The Age Of Mediocrity
It appears that the world of business is dead set on breeding mediocrity. Excellence is no longer an acceptable standard of performance in the corporation. Excellence of character is thrown aside. Studies are demonstrating that the successful corporate officer is someone with a record of being a superb ass, lacking common decency and, in most cases, a lack of real expertise. No longer is it the person with a knack for developing an idea into a great product. Instead, excellent performance, dynamic products and outstanding commitment to the customer are thrown into the hopper in favor of just barely meeting the standards.
We can see the lack of commitment to excellence reflected in customer service offered by most corporations today. A vast majority of call centers providing customer service have been farmed out to so-called "out sourcing" providers. Many of these centers were touted as being superior in value to the corporation. However, as new studies are beginning to demonstrate, many of these out sourced service centers are doing nothing more than damaging the reputation of the corporation being served.
In the place of actually resolving a customer's problem, call center performance is evaluated on the basis of the number of calls each call center representative serves. The idea of evaluating a call center employee on the number of actual problems solved, or the degree of satisfaction experienced by the end-consumer, has been replaced by an essential replication of the butchering lines that once made the stock yards of Chicago the model of efficiency.
The problem is that people are not cattle being butchered. People with a problem do not want to be put through the paces of a voice mail system that asks for seventy-two pieces of information, nine thousand button presses, and long waits, just to be asked the same questions over again once a real person actually picks up the phone. Add to the end-consumer's frustration is the fact that many of the "actual people" that pick up the phone have very little telephone etiquette, a list of rules and policies that actually inhibit the problem-solving process, and accents that impede effective communication. Many times the call center personnel have attitudes that permeate the conversation.
The attitude that comes across from many call center representatives is understandable since the pay for such positions is significantly inconsequential. When I worked for a rather large broadband telecommunication provider I was required to research the pay, functions and facility needs of call centers. Additionally, as part of building out these types of facilities, I had considerable contact with the managers, supervisors and staff operating these centers. The vast majority of call center employees had no commitment to the job or the company because they were treated like cattle being butchered. Many would complain about the salary, but admit they were tolerant of the low pay and poor treatment because they were in the picture for the short run. Most were attending college and needed a job that provided the hours and a job that did not require applying too many critical thinking skills. Since every call center has a dozen or so manuals and technical service references, the call center employee only has to respond to customers by apologizing and quoting the corporate policy.
A recent experience with such a call center exemplifies the issues. The company involved is an insurance company that provides administration of a flexible spending account (FSA) that allows an employee to set aside tax-free income for the purposes of health care. The claims process requires the end-consumer to fax documentation of health care spending to the company at a designated fax number, using a poorly developed form. The company purports to use an electronic digital fax distribution system that receives the faxed material and directs it to the next available claims processor.
Having had two previous claims that were not processed properly because of reported fax reception problems, I clearly indicated on a word processed cover sheet that the claims representative was to call me if there was any problem with the faxed material. There were numerous pages of receipts and expense documentation. As a safety precaution, my wife and I faxed the material to three different fax machines to make sure that the documentation was readable. Satisfied that the fax reception would not, could not, be a problem, the material was faxed to the designated number.
Fifteen days after sending the fax documentation a letter was sent indicating that the documentation was unreadable. My options were to fax the material again or to send the material by snail mail. Either option would delay the processing of the claim by 30 to 45 days, based upon the claims processing cycle and the receipt of the documentation. If the material again was faxed again there could not be any certainty that the fax was readable. If the material was illegible, the company would send another letter--fifteen days later--to indicate that there was a problem. If the snail mail option was selected, the company acknowledged that there could be a 15-30 day delay in processing the claim. That specified delay was on top of the 5-10 days that it might take for the mail to be delivered, opened and routed to a claims processor.
Feeling that the indicated choices only provided the outcome of screwing the end-consumer in the process, a call was made to the call center. Within the first 3 minutes of the call a series of ridiculous voice mail options were offered. Once a real person picked up the conversation, and the problem explained, and the fact that this was the third time such a problem occurred was made apparent, the employee apologized and cited the very same options outlined in the letter. The claims material could be faxed again or sent by snail mail. When these options were rejected as reasonable, and the issue of fiduciary responsibility was clearly explained to the company's representative, and issues of legality and negligence raised, more apologies were offered. Added to the apologies was a litany of why no one called the end-consumer to let them know there was a problem. An excuse was offered as to why phone calls were not allowed by company policy. The supervisor that eventually came on-line to "assist" indicated, "If the claims processors were to make phone calls to indicate a problem then they would not be able to process the claims."
Let us examine the premise of the supervisor's statement. By taking 2-3 minutes to tell the end-consumer that the material needed to be faxed again, or sent by snail mail, on the day the problem occurred, it would delay the processors from processing claims. Did not the sending of an automated letter and the delay of fifteen days before the end-consumer could attempt to resolve the problem keep the processor from handling the claim? Did not the 35 minutes spent on the phone dealing with an irate end-consumer delay the claim from being processed? Did not the time it took the end-consumer to find the files, re-copy the materials, and forward it to the claims center delay the processing of the claim? Which action offers the greater delay in processing claims: making a three-minute phone call or forcing the end-consumer through serious rigmarole?
The problem is simple. It pays the insurance company to delay the processing of claims. At the beginning of each year the sponsoring employer deposits an entire year of the benefit with the FSA administrator. T he employer then deducts a specified amount on a per check basis from the employee. But the insurance company that administers the FSA accounts for that employer has all of that money in escrow, earning interest. Every day that money remains in the escrow account earns the FSA administrator some residual income on top of the fees paid by the employer to manage the claims and accounts. It pays the FSA administrator to delay the claims processing and payments.
In the case cited above, this was the third time that such a delay occurred, and it has been reported to occur with at least six other colleagues from the same employer. Of course, complaints to the employer are for not because they have chosen the least expensive administrator possible and expect that any problems that occur are to be worked out with the FSA administrator. A reasonable assumption since the FSA administrator has already been paid to handle these issues.
The issue, in legal terms, is whether or not the FSA administrator is committing a form of fraud. If the company is, by deliberate action or through a de facto process, delaying the processing of claims and benefiting from that delay, is it not failing to meet its fiduciary duty to the sponsoring employer and the end-consumer?
According to the Random House Webster's Dictionary of the Law (2000), it falls under the category of "constructive fraud," to wit:
"CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD conduct viewed as having the same effect as actual fraudthough not involving any false representation of fact. This usually occurs when a FIDUCIARY abuses the trust and confidence of the person to whom he/she/it owesa fiduciary duty, profiting by keeping silent about matters that should have been disclosed to that person."
It would appear that a delay in the processing of a claim that could have been avoided by a simple phone call (i.e. "keeping silent") and subsequently providing a profit as a result of that delay, meets the definition. If such incidents occur frequently, among several or many end-consumers, then there would appear to be grounds for a class action suit, as well as multiple criminal complaints.
Of course, the company involved in this sample case is going to claim that it is simply adhering to its policies and procedures. It will offer numerous apologies and excuses, hide behind a bureau of lawyers, and still make a profit. In the mean time, the end-consumer--"the little guy"--will not be able to meet the obligations already incurred to maintain health and relationships with health care providers.
Mediocrity screws the average person. Mediocrity breeds distrust and disenfranchisement. Mediocrity keeps our costs at an all time high. Mediocrity demonstrates that those with the power and ability to hire the right kind of lawyers will win out while justice and common decency are thrown aside in favor of the almighty buck.
If this were the only case of mediocrity, there would be no need for outrage. But we see mediocrity even in the efforts of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to deal with the crises created by hurricane Katrina. The head of FEMA was interviewed by Ted Koppel on the show, Nightline. In the interview the head of FEMA made the point that the federal government was not prepared for the number of people that were unable to evacuate the area.
If we examine that premise we can see mediocrity costs lives. The fact that we had three to four days notice before Katrina blew on shore; and that we knew that the Mississippi and Louisiana delta areas (Biloxi and New Orleans, for example) are prone to extreme flooding; and we knew that these regions are among the poorest in the nation, with many people barely meeting subsistence levels of poverty, clearly indicates that FEMA failed to meet its obligation to prevent the loss of lives and react in an effective manner to the crises.
Mediocrity is a curse that is harmful to all of mankind. It is not a value that is historically viewed as American in nature. While our leaders and politicians are touting the United States of America as one of the greatest nations in the world and/or throughout history, our acquiescence to mediocrity is killing our nation in terms of economics, ethics, our way of life and our very lives. We need to change the practice of accepting mediocrity as an excuse for not performing.
September 23, 2005
We can see the lack of commitment to excellence reflected in customer service offered by most corporations today. A vast majority of call centers providing customer service have been farmed out to so-called "out sourcing" providers. Many of these centers were touted as being superior in value to the corporation. However, as new studies are beginning to demonstrate, many of these out sourced service centers are doing nothing more than damaging the reputation of the corporation being served.
In the place of actually resolving a customer's problem, call center performance is evaluated on the basis of the number of calls each call center representative serves. The idea of evaluating a call center employee on the number of actual problems solved, or the degree of satisfaction experienced by the end-consumer, has been replaced by an essential replication of the butchering lines that once made the stock yards of Chicago the model of efficiency.
The problem is that people are not cattle being butchered. People with a problem do not want to be put through the paces of a voice mail system that asks for seventy-two pieces of information, nine thousand button presses, and long waits, just to be asked the same questions over again once a real person actually picks up the phone. Add to the end-consumer's frustration is the fact that many of the "actual people" that pick up the phone have very little telephone etiquette, a list of rules and policies that actually inhibit the problem-solving process, and accents that impede effective communication. Many times the call center personnel have attitudes that permeate the conversation.
The attitude that comes across from many call center representatives is understandable since the pay for such positions is significantly inconsequential. When I worked for a rather large broadband telecommunication provider I was required to research the pay, functions and facility needs of call centers. Additionally, as part of building out these types of facilities, I had considerable contact with the managers, supervisors and staff operating these centers. The vast majority of call center employees had no commitment to the job or the company because they were treated like cattle being butchered. Many would complain about the salary, but admit they were tolerant of the low pay and poor treatment because they were in the picture for the short run. Most were attending college and needed a job that provided the hours and a job that did not require applying too many critical thinking skills. Since every call center has a dozen or so manuals and technical service references, the call center employee only has to respond to customers by apologizing and quoting the corporate policy.
A recent experience with such a call center exemplifies the issues. The company involved is an insurance company that provides administration of a flexible spending account (FSA) that allows an employee to set aside tax-free income for the purposes of health care. The claims process requires the end-consumer to fax documentation of health care spending to the company at a designated fax number, using a poorly developed form. The company purports to use an electronic digital fax distribution system that receives the faxed material and directs it to the next available claims processor.
Having had two previous claims that were not processed properly because of reported fax reception problems, I clearly indicated on a word processed cover sheet that the claims representative was to call me if there was any problem with the faxed material. There were numerous pages of receipts and expense documentation. As a safety precaution, my wife and I faxed the material to three different fax machines to make sure that the documentation was readable. Satisfied that the fax reception would not, could not, be a problem, the material was faxed to the designated number.
Fifteen days after sending the fax documentation a letter was sent indicating that the documentation was unreadable. My options were to fax the material again or to send the material by snail mail. Either option would delay the processing of the claim by 30 to 45 days, based upon the claims processing cycle and the receipt of the documentation. If the material again was faxed again there could not be any certainty that the fax was readable. If the material was illegible, the company would send another letter--fifteen days later--to indicate that there was a problem. If the snail mail option was selected, the company acknowledged that there could be a 15-30 day delay in processing the claim. That specified delay was on top of the 5-10 days that it might take for the mail to be delivered, opened and routed to a claims processor.
Feeling that the indicated choices only provided the outcome of screwing the end-consumer in the process, a call was made to the call center. Within the first 3 minutes of the call a series of ridiculous voice mail options were offered. Once a real person picked up the conversation, and the problem explained, and the fact that this was the third time such a problem occurred was made apparent, the employee apologized and cited the very same options outlined in the letter. The claims material could be faxed again or sent by snail mail. When these options were rejected as reasonable, and the issue of fiduciary responsibility was clearly explained to the company's representative, and issues of legality and negligence raised, more apologies were offered. Added to the apologies was a litany of why no one called the end-consumer to let them know there was a problem. An excuse was offered as to why phone calls were not allowed by company policy. The supervisor that eventually came on-line to "assist" indicated, "If the claims processors were to make phone calls to indicate a problem then they would not be able to process the claims."
Let us examine the premise of the supervisor's statement. By taking 2-3 minutes to tell the end-consumer that the material needed to be faxed again, or sent by snail mail, on the day the problem occurred, it would delay the processors from processing claims. Did not the sending of an automated letter and the delay of fifteen days before the end-consumer could attempt to resolve the problem keep the processor from handling the claim? Did not the 35 minutes spent on the phone dealing with an irate end-consumer delay the claim from being processed? Did not the time it took the end-consumer to find the files, re-copy the materials, and forward it to the claims center delay the processing of the claim? Which action offers the greater delay in processing claims: making a three-minute phone call or forcing the end-consumer through serious rigmarole?
The problem is simple. It pays the insurance company to delay the processing of claims. At the beginning of each year the sponsoring employer deposits an entire year of the benefit with the FSA administrator. T he employer then deducts a specified amount on a per check basis from the employee. But the insurance company that administers the FSA accounts for that employer has all of that money in escrow, earning interest. Every day that money remains in the escrow account earns the FSA administrator some residual income on top of the fees paid by the employer to manage the claims and accounts. It pays the FSA administrator to delay the claims processing and payments.
In the case cited above, this was the third time that such a delay occurred, and it has been reported to occur with at least six other colleagues from the same employer. Of course, complaints to the employer are for not because they have chosen the least expensive administrator possible and expect that any problems that occur are to be worked out with the FSA administrator. A reasonable assumption since the FSA administrator has already been paid to handle these issues.
The issue, in legal terms, is whether or not the FSA administrator is committing a form of fraud. If the company is, by deliberate action or through a de facto process, delaying the processing of claims and benefiting from that delay, is it not failing to meet its fiduciary duty to the sponsoring employer and the end-consumer?
According to the Random House Webster's Dictionary of the Law (2000), it falls under the category of "constructive fraud," to wit:
"CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD conduct viewed as having the same effect as actual fraudthough not involving any false representation of fact. This usually occurs when a FIDUCIARY abuses the trust and confidence of the person to whom he/she/it owesa fiduciary duty, profiting by keeping silent about matters that should have been disclosed to that person."
It would appear that a delay in the processing of a claim that could have been avoided by a simple phone call (i.e. "keeping silent") and subsequently providing a profit as a result of that delay, meets the definition. If such incidents occur frequently, among several or many end-consumers, then there would appear to be grounds for a class action suit, as well as multiple criminal complaints.
Of course, the company involved in this sample case is going to claim that it is simply adhering to its policies and procedures. It will offer numerous apologies and excuses, hide behind a bureau of lawyers, and still make a profit. In the mean time, the end-consumer--"the little guy"--will not be able to meet the obligations already incurred to maintain health and relationships with health care providers.
Mediocrity screws the average person. Mediocrity breeds distrust and disenfranchisement. Mediocrity keeps our costs at an all time high. Mediocrity demonstrates that those with the power and ability to hire the right kind of lawyers will win out while justice and common decency are thrown aside in favor of the almighty buck.
If this were the only case of mediocrity, there would be no need for outrage. But we see mediocrity even in the efforts of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to deal with the crises created by hurricane Katrina. The head of FEMA was interviewed by Ted Koppel on the show, Nightline. In the interview the head of FEMA made the point that the federal government was not prepared for the number of people that were unable to evacuate the area.
If we examine that premise we can see mediocrity costs lives. The fact that we had three to four days notice before Katrina blew on shore; and that we knew that the Mississippi and Louisiana delta areas (Biloxi and New Orleans, for example) are prone to extreme flooding; and we knew that these regions are among the poorest in the nation, with many people barely meeting subsistence levels of poverty, clearly indicates that FEMA failed to meet its obligation to prevent the loss of lives and react in an effective manner to the crises.
Mediocrity is a curse that is harmful to all of mankind. It is not a value that is historically viewed as American in nature. While our leaders and politicians are touting the United States of America as one of the greatest nations in the world and/or throughout history, our acquiescence to mediocrity is killing our nation in terms of economics, ethics, our way of life and our very lives. We need to change the practice of accepting mediocrity as an excuse for not performing.
September 23, 2005
posted by Jim Downey at 12:19 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home