Being In Charge When There Is No Benefit

by:

Joe Patti

Seth Godin recently made a post that resonated with me. He wrote about how in large organizations and bureaucracies things often fall through the cracks partially because no one is specifically in charge of something and people have learned not to exert themselves to take charge.

Sooner or later, we say, “I’d love to fix this, but I’m not in charge of that.”

Perhaps, though, we’ve been conditioned to say this even when it’s not true. Because being in charge means being responsible, and we may have learned that being on the hook is uncomfortable.

And so, sooner or later, no one is in charge.

But he says this sort of organizational inertia doesn’t just exist for large groups:

But it’s not just giant organizations. It’s the little pocket park down the street from you that no one takes the time to clean, or the missing stop sign that no one agitated to have replaced…

The good news is that we have the option to be responsible for far more than we imagine.

It was the bit about the packet park and stop sign that caught my attention. There is a crosswalk signal near work that was always a little askew. I assumed it was that way so that the sun wouldn’t completely wash out the visibility of the signal. However, after a recent wind storm one signal was pointed diagonally across the intersection and the other was best viewed from a coffee shop and bank about 30 feet before the intersection.

Last week I took pictures on the way back from lunch and sent an email to a city engineer and the whole thing was fixed before I left for work that evening.

Obviously, this is partially an illustration of it being important who you know. In this case I had been in numerous meetings with this particular city engineer discussing the impact of a major road construction project which is going to close our street and sidewalk and displace public art for a number of months.

At the time I also credited her being so friendly and accessible with contributing to the ability to increase the safety of that intersection. As much as I have met with her over the last year, if I hadn’t felt comfortable approaching her about the problem, it would still continue to be an issue today making that intersection more hazardous to cross, including for myself. I had no idea what city department handled crosswalk signals, but I knew she would know. In fact, since the signal is at the intersection of a state and city street, even she didn’t know which entity was responsible and had to ask.

As Godin writes, I contributed to the fix by taking responsibility myself. For years I have been inclined to pick up merchant’s A-frame signs that have fallen down on the sidewalk, flipped floor mats back into place so people wouldn’t slip or trip on them, and reconnected down spouts so that water wouldn’t run across the sidewalk creating a slip hazard.

For me it is a matter of a rising tide raises all boats. If the neighborhood I operate in thrives and is perceived as tidy and safe, that is to my benefit.

But as I note, even for someone inclined to do that lack of knowledge and a feeling that the solution is inaccessible will inhibit my action. So I think it isn’t just a matter of having the option to be responsible that Godin mentions, but also creating an environment organizationally and personally in which people feel comfortable approaching you looking for solutions to problems.

Some Thoughts On Why Customers Complain

by:

Joe Patti

To expand a little on yesterday’s post about the customer always being right, Seth Godin recently made a post about why people complain.

One of the reasons he cites is, of course, to effect some sort of change. But he also identifies the following reasons:

    Here are some others:

    -to bond with others through shared experiences of dissatisfaction

    -to let off steam

    -to signal group affiliation

    -to create hope that things might get better

    -to increase one’s status by selfishly demanding more

    -to gain affiliation by complaining on behalf of someone else

    -to gain status by demanding more for others who can’t speak up

    -to validate our feelings by seeking acknowledgment from others that their grievance is legitimate

    -to preemptively lower expectations or manage blame

    -to conceal our fear or embarrassment

    -to avoid responsibility by pointing to someone else

    -to establish dominance or control in a situation

      It can be worth considering that we often don’t know the motivations behind complaints. Often people legitimately want to bring about some sort of change or resolution. Other times the endgame might be an increase in status or affiliation in the estimation of others or perhaps even for oneself.

      In one of my early posts which I can’t find with the blog search function I noted that while people may be used to the idea of a money back guarantee, it isn’t a refund they really want when they register a complaint at a performing arts event. That is just sort of a default concept that has circulated.

      If you have spent time getting dressed, going to dinner, finding parking, perhaps arranging for a babysitter, a refund probably isn’t going to provide actual satisfaction unless you are motivated by a desire to establish dominance, lower expectations, or perhaps manage blame for problems you have created. Even then getting the money back isn’t as important as having gotten compliance.

      In that original post I had advised finding other solutions to resolve a person’s complaints than sending them home with their cash back. Despite not being able to find the post, I know that is what I advised because I have been operating under that philosophy for decades. To a certain extent Godin’s list somewhat solidifies that approach for me because he lists even more reasons for complaints than I had conceived of which may be more important for the complainer to achieve than getting the money back.

      But the range of solutions you need to offer may need to be broader than just offering vouchers to other performances or drink tickets. If someone is complaining to advocate for things like greater accessibility for themselves or others, the changes they seek may be more significant.

      The Customer Is Always Right…

      by:

      Joe Patti

      I have been seeing a number of claims that the full quote ends with “…in matters of taste.” As much as I would love that to be true given that retailers have been bludgeoned with the phrase over the years, it apparently is not. While Harry Selfridge is credited with creating The Customer is always right, there is no record of him completing it with a sentiment about taste.

      Reinforces the idea that you always need to research such things before taking them at face value. Which is apt because according to wikipedia, the saying was used to create a sense of confidence in people at a time when caveat emptor, let the buyer beware, was the maxim of the day because malpresentation was so rampant.

      While the phrase is attributed to various people, the intent was to assure customers in the early 1900s that the merchant would work to guarantee their satisfaction.

      About 10-15 years later, various people were already observing that customers were taking advantage of the saying to bully merchants and engaging in a little misrepresentation of their own. So it has continued for over a century as witnessed by the fact that people are trying to append a few more words to the saying to create a counternarrative.

      Certainly, more than a century later there is also plenty of misrepresentation coming at us through various media to warrant the use of caveat emptor as well.

      Perhaps it is time for a new saying that both tempers customer demands and urges a degree of discernment before purchasing.

      Varying How You Make Donation Appeals

      by:

      Joe Patti

      Short, interesting piece in the Chronicle of Philanthropy discussed research that found when non-profits varied their messaging on Facebook, they received more donations.

      They are careful to say that these results may only hold true for Facebook as a social media platform and that they didn’t factor in other fundraising activities like direct mail.

      They looked at 752 organizations which participated in a one day Omaha Gives fundraising events in 2015 and 2020.

      The types of messaging the researchers categorized were:

      Beneficiaries: Explaining how the group helps people.

      Goals: Encouraging donors to help reach a fundraising goal.

      Gratitude: Thanking donors for their gifts.

      Mission: Focusing on how the organization helps people.

      Social media engagement: Asking donors to share the post or change their profile picture to boost the campaign.

      Solicitation: Asking for donations.

      […]

      In addition to determining that using different types of messaging works best, we found that when nonprofits frequently share messages of gratitude or that highlight progress toward their goals, they tend to raise more money than if they just ask for donations.

      Obviously your mileage may vary as they say. Similar efforts on Facebook may not yield the same results in 2025. Five years is an eternity in social media years. Also the fundraising dynamics in Omaha may not be the same in other regions of the country.

      One of the theories the researchers had was that varying the messaging helped reduce donor fatigue by not always using the same appeal language in every post.