Could your inference be different?
Global Competitiveness Report, compiled annually by the World Economic Forum (WEF), “produces a number of related research studies aimed at supporting countries in their transformation efforts and raising awareness about the need to adopt holistic and integrated frameworks for understanding complex phenomena such as competitiveness or global risks.” The report is “used by a growing number of countries and institutions to benchmark national competitiveness.”
Computation of Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) of a country is a function of its ranking on each of the hundred plus dimensions grouped under what WEF calls as 12 ‘pillars’ of competitiveness. ‘Degree of customer orientation’ is one of such dimension and the latest report graphically presents the ranking of each of the 144 countries surveyed by WEF. Ranking of countries on customer orientation is based on perceptive evaluation by a large number of executives on a 7-point scale.
What inference would you draw at the global level, about the seriousness with which the companies, at large, deal with the strategic issue of customer satisfaction if the number-count analysis of the data covering 144 countries depicts the following picture?
1. In 43 countries, companies are fairly responsive to the customers.
2. In 32 countries, companies are largely or somewhat indifferent to customer satisfaction.
3. In 69, or 48% of the countries, the response, at best, is customer neutral. It could signify plenty of lip service but customers are left demanding meaningful action.
Let us look at another set of data:
1. As many as 68 countries out of 144 rank lower on ‘Customer orientation’ in comparison with the respective GCI rank. For instance, United Kingdom ranks 29 on customer orientation while its GCI ranking is fairly high at 9.
2. Within the top-ranked 30 countries on global competitiveness, as many as 12 are ranked lower on customer orientation by places ranging from 10 (Singapore) to as much as 76 (China). China is ranked 28 on global competitiveness but its ranking on customer orientation is 70.
It is quite complex to gauge how much does a lower ranking on a given dimension impact the GCI. However, one cannot escape the conclusion that lower customer orientation is a definite drag on the overall competitiveness index. Neither can we escape the conclusion that, indeed, from the customer point of view far too much more needs to be done by the companies.
What Matters Most is the Culture of Discipline
In this age of customer capitalism, most of the companies have, in fact, embraced customer centric policies, latest technology and best practices to enable them to make and deliver upbeat promises. Nonetheless an intriguing paradox does exist inasmuch as even well-meaning companies end up with frequent failures to honour their commitments? What explains this paradox? As my empirical research has shown it is the cultural turmoil that erupts from the fundamental contradiction in management’s behaviour. While maximising customer satisfaction is declared as the topmost priority for the company on one hand, on the other, it allows executives to carry on with the highly obsessive pursuit of maximising shareholder value as a more sacrosanct business objective. While the two may not be mutually exclusive it is just not possible to maximise both at the same time. All this leads to loss of objectivity, conflict of priorities and above all a distorted perception of employees’ self-interest. That leads to schizophrenic behaviour and no company can consistently deliver quality customer service in this kind of workplace climate.
My book—Organisational Schizophrenia—deals comprehensively with the human and organisational game playing that encourages schizophrenic behaviour and also suggests what can company leadership do about it. However, if I were to single out one key suggestion I would say: Nurture a Culture of Discipline that demands that you consistently apply exacting standards consistent with the company’s mission and core values, at all times and at all levels, especially in upper management.