"Yes Sir, Yes Sir, Three Bags Full"

My recent Management studies have me examining the topic of 'Customer Service'... Back in Sept 2010 I had the wonderful privilege of lovely (but very brief!!) holiday in Bali where I received the defining epitome of Customer Service... oh, and I got married too!

Prior to going over there my two young boys asked what would be so nice about Bali other than the weather, swimming pools and entertainment consoles on the plane. I replied "One thing you'll really notice is how lovely the people are. They will do anything for you, with a lovely warm smile, always using your name... it's what is called Customer Service... and they do it wonderfully well!!" [Insert some further explanations here in helping a 9yo and 11yo boy understand and you get the picture.]

I'm happy to say, we were treated so well by the staff of the various Hotels, Villas and Restaurants, they well and truly fulfilled and defined the term "Customer Service"

I think the one thing that many western style developed countries really lack in that phrase is the whole "Service" part... The wonderful staff we encountered in Bali truly "Served" us, as very dignified 'servants'. Australians, many Europeans countries and especially Americans often equate the term 'Servant' as a derogatory term. Because of this, they are so caught up in demonstrating personal power and not letting anyone tell them what to do... that they fail to serve in their Customer Service.

Ego can falsely replaced Pride here. Ego of "you can't tell me what to do", versus pride in doing a job to the best of your ability and looking after your customer in the highest order. 


So even if a request is "it's not your job"... it is!! You may not have the answer, but you do have the obligation to serve to the best of your ability. Find the resource that has the answer, hand hold the customer if required rather than redirecting them. Follow up to make sure your service met their specific need.

Symbiotic Synergy - What is it?

It’s human nature that we wish to be heard. Our natural born instinct is to contribute. We naturally seek affirmation that we are of value. Quite often in the work place when a Manager or Team Member seeks to display those traits, it comes at the cost of someone else being quashed.

The essence of successful team work comes from both symbiosis and synergy.

Symbiosis reflects a mutually beneficial relationship, where the success of one means the success of another. We commonly see this in the relationship of the clown fish and the anemone.

Synergy is the concept that the whole is greater than the sum of the individual parts. In team work terms, the knowledge and skill sets of the individual members are of most value when they are combined and the collaboration of them will result in greater outcomes. Sort of like 1 + 1 = 11

Symbiotic Synergy breeds respect, innovation, creativity and an ongoing culture of development. Mistakes aren’t punished; they are accepted as lessons and measured in future risk. The political blame game is disintegrated and replaced by a culture of responsibility. Brain storming isn’t a special event; it is a daily occurrence that breeds acceptance and superior innovation.

Symbiotic Synergy puts Autonomy, Mastery and Purpose into the hands of the staff via a balanced collaboration and drives the organisation to heights that a traditional Management style could never hope to achieve.

Here’s a few good “c” words:  If you’d like a creative culture of collaboration… contact us today… enquiries@outsidethe3.com

Out with Old.... In with the New

The theme of the day Leadership...


I recently read a blog by Michael Cardus stating his belief that we shouldn't separate the terms Manager and Leader


I can understand his perspective on this, in many ways the premise that differentiating the two terms and roles is only down to semantics. However, I personally believe it's important that we do differentiate the terms and create a dichotomy. There is a wide chasm between the attitudes of people that are placed in these positions of authority.

My personal differentiation is along the lines of: 
MANAGER: 

• Displays the old school attitude of we are the "Officers" they are the "grunts"
• Cover their backside and play the political games, will often stall a decision or have someone else make it if risk involved. 
• Works only to procedure, "because that's how we've always done it!" 
• Protect their personal interests first, the company's second, their staff at the very bottom of the pile. 
• Doesn't readily accept input from others, because they are always right 

LEADER: 

• Accepts all responsibility 
• Isn't afraid of making a tough decision 
• Encourages input from others and happy to admit there are alternative ways 
• Display trust to their staff and shows EQ in dealing with them 
• Isn't afraid of mistakes, doesn't place blame, focuses on the lesson, breeding a culture of measured risk and innovation 
• Puts staff first, understanding the right staff will rise to the company goal and therefore support him 

Australia has seen a revolt against the former today (Thurs June 24th 2010), with a Prime Minister being kicked out of the top position after dropping from 70% approval ratings to 35% just 18 months ago. Kevin Rudd was a Prime Minister with a reputation for his "Manager" style attitude, unwillingness to yield after making poor but colossal policy decisions without consultation, very high staff turnover within his office and many anger tantrums. 

Politics aside, in every organisation I walk into today, the "Manager" style of leadership is all too prevalent. Despite all the training available, despite all the research and information available, for some reason many in authority still believe that wielding the whip will get the best results. This fallacy is long dead, I learnt this at the ripe old age of 24 leading a team on the construction site. If I'd used the same "manager" style of leadership that I always seen around, I would have ended up with a shovel in my head!

I think the movement to create the dichotomy is a healthy one, while the semantics of words regarding the fact that they still have to accomplish similar tasks, the major difference is in attitude.


As you make each leadership decision and each time you talk to your staff... Ask yourself this simple question: "if I was on the other end of this conversation, how would I react?"


If you'd like to read more regarding this differentiation, I found this wonderful article that explains this from yet another perspective, that "While a manager receives their authority based on their role, a leader's authority is innate in their approach."