Quote:
Originally Posted by ApK
Focusing on the example: If the policy allows for the change of address, and rep doesn't accommodate the customer, then the rep SHOULD be asked about it. If the rep says they were told not to do it, then the 'escalation' should determine if that was true or if some retraining is needed.
If the policy DOESN'T allow for it, then do you really think, in the context of this quote, Bezos is bragging about sending emails to people who FOLLOWED policy? I see it far more likely (with equally little evidence except for context) that If such an in-policy complaint got the '?' treatment it would be directed to the manager who created the policy.
|
Oh, no, don't go changing the central point. You said that CSRs doing what they are told to do are failing because they are following instructions. You even used the the phrase "Just following orders," insinuating that they're not just incompetent but actually evil, akin to those who would herd people into cattle cars. Now you want to make it about whether or not they actually did follow instructions.
In my experience, there are always plenty of management drones willing to tell us we're doing something wrong when we're doing what we've been instructed to do. Furthermore, given that I work in a highly-regulated industry, doing anything that has not been approved by the lawyers risks violating a whole bunch of laws. Nothing I deal with involves anybody who is in danger, no lives at risk. Mostly people want me to go against procedure so they can have what they want faster. This is usually due to waiting till the last minute to contact me. Their failure to plan does not constitute my emergency.