burntcopper (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
burntcopper) wrote2006-07-20 02:31 am
burntcopper) wrote2006-07-20 02:31 am
experiences and how reactions are coloured by them. Added ranting.
Work stuff, mostly. Really, current work practices vs. previous life experience.
See, I occasionally get told off at work for customer service stuff. Things like personalising the messages, and the fact that you shouldn't use 'we' when you can use 'I'. 'People' like the feel that there is someone on the end of the line, and they won't yell nearly so much if they feel it's not faceless and realise that yes, there is a person behind there. Or the time I got told off for putting too much technical info in, or saying exactly why there was a problem - people off sick, etc. Apparently I was not allowed to be specific and I must be deliberately vague and use stock letters for replying.
They probably get confused by my behaviour, and my complete astonishment, or reluctance to actually do something. Because they know I've worked years in customer service. I put it down that I've got experience and had to be good at it.
Their definition and experience of people's reactions seems to be completely different from mine.
Because in my world? You gave the exact reason rather than the slick and vague. Customers were always happier when it wasn't a stock answer. 'Oh, god, I'm so sorry, everyone's been off sick with the flu. The computers are down. Someone's put it in the wrong box.' Frustrated, maybe, but they could understand and it rendered us very obviously human, because they could understand human error.
When in doubt you desperately tried not to personalise the message, unless it was somethign specific. Because they'd latch onto you and often damn near stalk you if you were so stupid to give out your name - and the amount of times the latcher went near hysterical when informed that the person they'd latched onto had left the job, or that amazingly, they had other customers. And that no, making them realise that there's a human being on the other end does not make them back down. It makes them behave exactly the same, or lash out more in bad cases.
Aside from that, we have the people who don't seem to communicate in sarcasm. They get effusive when they're nice, and use exclamation marks. And get gushy when a simple 'good job' would have done. Even saying 'good job' for something that should be acknowledged as the basic level of competency.
I was raised in a sarcastic world. One where being effusive was a sign of taking the piss something chronic. And one where compliments are used for when they mean something - ie, when they've gone above and beyond. Or obviously put extra effort in. Consistently high marks. Not basic competency. And please, please never use exclamation marks, unless you're quoting.
Or over-react over email about niggly stuff, freaking out when something isn't done right away, or not understanding that yes, we get the urgency of someone's message without them emailing us separately after all the cc stuff. Or worse, just looking at a number and not actually *reading* what's on screen. Amount of times I've resisted going over and talking to them like they're exceptionally stupid, with added powerpoint demonstrations every time they freak out over a number without looking at the data. you know that I treat that particular stage like my own personal baby. I may need to be poked on a couple of other things, but sending me any email at all about that particular section tends to result in me resisting the urge to smash your head through the screen.
See, I occasionally get told off at work for customer service stuff. Things like personalising the messages, and the fact that you shouldn't use 'we' when you can use 'I'. 'People' like the feel that there is someone on the end of the line, and they won't yell nearly so much if they feel it's not faceless and realise that yes, there is a person behind there. Or the time I got told off for putting too much technical info in, or saying exactly why there was a problem - people off sick, etc. Apparently I was not allowed to be specific and I must be deliberately vague and use stock letters for replying.
They probably get confused by my behaviour, and my complete astonishment, or reluctance to actually do something. Because they know I've worked years in customer service. I put it down that I've got experience and had to be good at it.
Their definition and experience of people's reactions seems to be completely different from mine.
Because in my world? You gave the exact reason rather than the slick and vague. Customers were always happier when it wasn't a stock answer. 'Oh, god, I'm so sorry, everyone's been off sick with the flu. The computers are down. Someone's put it in the wrong box.' Frustrated, maybe, but they could understand and it rendered us very obviously human, because they could understand human error.
When in doubt you desperately tried not to personalise the message, unless it was somethign specific. Because they'd latch onto you and often damn near stalk you if you were so stupid to give out your name - and the amount of times the latcher went near hysterical when informed that the person they'd latched onto had left the job, or that amazingly, they had other customers. And that no, making them realise that there's a human being on the other end does not make them back down. It makes them behave exactly the same, or lash out more in bad cases.
Aside from that, we have the people who don't seem to communicate in sarcasm. They get effusive when they're nice, and use exclamation marks. And get gushy when a simple 'good job' would have done. Even saying 'good job' for something that should be acknowledged as the basic level of competency.
I was raised in a sarcastic world. One where being effusive was a sign of taking the piss something chronic. And one where compliments are used for when they mean something - ie, when they've gone above and beyond. Or obviously put extra effort in. Consistently high marks. Not basic competency. And please, please never use exclamation marks, unless you're quoting.
Or over-react over email about niggly stuff, freaking out when something isn't done right away, or not understanding that yes, we get the urgency of someone's message without them emailing us separately after all the cc stuff. Or worse, just looking at a number and not actually *reading* what's on screen. Amount of times I've resisted going over and talking to them like they're exceptionally stupid, with added powerpoint demonstrations every time they freak out over a number without looking at the data. you know that I treat that particular stage like my own personal baby. I may need to be poked on a couple of other things, but sending me any email at all about that particular section tends to result in me resisting the urge to smash your head through the screen.
no subject