Consistency is Key in Ensuring Top-Notch Customer Service Reputation
Jordan Kelly • 14 October 2024

Good Customer Service, Without Consistency, Isn't Good Customer Service

No company or organisation can claim to provide excellent (or even, 'good') customer service, unless that standard of service is provided across the entire enterprise, and with a high degree of consistency.


There are two aspects to that consistency:


(1) A customer service culture i.e. consistency in service standards across the entire enterprise, and


(2)  Consistency at the level of the frontline individual - every customer-facing individual.


If an enterprise has a customer-centric culture, it both encourages, and makes it easier, for the individual frontliner to provide top-notch customer service. It’s an attitude with which the entire organisation is infused, and all departments and teams comprising it.


It’s also an expectation from all levels of management. If it’s really working well, it’s a modus operandi shared within each and every peer group comprising the organisation - whether they be customer-facing, administrative, back-of-house, logistics-supporting, or whatever.


The same principle applies to each frontline representative of the organisation, at the individual level: If a customer-facing staff member or representative has “service” baked into their personal ethos, standards and personality, then their customer service performance is naturally high. It’s their personal default setting. Their natural centre of gravity.


When Organisational Culture & Individual Service Standards Are Misaligned


Flipping the above equation:  It should be recognised that diligent, customer-focused frontliners can be challenged in their delivery of great service, if there’s inconsistency in the organisation’s internal messaging about customer service standards.


For example, let’s say a company’s brand messaging and broader forms of advertising lay claim to excellence in customer service. But that external messaging doesn’t match with the informal or invisible internal messaging within the company. One way of expressing this is that the enterprise pays lip service to providing high levels of customer service . . . but that's all it is, in reality:  just lip service.


That organisation takes this risk (among others):   It may have attracted frontline personnel with great attitudes and high personal standards in customer service, lured by the customer service messaging featured in its advertising and other forms of brand profiling to the marketplace. But it ends up with disgruntled and morale-eroded personnel, as those same, originally high motivation hires realise the reality of their new workplace. As time goes on, they feel increasingly unappreciated for, and unsupported in, the effort they expend in servicing the organisation’s customers. Worse still, they might even feel denigrated for it by other, less motivated personnel who don’t wish to stand out against the higher standards of their more diligent colleagues.


So, this scenario ultimately plays itself out where either:


(a)  there is a disparity between the degree of customer-centricity in frontline personnel (as a collective) and that of the organisation’s back-of-house / administrative support / managerial staff forces.


There’s a constant tension. It’s particularly evident, and particularly unhealthy, when frontline staff and representatives give undertakings to customers, and both the frontliner and the customer are subsequently let down by a lax or uncommitted performance by those personnel in the background whose role it had been to ensure the promise was delivered upon.


(b) there are significant disparities in attitudes and personal modus operandi between the various customer-facing personnel.


This is the scenario in which it is most evident to the customer. On one occasion, they'll call, visit or make some other form of contact and come away having had a good or at least, a satisfactory, experience. But the next time might prove to be a very different, and far less satisfactory, experience. And unfortunately for the organisation, its management and other upper-level interests, it's a combination of the worst experience and the most recent experience that lodges, often disproportionately, in the customer's memory.


All parties lose:


The customer is the immediate loser in this equation; they’re left frustrated over the absence of service or whatever other form of reasonable expectation they had or were given, that was not met.


The customer-centric frontliner is the other loser; they no longer have the same zeal for their role, and their relationships with their colleagues are strained. Their satisfaction with their employer is progressively eroded.


But the biggest, ultimate loser is the enterprise itself (unless it’s a government agency whose erstwhile presence and standards the “customer” is forced to tolerate).


Because, invariably, there’s a competitor waiting to welcome your disgruntled customer with open arms. 

Other News, Reviews & Commentary

by Jordan Kelly 21 April 2025
AI & Robotics Expert Provides Commentary on Skinny's New 'Brand Ambassador'
by Jordan Kelly 18 April 2025
Err . . . No Conflict of Interest Here, At All?
by Jordan Kelly 18 April 2025
You Know It's Bad When Even Mainstream Medical Journals Are Forced to Report On It
by Jordan Kelly 18 April 2025
More on the BUPA international chain of houses-of-horror . . .
by Jordan Kelly 18 April 2025
I've Been Tracking Abuse-in-Aged-Care-Facilities for A While Now . . . and Something HAS to Be Done About this Almighty Horror Show
by Jordan Kelly 18 April 2025
I'm SO Glad I Manage to Survive Without A Cell Phone . . .
by Jordan Kelly 5 March 2025
Breathing in Foul-Smelling Emissions from Over the Fence? House Filling up with Toxic Fumes? Getting Your Washing Smoked Out? Here Are Your Rights.
by Jordan Kelly 26 February 2025
Americans are in love with Karoline Leavitt, the new, 27-year-old Whitehouse Press Secretary. She is eloquent, has a razor-sharp wit and a speed-of-light response formulation time, is meticulously prepared . . . and is fiercely loyal to the boss. However . . . At this morning's press briefing she showed a crack - a potential big negative -in her otherwise impeccable and impenetrable modus operandi. The layman audience didn't pick it up; the glowing compliments continued to avalanche in. But I saw a hint of the old politician and traditional press secretary sleight of hand: When a reporter asked her about the seriousness of tonight's deadline for all Federal government staff to respond to Elon Musk's / DOGE's "send us 5 things you did last week" V2 email, she pulled out the old "reframe the question and monologue it back to something positive and be emphatic to take the emphasis off your redirection" trick. (It's between 9.47 minutes and 13.54 minutes in. Particularly note the clarity and simplicity of the second reporter's key question i.e. will Federal employees be fired if they ignore Musk's email for a second time ? Watch .) There it was . . . that tired old advice STILL given out to politicians by their media training PR consultant hacks. I've commented on this previously here . And while I think it's disingenuous to do it at all, it's wholly inadvisable to do it if you're not particularly good at it. Under the headline, ' Minister of Police vs Jack Tame ', I gave an in-action example, including with the link to the interview and the timestamp at which Mitchell embarrassed himself mightily (albeit he bulldozed on, completely oblivious). While Leavitt employed the technique (which I prefer to call a "tactic") skilfully, that skill was more of a mechanical one in her case.. Whereas, when Trump uses it (which he does frequently), he's a master at it. His charismatic natural slide into an alternative impassioned point or story is so natural. So, well . . . Trump. Trump will always get away with it. It's baked into his style. But Leavitt will only get away with it for as long as the puppy love phase lasts and her halo continues to shine so brightly. At some point, if she employs it too regularly, the average citizen out there in viewer land will realise that she's not actually answering the question. I don't think she'll ever be seen as negatively as Biden's "press secretary" (if you could call her that) Karine Jean-Pierre, of course, but Leavitt's podium is at such a currently great height that she has a long way to fall if she does. Notwithstanding her exuberant youth, captivating good looks and "don't fck with me" forceful manner, there's one thing that pisses off the press and the punters alike. And that's repeatedly not giving straight answers to straight questions. So it was a disappointment to see her pull this one out the bag so early in her tenure as hallowed Whitehouse Press Secretary - since its emergence doesn't augur well going forward. I mean, just to know that she would resort to it whenever she felt it expedient. The Observational Minutiae By way of further observation, watch carefully as the second reporter comes in with a determination to get the straight answer the first one didn't succeed in getting. At this point, if you're a keen observer of human behaviour and responses, you'll notice Leavitt is slightly pushed off her confident footing. She makes two grammatical stumbles: she first said "Elon come in" instead of "Elon came in". Then she transposed two words slightly further on. When the second reporter kept pressing her, she defensively snapped, "Are my press briefings not good enough for you, Jackie?" Not good. She doesn't like being pressed so hard. She needs to get used to it, or there'll be an increasing number of moments when she comes at least slightly unstuck behind the podium. 
by Jordan Kelly 25 February 2025
JUST IN: PRESS RELEASE FROM THE OFFICE OF REPUBLICAN SENATOR MIKE LEE OF UTAH. Calling for the United States' complete withdrawal from the UN, Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah has introduced the Disengaging Entirely from the United Nations Debacle (DEFUND) Act ,. The DEFUND Act "addresses grave issues of national sovereignty and fiscal accountability which have plagued US. involvement in the UN". Co-sponsored in the Senate by Republican Senators Marsha Blackburn and Rick Scott, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers and Representative Chip Roy (also Republicans) the accompanying comments by Senator Lee read: "No more blank checks for the United Nations. Americans' hard-earned dollars have been funneled into initiatives that fly in the face of our values, enabling tyrants, betraying allies, and spreading bigotry "With the DEFUND Act, we're stepping away from this debacle. If we engage with the UN in the future, it will be on our terms, with the full backing of the Senate and an iron-clad escape clause." He said the UN had betrayed U.S. trust repeatedly, and that the country should not "to be their cash cow" while the UN undermines the U.S.'s own national security and interests. Meantime, Senator Blackburn said: “ The DEFUND Act will stop all forms of U.S. financial support to the UN and hold this wayward organisation accountable for placating Hamas terrorists and the Chinese Communist Party.” Meantime, Senator Chip Roy commented: “From UNRWA actively protecting Hamas and acting against our ally Israel, and delaying condemnation of Hamas, to China being elected to the 'Human Rights Council,' to the propagation of climate hysteria, covering for China's forced abortion and sterilisation programs . . . the UN's decades-old, internal rot once again raises the questions of why the United States is even still a member or why we're wasting billions every year on it."
Show More