3 ms·

Ultimately what I'm going to suggest comes down to philosophy, so if it doesn't align w/ your approach/needs I get it. A theme of how you describe your interac

Ultimately what I'm going to suggest comes down to philosophy, so if it doesn't align w/ your approach/needs I get it. A theme of how you describe your interactions was to throw the support team under the bus, and/or highlight their failures to help you when interacting with an executive. It's my experience that the executive has made intentional choices to deflect customer issues and that support team is their doing one way or another. Complaining about the support team to an executive will just put more pressure on the support team without granting them further support. I'll get to a point in a minute :) Another theme I see is one of using the system to your advantage. I have a fun similar airport story. I knew my flight would get cancelled (weather) and I was about six hours early to the airport. I knew United had a partnership w/ Air Canada and the United staff wouldn't help me / the line was way too long because other flights already got cancelled. I went to the Air Canada desk and asked them to help since they had access to the same booking system. They told me to talk w/ United. While waiting in line again at United I called United on the phone and explained the situation and they immediately booked me an alternate flight on Air Canada that was direct to my destination, instead of through the one with bad weather. They also let me know that the Toronto airport I was in had a notorious rivalry between the staff of United and Air Canada where they constantly defer to the other team, supposedly because of spite. So, my system. Always take advantage of the system (non-human parts) - hit zero on the phone, try extensions if you dare. My main approach when dealing with entry-level support people is to understand they have limited tools and their job is often to read a script that tries to get you to agree they helped. It's OK to deviate from that script, and if they can't help to ask to speak with a supervisor who can potentially offer a better option. When you move up the chain, it's important not to step on people on the way up. If they can't help you and you need to go around them by digging up the CEO via a cold call - I also think that's OK, but at that point you should be able to get what you want without throwing the failed support agent under the bus. If you want to give the executive advice, let them know that the support team seemed about as helpful as they could, but they didn't seem to have the training or support to offer you a fast resolution. Directly ask the executive to spend more time and effort investing in their support team and thinking of ways to offer improved support to avoid folks having to try to work around them. This frames it as a problem for the CEO to address with investment specifically, not one where they can just assume the support team did poorly and then go yell at a manager to improve morale with more beatings. Anyways, always punch up is my rule. A second rule is to be deferential and try to take the blame for why you aren't getting what you want. This works exceptionally well at building empathy with support folks. At one point in my life I missed about 50% of my flights, every time I'd be in line behind someone who complained about how slow security was, or the bag check, and they'd just get shut down. Every time I just asked if there was anything they could do to help me out given how absent minded I was for arriving late and not being prepared and I usually got the next flight out for free. Anyways, punch up, use the system to your advantage, but don't direct your ire towards support teams when they fail. Also, if they've done a bad job it sends a better signal to fill out those NPS/CSAT surveys you get after the support interaction with a low score. This stuff will make it to execs, and comments that are left are often read thoroughly.

malandrew 5y ago
First thanks for your response > A theme of how you describe your interactions was to throw the support team under the bus, and/or highlight their failures to help you when interacting with an executive. I left out a lot of details, which I know means that a lot of assumptions will necessarily be made. I think you're reading into my comment something I didn't do. To give more details on the interaction. There was no phone support, only email and support took almost 2 weeks to response to my dilemma, which exceeded the response time expected by US Customs and the stuff I purchased was returned. They didn't respond to 3 additional requests within that two week period. When they finally responded, they couldn't solve the problem. The only real failure of the support team was that they were grossly understaffed. There's no reason for two week wait times, especially for a customer that just placed an order for multiple thousands of dollars which they charged the customer for when it was shipped, not delivered. When I reached out to the executive to explain the problem. They only fault I gave to support was stating that they must be grossly understaffed if the response times were as long as they were. In my message, I placed the responsibility for fixing that particular issue of understaffing on the executive in question (head of ecommerce). Other issues that needed attention was how they were handling international fulfillment was causing them defects and costing them probably $100 or more per defect on shipments to the United States. I had already reached out to the partner company they worked with and was in contact with that company's United States CEO. Together we figured out the issue and I was relaying the fixes to the head of ecommerce for the company so he could fix the problem at the root because the buck stopped with him. I was solving a very real problem for them that was costing them money and I did all the research into the fix and provided the person who was ultimately responsible with fixes. I did this because I was trying to fix the problem myself during those two weeks before US customs sent my order back. Passing the buck when it's your job and a customer has figured out the problem and handed you the solution on a silver platter is highly unprofessional. Regarding your recomendation to use the system. It's a good one and one I'm familiar with. I use it often, but in my original example above I did not because the system in question had no interfaces to interact with besides a support email. There was no phone system, no chat system, not brick and mortar store, no support agents, etc. It was a system with a single interface that provided no interactivity (I can't dial 0 or ask to speak with the right person). The only interfaces available were that email address, US Customs and the shipping company. Has there been interfaces that could be probed and exploited to solve the problem, yes, I totally agree with your approach.

malandrew 5y ago

First thanks for your response > A theme of how you describe your interactions was to throw the support team under the bus, and/or highlight their failures to help you when interacting with an executive. I left out a lot of details, which I know means that a lot of assumptions will necessarily be made. I think you're reading into my comment something I didn't do. To give more details on the interaction. There was no phone support, only email and support took almost 2 weeks to response to my dilemma, which exceeded the response time expected by US Customs and the stuff I purchased was returned. They didn't respond to 3 additional requests within that two week period. When they finally responded, they couldn't solve the problem. The only real failure of the support team was that they were grossly understaffed. There's no reason for two week wait times, especially for a customer that just placed an order for multiple thousands of dollars which they charged the customer for when it was shipped, not delivered. When I reached out to the executive to explain the problem. They only fault I gave to support was stating that they must be grossly understaffed if the response times were as long as they were. In my message, I placed the responsibility for fixing that particular issue of understaffing on the executive in question (head of ecommerce). Other issues that needed attention was how they were handling international fulfillment was causing them defects and costing them probably $100 or more per defect on shipments to the United States. I had already reached out to the partner company they worked with and was in contact with that company's United States CEO. Together we figured out the issue and I was relaying the fixes to the head of ecommerce for the company so he could fix the problem at the root because the buck stopped with him. I was solving a very real problem for them that was costing them money and I did all the research into the fix and provided the person who was ultimately responsible with fixes. I did this because I was trying to fix the problem myself during those two weeks before US customs sent my order back. Passing the buck when it's your job and a customer has figured out the problem and handed you the solution on a silver platter is highly unprofessional. Regarding your recomendation to use the system. It's a good one and one I'm familiar with. I use it often, but in my original example above I did not because the system in question had no interfaces to interact with besides a support email. There was no phone system, no chat system, not brick and mortar store, no support agents, etc. It was a system with a single interface that provided no interactivity (I can't dial 0 or ask to speak with the right person). The only interfaces available were that email address, US Customs and the shipping company. Has there been interfaces that could be probed and exploited to solve the problem, yes, I totally agree with your approach.