Jane Arnott MNZM, from The Ethics Conversation, explores how organisational power dynamics and defensive attitudes can undermine genuine complaint resolution…
I’m a big believer in the value of personal experience.
It adds depth to our understanding and cuts through good intentions with the reality that people are fallible and inclined to see themselves in a positive light.
The same applies to organisations. A grand-sounding Code of Ethics or an established speak-up process might have little to do with how things actually work in practice.
In general terms, most Codes of Ethics don’t reference the value of speaking up. Even those that do rarely explain how this will work in practice.
Craig McFarlane, Director and Founder of Report It Now™, a secure whistleblowing platform, highlights that companies need empathy and careful consideration to ensure their responses serve the best interests of the company, employees and customers alike.
“Throughout all company cultures the opportunity to take time out to reflect on the substance and implications of a complaint is rare. Rather, the first response and a subsequent investigation becomes yet another task heaped on to other tasks and priorities. This can shift the investigation from one of learning and consideration to one of apportioning blame or blanket rejection”.
As an example, and drawing on practical experience, a Code of Ethics belonging to a multi national company in the broader financial sector states,
Our customers are at the center of everything we do, and should always be the focus of our thoughts.
Our aim should be to win the trust and confidence of our customers at all times. Our role is to strengthen this bedrock of trust and confidence. …
We look to build ongoing relationships with our customers to support their long-term growth.
We listen carefully to what our customers are telling us … with a view to further enhance quality
Yet this guidance bore no resemblance to the legal, risk and compliance executive’s actual response—a letter that ‘totally rejected allegations’ and proceeded to heap blame on the customer from an entirely one-sided perspective. The power imbalance couldn’t have been more obvious
When “Do you know who I am?” seeps out of every word, a more gracious interpretation of the matters raised becomes impossible. Words like “thank you for the time you have put into raising this concern” or “perhaps we could do more” become impossible to write or utter—they would feel like a choke hold.
The challenge of responding to a complaint or report with calm and diplomacy is not unremarkable in itself. But it does suggest that a broader range of people need to be brought into the review and resolution process. Diversity, take a bow.
According to different sources from within arbitration, mediation and disputes resolution it is often the case that when the legal fraternity are immediately involved it is the application of the law that can dominate rather than the understanding of values, compromise or the desire for resolution.
Placing oneself in the shoes of an unhappy customer or a troubled employee isn’t always straightforward. It requires mental agility along with the belief that empathy and insight is important—with a view to enhancing quality outcomes.
Even vulnerability needs to be better understood. Using the definition provided by the Financial Conduct Authority, UK; ‘A vulnerable customer is someone who, due to their personal circumstances is especially susceptible to harm, particularly when a firm is not acting with appropriate levels of care’.
Harm, in other jurisdictions is interpreted as detriment which may reflect illiteracy, disability or even a life event, such as a death or divorce that has temporarily destabilised their world.
Too often however someone who speaks up finds themselves interacting with the very person who is the least likely and least capable of accepting fresh insights.
Again, from the perspective of an independent observer, vulnerability is best encountered by someone who consistently demonstrates the skills and capability to identify a range of characteristics and is able to offer practical and emotional support.
The dynamics of a poor speak-up process falls like so:
- A lone individual complains.
- The nature of the complaint challenges years of finely tuned and expert process or partnership.
- Chorus: The company is large, established, successful and, in other words, powerful. Its customer database is in the millions
- A unique situation is outlined
- Failings and opportunities emerge – on both sides
- But the settings for rejection are already set.
- Chorus: The company is large, established, successful and, in other words, powerful. Its customer database is in the millions
- The immediate interpretation is one of unsolicited and unsubstantiated criticism
- Fault is determined, blame is apportioned
- The ‘open mind’ is closed.
- Job done
Even adjectives used to describe the tenor of an interaction with an employee are deemed ‘offensive’. Being triggered in this way intensifies the criticism.
In the heat of the moment, the senior executive within the multi-national overlooks the specific conditions of the complaint resolution process it has voluntarily signed up to.
This oversight inflames everything and everybody. The process is quick, destructive and light years away from problem-solving and achieving resolution. It is not customer focused.
Complaints, allegations, concerns and grievances come in all shapes and sizes. Rejection is never a solution and total rejection will almost always colour and undermine an investigation from the get go.
Empathy and the stance of ‘Do you know who I am?,’ are incompatible.
Because, when all is said and done, we know exactly who these people are–the people least able to listen or change.