How to Balance Standards - Work and Personal
-
@handsofqwerty said:
And because the customers don't normally get that from a retail store and I feel they should.
Tough. Not your place, in any way, to make that decision.
It would be a wonderful world where that was the case, but you aren't going to make that world happen and you don't have the ethical right to demand that it be done without the store's blessing. You are actually going against good ethics rather than with them. You have ethical obligations to the store, not the customer, and you are trying to short circuit that in a way that makes no sense and doesn't hold up in any sensible, ethical way.
-
@handsofqwerty said:
Yes, it's my standard, not the company's.
There is a lot of "my" in all of this. Stop, think. If you keep saying "my standards" and "how I want it to be" and "I feel it should be this way", everyone one of those is a red flag. You know that you aren't doing what you are supposed to be doing. What all of these things say, and what has always been your recurring problem is that when it comes to your obligations and responsibilities you say I don't care. That's what these statements say.
You say things like "you care about the customers", but you have no responsibility to them. You do have a responsibility to your employer and what you are saying with this statement is that "you don't care about your responsibilities to them."
-
If you want to have a retail shop and have happy customers and provide them with great guidance, that's wonderful. There is a path for that.... it is called opening your own store. If you think that customers will pay for good service like that good luck, because if they did IT people all over would jump on that bandwagon. But if that's what you want, you need to do that on your own and not accept a job with responsibilities and obligations to someone paying you and try to do what you want to do instead of what you are hired to do.
-
OMG I just had this vision of a store called "Crazy AJ's" with billboards down the freeway with a picture of AJ's head and a laptop floating beside him and some weird slogan.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Obviously, but they are also violating the social contract of sales - asking for technical advice from a sales person. They know that they are doing this when they go in. It's just part of the social structure. When you go to a store and "ask for advice", you know that you are not getting good advice except for within a very carefully defined, socially accepted window and that even that is coloured by margins, stock levels, etc.
I would argue this pint, not in agreement withAJ, but in respect to how bad people really are.
Warning, opinion incoming!!
The general population honestly has no clue how shit works. They walk in to a store and ask advice for a computer with not even an inkling that the person they are talking to is a sales person and not a technical person.
General consumers do not have this knowledge, ever. How can you even imply people "know this" going in whenever among IT professionals, we see this every day?
-
@JaredBusch said:
The general population honestly has no clue how shit works. They walk in to a store and ask advice for a computer with not even an inkling that the person they are talking to is a sales person and not a technical person.
I don't go for this distinction between sales and technical, as I've argued a million times before with @scottalanmiller. I don't want to go over old ground, but just to say that in this case, they are getting good technical advice from AJ, so the general population are doing right by asking his advice.
I get advice from retailers about hi-fi as it's not an area where I have any expertise but I like music. I go to specific retailers whose business model is based on building a good reputation for technical advice which allows them to charge a slight premium and encourages repeat business. It's crucial for hi-fi retailers since without their reputation for unbiased technical advice, I'd be better off buying from Amazon and saving a few bucks. The store employs the hi-fi equivalent of AJ - people who are simply passionate about the products and passionate about making customers happy. This is something that seems to be happening with AJ's store, even though I'm guessing its not something normally associated with Staples (we have a Staples in my town and I'd eat my own arm before taking advice from the spotty adolescents I've seen "giving advice" to customers, you'd get more expertise from my 10 year old son).
Just because AJ's tech supervisor doesn't like it, doesn't mean AJ is wrong. His supervisor could just be an idiot for all we know.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
Just because AJ's tech supervisor doesn't like it, doesn't mean AJ is wrong. His supervisor could just be an idiot for all we know.
It's his boss, so AJ is going against the policy of the store as they are portraying it to him.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Obviously, but they are also violating the social contract of sales - asking for technical advice from a sales person. They know that they are doing this when they go in. It's just part of the social structure. When you go to a store and "ask for advice", you know that you are not getting good advice except for within a very carefully defined, socially accepted window and that even that is coloured by margins, stock levels, etc.
I would argue this pint, not in agreement withAJ, but in respect to how bad people really are.
Warning, opinion incoming!!
The general population honestly has no clue how shit works. They walk in to a store and ask advice for a computer with not even an inkling that the person they are talking to is a sales person and not a technical person.
General consumers do not have this knowledge, ever. How can you even imply people "know this" going in whenever among IT professionals, we see this every day?
Because my argument is that people are not really that dumb and are just lazy or hopeful that somehow they will get good advice by doing nothing and spending nothing. I give people credit for being more intelligent. If you take the computers out of the equation and you go into a car dealer, the social contract is the same but no one tries to pretend that you are going to get good advice. A salesman's job is to sell things, not to give guidance. At the end of the day, they are paid purely through moving product - and everyone knows this and knows what it means.
When you set foot into a Chevy dealer, everyone knows that the guy who works there is going to attempt to sell you a Chevy, not to determine if a Ford, or a boat, is a better choice for your needs. There is never an obligation for the Chevy salesman to be a transportation consultant, and it would be incredibly silly for someone to expect such.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
This is something that seems to be happening with AJ's store, even though I'm guessing its not something normally associated with Staples (we have a Staples in my town and I'd eat my own arm before taking advice from the spotty adolescents I've seen "giving advice" to customers, you'd get more expertise from my 10 year old son).
From the description, this is something going on at the store only when it is AJ doing the work and not something that the store itself is fostering nor supporting nor doing when AJ isn't doing the work. And when AJ moves on, the store will lack this, we must presume.
There can always be a rogue person who decided to not act in their own self interest or in the interest of their implied obligations. Generally they do not last long, however, for the obvious reasons. In this example, AJ has been back less than a year and is moving on in a few weeks.
-
@handsofqwerty said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@handsofqwerty said:
My job is to make the customer happy and the company money. My sales accomplish both.
Is that official policy or an assumption? Is it in writing?
No, that's policy. We push for warranties and tech work because it's very profitable for the company, and honestly it's also in the customer's best interest. Also, we are to make customer's happy because that affects CSAT scores and the like.
By all measures I've seen warranties are only good for the companies, and rarely good for the customers - A $20 warranty on a $100 part that 95% of the time will continue to work well beyond the warranty period is not good for the customer. Oh sure, it's good for that 5% who can take advantage of it, but for the rest it's a complete waste.
-
@handsofqwerty said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@handsofqwerty said:
- provide quality technical work, and that means quality from a professional standpoint, not a corporate one
Again, is this in writing from the company?
No, their standards are the corporate ones. I meet those and exceed them. But by doing that, I've built the long-term business and I've got a huge list of customers as proof of that.
I'm with Scott here, where is the actual written policy that states this is your job?
-
@handsofqwerty said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@handsofqwerty said:
No, I'm signing off that the work is completed to both the company's standards and mine.
Where does it state that it is to your standards? Is that in writing? Unless it is, I feel you have made this up completely because you want it to be the case.
There is nothing in writing about that Scott. But the difference between shoddy and good tech work in many cases isn't spelled out word for word at most companies. But someone who's technical can tell the difference.
You're wanting to update the software on the systems that aren't part of your work order it actually probably costing the company money. Instead of moving onto the next computer and fixing what the company was paid to fix, your wasting the companies time giving something away for free. If the company felt it was prudent to update those software packages, they would probably make up a new policy/process that included them, and most likely at the same time either simply publish this fact to make the customer feel better about their purchase, or raise rates to cover this added time, or both.
Arguably you're stealing from the company by spending their time, the time they are paying you, to do a job the didn't ask you to do.
I think Scott hit the nail on the head - you don't work for the customer of the store, you work for the store.
This makes me think of the movie A Knight's Tale - when Thatcher is asked by the maiden to loose. Of course he wanted to say no because originally he felt that his customer was himself and possibly the crowd (who of course wanted to see him win). But when he realize his real customer (OK I might be reaching a bit) was the maiden, he had to back down and start losing.
-
@Dashrender said:
By all measures I've seen warranties are only good for the companies, and rarely good for the customers - A $20 warranty on a $100 part that 95% of the time will continue to work well beyond the warranty period is not good for the customer. Oh sure, it's good for that 5% who can take advantage of it, but for the rest it's a complete waste.
The only time that I believe warranties (or insurance) makes sense is when it is protecting against a unique event or failure that is so great that a single person or family cannot shoulder a catastrophic failure on their own. That means that home, car and health insurance may make sense because we are splitting the risks of catastrophic disaster amongst many people. This is why insurance against hurting others with your car is very much needed (risk is easily into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, or millions) but insuring your car against damage generally is not.
The difference is, with items we purchase regularly and many times during our lifetime, we effectively can self insure for a smaller cost and with more flexibility and without having to fight ourselves for a payoff for cheaper. Even with cars this is generally (but not always) true. But with computers, it almost always is. The cost of a warranty on each computer that you buy would allow you to replace the computers that you destroy using the cost of the warranty or less.
Or another way to look at it.... in catastrophic situations, the value of the warranty is that it spreads risk amongst many people to protect an individual from disaster. But in the case of buying computers the risk is not spread out among many people, but among many purchases by the same consumer over time. So they are effectively not lowering the risk by individual but simply shifting the risk over time. But warranties are more expensive than self insuring (generally by a wide margin) and carry risks (maybe they will refuse to pay out, maybe the warranty just expired, maybe you can't find your paperwork, etc.)
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Now, why anyone would still ask for that advice is beyond me, but everyone is aware of the relationship and what it means for you, for them and for the kind of advice that can be given.
This is where I have say - while everyone MIGHT understand this when you sit down with them one on one and give them this full explanation - but I think reality clearly shows that very few people actually ever want into a store and consciously understand this. They are probably closer to this understanding when they walk into a single vendor store, like an Apple store or a Chevy dealer, but when they walk into a Best Buy - yeah I bet if you polled 100 people that 80%+ would probably tell you they expect the sales person to tell them which widget is really the best for the money, etc and that recommendation should have no barring on the company.
Of course, just because those 80% believe this doesn't make it so. I'm not sure if you, Scott, actually believe the consumer thinks this way or should think this way?
-
@Dashrender said:
Of course, just because those 80% believe this doesn't make it so. I'm not sure if you, Scott, actually believe the consumer thinks this way or should think this way?
Well I certainly believe that they should, of course. But I also believe that they do, just they have not thought about it enough to articulate it. But if you ask careful questions I think you would get them to consciously respond with this answer, within reason.
I'm not suggesting that all or even normal salespeople are out to screw anyone - while I believe very, very strongly in this social contract I also use that term because I feel it is critical in understanding that the salesperson is doing absolutely nothing wrong and acting ethically and as everyone understands that they should (even if they have not thought about putting it into words.)
Things that I believe everyone knows and would confirm if asked correctly:
- That the salesman is employed by the store.
- That the store makes all of its money through sales.
- That the salesman also makes off of his money through sales (whether commission or salary, doesn't matter.)
- That the salesman is a representative of the store.
- That different products have different profit margins (this one I feel is more debatable as to common knowledge.)
- That the store has limited products that it sells (often only what is in the store or on its website.)
- That the salesman and the store can only sell the items that the store has.
- That the salesman has an obligation to his employer to do the job he is hired to do.
- That the store has a business obligation to make money.
- That the salesman will only sell products from the store (or its online equivalent, whatever.)
- That the salesman is a salesman and paid only through sales.
And in nearly all cases I think you would get people to agree with these:
- Salesman are not technical experts and have little access to that kind of training.
- Salesman are often young and inexperienced. (Everyone has a niece or nephew or kids who do these jobs it seems. We almost all see this from both sides, even if we have not done these jobs ourselves.)
- Salesman generally (when we are talking consumer items) earn a very low wage, much smaller than that of experts in their field.
-
People understand all of the components that make salespeople act the way that they do, I believe. I've almost never met someone who claimed to expect a salesperson to act in a different way, many just don't care. And that's fine, it's up to the individual.
Salespeople have an important role to play and add a lot of value. Go into Staples and you need someone to tell you what comes in the box, which features are included, help you choose between two models that the store sells, etc.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
Just because AJ's tech supervisor doesn't like it, doesn't mean AJ is wrong. His supervisor could just be an idiot for all we know.
While I agreed with most of the first part of what you said, this quoted part I completely disagree with you on. AJ in this case is wrong - as long as what AJ's boss is asking him to do is legal, AJ should be doing exactly that. Doing more and then being told to stop doing that more and continuing to do so anyway - means he's disrespectful and unable to take instruction and should probably be let go. You are there to do the legal job you are told to do. Period.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
The store employs the hi-fi equivalent of AJ - people who are simply passionate about the products and passionate about making customers happy.
I've used some of these stores too, quite extensively. But I always knew that the staff were ultimately salespeople and would always encourage me to buy stuff (which I did) and would limit recommendations to things that they sold. Within those confines of accepted social obligations, often they were extremely helpful (if and only if I carefully selected only the very highest end stores with epic profit margins on the gear - every other store in the region was staffed with clueless people who had no ability to assist.) But it didn't change the basics, they were still trying to sell things and only the things that they stocked.
One of the differences is that a very high end shop (of any type) will select what they sell as part of the value. A really good shop will sell gear that most generally will not. When you go into a Best Buy, for example, they don't carry high end gear, so there is little way to have passionate people working there because they don't sell the stuff people would be passionate about.
-
@Dashrender said:
@Carnival-Boy said:
Just because AJ's tech supervisor doesn't like it, doesn't mean AJ is wrong. His supervisor could just be an idiot for all we know.
While I agreed with most of the first part of what you said, this quoted part I completely disagree with you on. AJ in this case is wrong - as long as what AJ's boss is asking him to do is legal, AJ should be doing exactly that. Doing more and then being told to stop doing that more and continuing to do so anyway - means he's disrespectful and unable to take instruction and should probably be let go. You are there to do the legal job you are told to do. Period.
Exactly. Unless, of course, a higher up authority reverses this decision. Any given manager, lead, supervisor could be wrong. But there is opportunity for verification and correction. That is not forthcoming, however. Which once they decide not to correct it, means it is correct, at least for the time being.
Would you want employees deciding that you are an idiot and they should decide how to do their jobs even after you have explicitly told them not to do something in a certain way? What if they think that they know more than you do? What if they go to your boss and try to get clarification (I believe you stated that you do not appreciate if this happens.)
If you don't feel that AJ should go through his immediate boss to his boss' boss, then I would say the buck has stopped and the decision is clear.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Well I certainly believe that they should, of course. But I also believe that they do, just they have not thought about it enough to articulate it.
If they haven't thought enough to articulate it, what makes you believe that they've considered it at all?
Things that I believe everyone knows and would confirm if asked correctly:
- That the salesman is employed by the store.
- That the store makes all of its money through sales.
- That the salesman also makes off of his money through sales (whether commission or salary, doesn't matter.)
- That the salesman is a representative of the store.
- That different products have different profit margins (this one I feel is more debatable as to common knowledge.)
- That the store has limited products that it sells (often only what is in the store or on its website.)
- That the salesman and the store can only sell the items that the store has.
- That the store has a business obligation to make money.
- That the salesman will only sell products from the store (or its online equivalent, whatever.)
- That the salesman is a salesman and paid only through sales.
I agree with all of these, people pretty much probably realize these things without even really a conscious thought.
But this one- That the salesman has an obligation to his employer to do the job he is hired to do.
While of course they know this to be true as well, but we as consumers don't know what the sales person is hired to do, other than sell us stuff - but it could also be, to steer their customers toward the highest profit margin items possible, the consumer just doesn't know.
And in nearly all cases I think you would get people to agree with these:
- Salesman are not technical experts and have little access to that kind of training.
- Salesman are often young and inexperienced. (Everyone has a niece or nephew or kids who do these jobs it seems. We almost all see this from both sides, even if we have not done these jobs ourselves.)
- Salesman generally (when we are talking consumer items) earn a very low wage, much smaller than that of experts in their field.
I'm not sure you'll get most people to agree with this. But then again you might.
