Why Don’t We Let Customer Service Agents Actually Think?

Customer service leaders repeatedly stress the need to improve agent engagement and better the customer experience, yet their live phone and chat reps are often advised to behave in ways that undermine both endeavors.

At every turn, agents are encouraged to adhere to a rigid, repetitive structure for dealing with customers—and rigidity is hardly the best way to provide meaningful, personalized service for an infinitely-diverse customer base. Customers are going to believe firmly in the validity of their specific, varied issues and concerns; if the agents are truly customer-centric, should they not consistently strive to recognize the value of and adapt their responses to this variety?

The real kicker is that unlike many other customer service pitfalls, this "robotic" concept is not simply a product of customer service leaders who would be deemed universally "bad" within the industry. So-called "forward-thinking" call center leaders push solutions like speech analytics and internal knowledgebase sharing, which while effective at improving response time and agent confidence, only serve to reinforce the idea of a "company line" and a "correct" response to most customer issues.

By no means should organizations be striving for the opposite—completely-customized resolutions for each caller. An organization’s "proper" customer service solutions are standard for a reason, and consistently providing customers with these workable, satisfactory responses is not an inherently-terrible strategy. From a logistics standpoint, "custom solutions" would often require management approval at every turn, adding inefficiency and delays to a process that can already be quite taxing and annoying for both customers and employees.

Organizations should, however, assure their agents understand the standard policies and can flexibly link these resolutions to the myriad of customer inquiries, concerns and complaints. No customer service agent can be expected to provide every customer with that customer’s vision for the perfect solution, but all should be able to justify the standard policies and explain how they appropriately address the concerns of the customer.

When customers call strictly for information, they love reaching robot agents who can recite every policy word-for-world. But when they call with a complaint or a disagreement with the standard policy, they end up more frustrated since the agent would rather parrot back the company’s PR speak than intellectually analyze the nature of the complaint and explain why the company’s response is the way it is. If the policy truly warrants being the company standard, should not all reps be able to justify it?

Recently, I encountered some examples of customer service departments and representatives that demonstrated either a refusal or an inability to actually think about the nature of my correspondence and how to appropriately answer the question. My issue does not stem from the fact that the companies were wrong, and I, in fact, expect some readers to feel I was in the wrong. My issue is instead over the fact that the reps could not justify or explain their unintuitive policies and thus effectively dismissed requests I felt were legitimate—the opposite of a customer-centric strategy.

To return or not to return?
Having spent $1800 on a stunning new LED television with bundled 3D accessories, I could not have more greatly anticipated a delivery.

Unfortunately, the TV arrived damaged, and the delivery crew retained the package for return shipping. Since I assumed I would quickly receive a replacement, I kept the included accessories (they were in a separate box) and reached out to the company to confirm it was immediately going to ship out the new TV.

Long story short, it didn’t. A customer service disappointment in its own right, the company seemed to be dragging its feet on the re-shipment, and after three business days, it still could not confirm a shipping or arrival date. I could no longer tolerate the ambiguity and delay—I cancelled the order.

Feeling as if she no longer had anything to gain from our relationship, the customer service correspondent became "all business" and basically left it on me to re-ship the accessories (little instructions, no reimbursement, etc). Fair enough—though this was another sign of weak customer service, it is not as if I can get too mad at the company for not making a return/refund exchange easy.

But because shipping can be a hassle and because I could use the 3D accessories on the alternative TV I ended up buying from a local retailer, I considered keeping the accessory kit and deducting their full retail value (plus whatever shipping the merchant felt I owed) from my expected reimbursement. When I posed this idea to the customer service rep, she quickly shot it down, "No. You wouldn’t be able to do that since it was sold as a bundle."

I asked why and received the same, "You’re not allowed to do that." No explanation. No "This bundle was specifically arranged by the manufacturer"—nothing to explain this seemingly inane policy.

After all, if I paid full retail plus shipping, I would be negating any impact of the bundle. In fact, I would actually be getting a raw deal, since paying full retail for the accessories would assume that the entirety of the bundle discount applied to the television (in reality, the accessories also would be absorbing some of the discount, which means they are worth less than full retail to the seller). An ‘inventory issue’ would similarly not make sense since the accessories sell as a standard retail item and come in their original packaging.

None of these questions or issues received any response from the rep, who seemed content to repeat "You can’t buy part of a bundle" (even though I can easily buy part of that bundle by going on the website and buying the part I want). Even if my viewpoint is ultimately wrong, the agent could not articulate my error, and instead just revealed that she could not be bothered to even understand my issue.

And, so, instead of only having to refund $1550 and keeping a customer satisfied, the agent is now on the hook for $1800 and a perturbed customer.

Credit crunch
Knowing I no longer had the television and had to return the 3D stuff, I now faced another issue—the credit card statement. Between shipping and processing, there was virtually no way my refund was to post ahead of the due date. So, I had a dilemma—do I pay the $1800 statement to avoid charges, having already spent an additional $1800 on the alternative television I bought and knowing I would eventually get the money back? Or, do I not pay the statement and risk charges if the refund does not come through in time?

Through live chat, I contacted the bank’s customer support team to advise them of the issue. The crux of the response was, We have not received confirmation of the refund, so we still show you owing the $1800. You must pay by the due date to avoid finance charges. Maybe I was collectively self-centered and naðve to think the bank would make an exception given the circumstances, but I at least expected the service rep to understand my dilemma. She refused to engage in logical discourse and "talk it out" and was, like the TV merchant rep, content simply to reiterate the policy.

This infuriated me. I’ve lost plenty (well, some) of arguments in public forums—I have no problem being "wrong" or getting "schooled" in an debate. I do, however, have an issue with a customer service team brushing aside my concern as "unimportant" because discussing it would require them to engage in some actual thought and analysis. You know, show they actually care about a customer.

I kept trying to get her to explain the policy, always to no avail. I noted, "Since I do not have the goods for which I originally paid, technically, I don’t owe this merchant any money. If I wanted to, I could simply request that the bank refuse payment to the merchant and be off the hook for the charges. Thus, whether or not the refund comes through, I will ultimately not have to pay the $1800. So, the bank should have no problem disclaiming my responsibility for this $1800 on the statement."

Whether she was being snarky or ignorant, her response was, "Would you like to file a dispute against the charge?" Again, if the customer is "always right," shouldn’t she at least respond to my contention?

She also refused to consider another point: if this $1800 was eventually going to come back to me, then my payment on the due date would technically be a loan to the bank. As a loan, it would be subject to whatever interest rate I personally felt was appropriate. She would not confirm that the bank would pay me interest on top of the $1800 when it eventually issued the credit.

Again, it might be naðve to expect a credit card company or bank to prioritize a specific customer’s issues over its enforced due dates and finance charges. But it is neither naðve nor illogical to expect the bank to empathize with the situation and understand why the concern is relevant. The customer service team at this bank simply did not care, and I will hesitate to use this particular card in the future.

Just Let Them Think!
This tendency to promote robotic agents is not a one-off experience. It’s a phenomenon—a way of life for so many customer service departments. At cable companies, agents can rarely muster a customer-centric reason why a bundle with phone, cable and Internet is cheaper than a plan with just cable and Internet. At computer companies, live chat representatives do not comprehend inquiries from customers who wonder why certain hard drive and video card options have been discontinued. In-store clerks often fail to properly analyze the extenuating circumstances behind a product return that technically violates policy.

Customers always want to get their way; often, you have to refuse. When you do, at least let them know that you took a second to analyze their issues.

Of course, maybe you don't trust your agents to think, and that's a problem. Learn the best strategies for keeping your agents engaged, trustworthy and capable of real, customer-friendly dialogue with your audience--the best and the brighest customer management leaders share their wisdom at the Call Center Summit.