When car-service technicians service your car, are they servicing the car itself or its owner? I ask this because I took my car in yesterday and, during a 15-minute wait at the counter, I noticed a stack of 'customer evaluations' of the auto technicians that the HR manager must have temporarily placed on the counter. OK, I'm a bit sleuth-like, so I glanced out of the corner of my eye to read, among things, the criteria by which auto mechanics are evaluated.
The form was far more interesting than any of the comments that customers had supplied. You want to know what it asked?
It asked whether the time spent in line was reasonable. OK, nothing to do with cars. Whether the service agent was courteous. Hm. Noticing a theme here? Not whether the car got the best possible mechanic. . . .
Guess what else? Whether the promised time for return of the vehicle was reasonable and whether the vehicle was returned within the promised time. Now how's that for caring for my car? They want to make sure that my car doesn't miss me, right? Well, not exactly.
There was not a single question on the evaluation dealing with a mechanical issue. Nor should there be. The mechanic knows how a car goes and what broke - I don't. All I know is it doesn't work. Its broke. Fix it.
Let's move to therapy - getting a little closer to the heart of the matter (although my car is close to my heart, let me tell you: it doesn't argue with me, I feed it and it takes me where I want to go comfortably - OK, its not a horse, but then, I'd have to deal with its stubbornness as well as its charm, right?). A psychotherapist is an expert at what - psychology. I went to a seminar today on psychology and the law, and you know what the speaker said? (the truth, of course). The speaker said that it DOES NOT MATTER whether what the patient says is objectively true (I know, sorry lawyers and judges, this one really hurts). Their role is to treat the patient, not determine whether the patient is right or wrong.
OK, now let's move one more logical step: to the lawyer. Does it matter whether the lawyer uses the proper syntax in the document that leaves the conditional remainder beneficial interest to some arcane split-interest trust? Or, does it matter that the lawyer promised a reasonable service within a reasonable period of time, delivered that service, and did so without any "objective" analysis into whether what you were doing was right or wrong? Another lob over the plate . . . .
So my resolution for 2008 is to focus more on the problems of the people in my office. As much as it is important that I put the correct proverbial spark plug in the car, I'd like to send out a customer survey like my car mechanic's: did I correctly promise, did we deliver, and did we do it - like the therapist - by making our clients feel great in the process. Pretty simple stuff.
Comments