“The customer is always right” has become a mantra for many businesses, but anyone who works in business long enough knows with certainty that the customer is notalways right. In fact, quite often, the customer is wrong, but it can be difficult to convey that information to the customer in a manner that is tactful and which will preserve the relationship between that individual and the organization with which he or she is doing business. Many customers have come to feel entitled as a result of the “customer is always right” culture and they are not accustomed to being told they are wrong. The fact that organizations try to support the customer further complicates “The customer is wrong” conflicts because many organizations lack well-articulated policies that can guide the staff member through the situation using standard guidelines that conform to the ethics and expectations of the company. This is the situation underlying the scenario presented here.
The company had contracted with a non-profit organization to provide consulting services that were marketed as being intended to assist the customer with identifying and addressing issues that would lead to the improvement of employee retention. The non-profit had high staff attrition, which was affecting everything from staff attendance and morale to bottom-line profits, and the non-profit was desperate to do something—“anything”—the director said, to correct the problem. The company had provided a package of consulting services to other non-profits confronting similar employee morale and retention problems, and those other customers had provided testimonials that were incorporated into the company’s literature to demonstrate how effective the services could be and the specific successes that some customers had enjoyed as a result. The package of services included a professional analysis and overview of the non-profit’s historical and current problems with attrition, which would be conducted by reviewing the non-profit’s records and by taking a formal survey of staff; meeting with the various internal stakeholders to determine factors that contributed to employee attrition; assessing the resources the company had available to address the attrition problem; and developing a comprehensive plan of recommendations that the non-profit would implement independently in order to improve its retention rate.
A contract was signed between the company and the non-profit, and it was made clear, both in writing and in verbal conversations with the director of the non-profit, that the company made no guarantees that the employee retention rate would improve, whether in the short-term or the long-term. While many non-profits did enjoy improved retention, the company representative explained, it was the extent to which the non-profit itself implemented the recommendations provided by the consultant and followed through with the continuous evaluation of the progress of those strategies that would determine the degree to which they would be successful in stemming attrition. The director of the non-profit indicated his understanding of and agreement with this term of the contract both by verbal acknowledgment and by signing the contract for services. The term of service for the consulting package was set for four months, and the specific tasks to be performed by the consultant were outlined clearly in writing.
Throughout the consulting process, the director indicated that he was pleased with the services that were being rendered. He was receptive to the information that the consultant generated through the aforementioned assessment strategies, and he appeared to be genuinely concerned about the fact that management and leadership styles within the non-profit had been identified by line staff as a significant factor that motivated their decision to terminate their employment and depart the organization, even when they believed strongly in its mission. The director appeared motivated to correct the deficiencies that had been identified by the consultant, and was eager to receive and review the report that had been prepared by the consultant and the company with a list of recommended strategies for change. It was with great surprise, then, when the consultant received an angry phone call six months after the delivery of the recommendations report and the completion of consulting services in which the director accused the consultant and the company of making false claims about retention outcomes. “The problem has only gotten worse!” the director complained, “and you assured me it would get better!”
The consultant and his supervisor discussed the situation and it was confirmed that the consultant, consistent with company policy, had never willingly led the director to believe that the services would result in specific improvements unless the organization implemented the recommendations and followed through with them consistently. The consultant recalled having repeated on more than one occasion that results varied and depended entirely upon the management’s willingness and effectiveness in implementing corrective strategies. The contract was retrieved and reviewed. All available evidence confirmed that the terms of the contract were clear and that no false promises or claims had ever been made, whether directly or indirectly, about the expected outcomes of the consulting services. The consultant and his supervisor determined that the consultant should return the director’s phone call, invite him to discuss his concerns in greater detail, and then discern what course of actions should be taken. It appeared that the customer was wrong, the consultant’s supervisor acknowledged, but the supervisor did not yet have a decisive recommendation about how the customer should be told that he had misunderstood or misinterpreted the company’s services.
The consultant phoned the non-profit’s director and engaged him by asking him to restate his concerns and to share any additional information that concerned him which may not have been conveyed in the original phone call. During this contact, the director revealed that he and his management team had only completed two out of the ten recommendations that had been offered to them by the consultant in his final report, and that they had no intention of implementing any of the other recommendations, as it was “clear that the first two weren’t working.” The consultant explained, as he had when he delivered the report and in the report itself, that the recommendations were not intended to be implemented in a step-wise fashion; most of the recommendations were to be implemented simultaneously. The director was flustered and defensive. When the consultant asked the director to review the contract and recommendations with him, the director said that he was too busy and could not find the contract and recommendations anyway.
It was clear to the consultant, and to his supervisor when the situation was discussed, that the customer was wrong, and that the customer was also not interested in accepting the responsibility that was squarely upon his own shoulders in this situation. At the same time, they knew that the non-profit organization, despite its deficiencies, was a powerful voice in the community, and that negative feedback about the consulting services—which had only been introduced recently—could be deleterious. The company wanted to stand by the contract and by its own position while still creating an opportunity for the director to feel that his concerns had been addressed. The consultant and supervisor brainstormed options. They could offer another round of consulting service at no cost, an alternative that was rejected because it was a drain on temporal, financial, and human resources and the gain was dubious. They could rewrite the recommendations and make them simpler and more achievable, but this option was also tabled; it seemed clear to both the consultant and his supervisor that the underlying message the director was conveying was that he wanted someone to solve his problems for him and that he himself wanted to take the least amount of action possible.
The other alternative that they identified was modifying the recommendations to reflect the suggestion that a key member of management be entrusted with the responsibility of implementing the strategies that had been suggested. In this way, the company would not be investing significantly more time and energy in what it believed to be a lost cause, and the director would not feel burdened with what was, for him, an obviously impossible task. It seemed like a win-win solution, and at the same time it provided an opportunity for someone with a shorter management track record but a great deal of potential to gain valuable, hands-on experience in this vital area of management. The consultant prepared a revised recommendations report with this element added, and attached a cover letter in which the director was thanked for sharing his concerns and the new strategy was identified. The consultant mailed the letter and immediately made a phone call to inform the director that his concern had been reviewed by the management of the company and that a response was forthcoming. He also set an appointment to have a phone conversation with the director upon receipt and review of the letter.
A week later, the director phoned the consultant in significantly better spirits and stated that he had begun to transfer the responsibility for fulfilling the strategies offered in the recommendations to a junior management member, who was thrilled to have the opportunity to prove herself as an effective leader. While he remained skeptical about the ultimate outcome of the strategies, he felt that his concerns had been heard and addressed respectfully. The company had not alienated a potentially valuable customer and reference, it had created opportunities for someone where an opportunity did not exist previously, and it resolved a delicate situation in an effective manner. Although the company had no clearly articulated policies for handling dissatisfied customers of consulting service, this incident was a valuable lesson.
The importance of reaffirming throughout the process that results are dependent upon the customer, not on the consultant, was recognized. Furthermore, the consultant and his managers began to see the need for developing clear policies and guidelines for handling dissatisfied customers in a way that addresses their concerns while still maintaining organizational integrity by adhering to contractual stipulations and by not giving away services for free, all of which are important management and ethical concerns. When the consultant checked in with the director six months later, he reported that retention had improved and that the junior manager had subsequently been promoted for her effective handling of the recommendations and their implementation. While he never conceded that the company’s consulting services had been useful or had been a critical element in turning around the attrition trend in his organization, the consultant and his supervisor were satisfied that their contractual obligations had been fulfilled and that they had averted a public relations disaster by insisting overtly that the customer was wrong rather than taking a more tactful approach.
