Consistency is Key in Ensuring Top-Notch Customer Service Reputation

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.

< Older Post

Newer Post >

PowerCo Shares Customers' Email Addresses; Research Firm Refuses to Acknowledge Concerned Customer

by Jordan Kelly • 4 June 2025

Hey PowerCo: I Do NOT Appreciate You Giving Out My Email Address to Research Companies . . . Especially Those Who Treat YOUR Customers with Utter Contempt (& Spam Them)

Why Consistency Is Critical to Brand Perception & Preservation

by Jordan Kelly • 3 June 2025

Why You Should Teach ALL Employees to Value Your Brand

Ministry Staffer Sends Client's Personal, Health & Financial Information to Journalist

by Jordan Kelly • 26 May 2025

Ministry of Social Development Employee Sprays Around A Client's Private Information, then Sends It to A Journalist

How Wellington REALLY Works: The '5 Ds' - A Series by Jordan Kelly

by Jordan Kelly • 25 May 2025

Learn the Plays & Ploys of New Zealand Government Agencies to Beat Them At Their Own Sordid Game Since starting 'The Customer & The Constituent' back in January 2024, I've been learning things about the New Zealand political scene as it relates to Ministers and their Ministries (or agencies or bureaus), and also the behind-the-curtain Parliamentary machinations related to them. Things I almost wish now that I didn't know. But they're things that, for better or for worse, ALL New Zealanders should know, about the way the New Zealand Government and its "public service" really operates. If you don't know how things operate in reality (not just the PR fluff on their websites) in some of these big-name agencies that we are forced to deal with in one way or another, at some time or another, depending on the need or issue you're attempting to have solved or resolved, you could go around in ever-increasing frustrating circles for weeks, months and even years. Before getting absolutely nowhere . And the worst part is: That's the intention . The 5 D's 1) Delay 2) Defer 3) Deny 4) Defend 5) Dismissed They're largely self-explanatory, but it's an absolute playbook that they stick to, and apparently senior agency bureaucrats and Ministers and their staff are taught this as a rite of passage into parliamentary and career public "roles" . . . and then are sworn to secrecy over it, in a manner that almost has "Eyes Wide Shut" secret society overtones to it. You NEVER refer to the '5 D's' outside of the walls of inner sanctums. However, I'd add two more "D"s to their list: The sixth: Deaf (as in, Ignore). The seventh: Dumb .. And oh my goodness, let me count the ways (which I will do in further articles in this Series, in specific, detailed and named examples). So between your introduction herein to the 'D's', and my ongoing and, I hope, enlightening, series for your continuing and essential edification regarding How Wellington Really Works, I trust that you'll end up knowing how to deal with this sordid scene in a more strategic manner, for a less infuriating time, and maybe even with an outcome. Although there's no guarantee that any "outcome" won't be no outcome. Because that's almost always their intention. Oh, and I do hope that my pieces actually do become an ongoing series, because they do "hit men" (of sorts), too. Yeah, really. Paid generously (with your money, by the way) to "remove" "difficult" ( their words; not mine) individuals. Like me. Stay tuned. See you again shortly. I hope. (PS: I think a feel a book coming on.) COMING NEXT : A drill-down on each of the 'D's. And next up after that: The detailed argument I'll put to the private sector on why hiring an ex-bureaucrat is a very bad idea ( Hint: You might think it gives you in-house lobbyist power and back-door influence, but the price you'll pay is the '5D' customer service anti-culture they'll foster throughout your organisation. Even IF you keep them away from the frontline, it will happen by osmosis anyway. And faster than you think. The worst part? The longer you keep them, the more irreversible the damage they'll seed in your culture. Which then hits your brand. And so on. So, to C-suites everywhere, this will be a read you NEED .

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

When Organisational Culture & Individual Service Standards Are Misaligned

Other News, Reviews & Commentary

PowerCo Shares Customers' Email Addresses; Research Firm Refuses to Acknowledge Concerned Customer

Why Consistency Is Critical to Brand Perception & Preservation

Ministry Staffer Sends Client's Personal, Health & Financial Information to Journalist

How Wellington REALLY Works: The '5 Ds' - A Series by Jordan Kelly

Council’s Woke Spending Spree Rolls On While Wellington Heads for Economic Implosion

To the Old Ladies Fostering Anti-Semitism in Masterton: EDUCATE YOURSELVES.

I Pay $430 In Rates A Month & This Is How Masterton District Council's After-Hours 'Service' Speaks to Me

Why This Minister's Shock-and-Awe Viral Moment Won't Age (or Internationalise) Well

'Food Production' Animal Welfare Less Important to NZ Government Decision-Makers

Our AI Columnist: Introduction Into Schools Must Be 'Thoughtful Yet Open-Minded' & Highly Strategic

Want to contribute your comments or ideas?

Want to Contribute?