouldn't be able to satisfy him. And he greatly regretted that. Plus, even if we could, we couldn't afford to do it and still stay in business, so as to be there to service his wishes in the future.

All while he gently guided the customer out of the store, and then let the door swing closed behind him. Then he gathered us, and explained why he said and did that.

It was very simple. Sometimes, the customer is not always right. It is a hard call to make, but ultimately, the survival of the business must be held above the needs of a single customer, no matter who they are. Too many people's livelihoods depended on the business continuing on.

Of course, he then reminded us that he was the only one who should have the authority to make that call, but we should approach him if we found ourselves faced with a similar situation. And then he returned to his office.

The customer did return later that week, and he apologized for acting as he did. We downplayed our reactions, everyone made nice, and life went on for all. The incident wasn't ever mentioned again while I worked there.

But I haven't forgotten that lesson, Dick, and I still am amazed at how well you handled it. Thanks for helping me keep everything in perspective, and for teaching me important lessons.

Sometimes, the expectations of a customer may exceed what the business may be capable of providing and still remain in business. And always meeting a customer's demands in that situation is not in anyone's best interest.

11:17:25 PM  [] blah blah blah'd on this    

Oh, to be a fly on the wall there...

This evening I had dinner with Jake Savin, Andy Fragen and Andy's uncle, John.

An' dat dere's a whole buncha UserTalk brain-power concentrated in one place, folks. I wonder what snippets of conversation the wait-person overheard...

9:21:19 AM  [] blah blah blah'd on this    [ blinked via Jeff's Radio Weblog ]

And I'll go out on a limb, and say that I think this method at the Ritz-Carlton will actually cause a great deal of employee dissatisfaction and turnover, and not lead to largest possible gains, compared to what might happen if they would make some slight changes to their benchmarking methods.

A-ha. But that's what vendors are supposed to do, isn't it? I think a company should assume the responsibility of assessing its knowledge needs by itself. Natural selection will take care of those companies (and individuals) who can't or won't do it. Here's something interesting:

At the Ritz, it's all about people sharing their experiences, says CIO Pam Angelucci. In fact, her most successful KM program uses no technology at all. It's a "green book" of best practices collected from the top performers in every department in the company, from corporate management to housekeeping. The hard-copy volume is updated annually by a vice president of quality, and the expert content is chosen based on quality scoring procedures. "[Knowledge management at Ritz-Carlton] really has little to do with any kind of technology"

Collecting best practices from the top performers may not be the best practice, ironically. Top performers often do things in a way that make management uncomfortable, or that are not easily replicable. As I had mentioned in Of Tom Gilbert and K-logs, the performance of top performers may not be easily replicable, by them, or by others.

A company seeking to obtain the highest ROI should try to make all of those folks tagged as low performers achieve at the level of those folks who are tagged "competent'. Here's why. There is greater room for improvement there, and the results are likely to be both attainable and sustainable, and at a more reasonable level of investment of effort, time, and costs.

Think about the effort required to move a C+ student to being a B+ student. That is almost always far easier than moving someone from being an A- student to being an A+ student. Reduced range of error and return on investments play major factors here. In addition, pulling up the bottom performers toward the middle is far more likely to bring in greater gains than bringing some of the upper end people toward the very top. Imagine where you would be if all of your students were performing at an A- level or better. (obAnswer: Harvard, before the grade inflation checks are implemented. Doh! ;-)   )

8:08:27 AM  [] blah blah blah'd on this    [ blinked via Seb's Open Research ]