Author: Lucien Canton
Customer Service: A Tale of Two Hotels
My wife and I were recently guests at a four star hotel and spa. The rooms were comfortable, the views stunning, and the food excellent. We won't be going back.
The reasons are minor. We arrived too late for any spa treatments but were offered the use of the steam and sauna rooms and an outdoor jacuzzi for a nominal fee. However, by the time we reached the jacuzzi, the temperature was a tepid 94 degrees. Eventually we were told that they heated the jacuzzi in the morning but since it was later in the day (3 PM!) the water was cooler. Apparently reprogramming the unit to heat on demand was either too much trouble or the increased heating costs were unacceptable.
The same attitude carried into the restaurant. The food was excellent and served moderately well. However, at the end of the meal we were left abandoned for over a half hour and had to hunt down someone to take our money. Later, when I tried to arrange a wake up call, no one answered at the front desk.
Contrast that with our next hotel. The view was not as spectacular, there was no spa, and the rooms were not the best. As I switched on the overhead light, the bulb blew out. Not a problem as we prefer the bedside lamps anyway but on our way to dinner I thought I'd mention it to the young lady at the front desk. She thanked me for letting her know and since changing the bulb would take some time (it involved finding a maintenance man and locating a tall ladder), she offered to switch our room. She wanted to make sure that nothing as trivial as a bulb would affect our stay.
That helpful attitude was echoed by every other staff member with whom we had contact. Our dinner guests were delayed, so the restaurant staff had to stay a bit later than usual. You would never have guessed it from the gracious and unhurried way they served the excellent meal. We look forward to our next visit.
Why would we prefer the older hotel over the modern hotel spa? Obviously, It was the service. We were treated as guests at the older hotel. The staff tried to see everything from our perspective and to anticipate needs rather giving priority to their own convenience. It was the little things that made the difference.
So do you view things from the perspective of those your serve or only consider your own needs? It doesn't take much to convince people that you truly care about them – just a slight change of perspective. As in the hotel business, it's the little things that count, not the grand gestures.
Focus, Patience and Dignity: A Tail from the Dog Park
Lolita with her prize
Lolita, or Lolly to her friends, is a grande dame of the dog park. A bit of a curmudgeon, she has staked out her personal space and all the regular dogs know to give her a wide berth. Not that she's mean or vicious – she's just dignified and won't put up the shenanigans of the younger dogs. A quick growl and a commanding look is all it takes to remind them that they are in the presence of someone important.
But that doesn't mean that Lolly isn't interested in the goings on at the park. She enjoys her toys and usually gets what she wants. When the other dogs are playing with a toy that Lolly wants, she moves in close and lays down, biding her time. Sooner or later, the other dogs become so immersed in their battle for the toy that they actually ignore it for a few seconds. While their focus is on each other, Lolly darts in and grabs the toy. Her dignity is such that none of the other dogs will contest her right to its possession.
We can learn several lessons from Lolly. The first is the importance of keeping your focus on what you want to achieve. Lolly doesn't allow herself to be distracted by the antics of others. She knows what she wants and keeps her focus on achieving her prize.
The second lesson is the virtue of patience. Lolly is prepared to wait as long as it takes until the perfect moment arrives. Then she acts swiftly and decisively. Make your plan then wait for the conditions to be right to implement it. Remember that timing is everything
One final lesson is the importance of maintaining your dignity. Lolly doesn't lower her standards just to achieve a result. She knows that patience and focus will get her what she wants without compromises.
SF Fire still ambivalent about helmet cameras
Last week I wrote about the San Francisco Fire Department's ban on helmet cameras. Citing concern over privacy issues, Chief Joanne Hayes-White determined that a 2009 ban on cameras in SFFD "facilities" also applied to department field operations. However, the timing of the ban, coming as it did so quickly after the Asiana Airlines crash in which helmet camera footage is playing a key role in determining the cause of death of a victim crushed by fire apparatus, suggested to many observers that the Chief's real concern was avoiding potential future liability. The public outcry was so great that a day after my posting, Chief Hayes-White announced that the Department would revisit the issue and reconsider the use of helmet cameras.
The Chief's concerns over privacy do have some merit. Unauthorized release of footage could compromise the privacy of both victims and firefighters. However, the department used to have a videographer at fire scenes, a position that was eliminated by budget cuts. To fill the gap, many firefighters have opted to purchase and use their own helmet cameras. This was the case in the Asiana crash: the battalion chief serving as the incident commander filmed the event on his one helmet camera and later made the footage available to investigators. Stills from this video were used in media stories and can be readily found on YouTube.
The real issue here is that the SFFD lacked and continues to lack a policy on the use of video. Department issued equipment does not exist and there are no guidelines regarding the use of video shot with private equipment. For the Chief to claim that she was not aware of the use of private helmet cameras by firefighters and invoking a policy that was clearly intended for another purpose just highlights this lack of policy direction and suggests a command structure out of touch with field operations.
Since the announcement that the Chief would be reconsidering the ban, there has been no further word from the SFFD on this issue, suggesting that the department may be allowing the story to die while the ban stays in place. Actually, there is one bit of news. The battalion chief responsible for the Asiana Airlines video is being investigated for possible violation of the 2009 ban and may face disciplinary action.
San Francisco Fire bans helmet cameras
SFFD Chief Joanne Hayes-White
Last week I moderated a webinar on emerging technologies for public safety agencies. Among the things I noted in my introductory comments was the incredible use being made of video as a diagnostic, investigative, and training tool.
It came as a bit of surprise to note that my own city of San Francisco has just banned the use of helmet cameras. Chief Joanne Hayes-White issued the order over concerns about patient and victim privacy, noting that the city has no control over how firefighters use the footage. Together with a 2009 ban on cameras in any "facilities" the order in effect precludes the the San Francisco Fire Department from using any video tools.
The timing of the order is awkward for the Department, which has a reputation for being a bit "traditional". Helmet-camera footage from a battalion chief has been a major piece of evidence in the investigation of the death of aa victim of the Asiana Airlines crash who was accidentally run over by a fire truck. There is speculation that the department may have some liability attached because of the incident. This makes it hard to accept the ban on helmet cameras as being solely related to privacy.
Helmet camera footage has been used by the department as a training tool, much like a sports team will view game footage to learn from their mistakes. The department has also made use of video from ambulances to coordinate treatment with receiving hospitals and physicians. And, of course, footage from the crash has been shared with the agencies investigating the incident. To say that these legitimate uses of video are trumped by unspecified issues of privacy that the department is just realizing may exist is a bit specious.
There are two lessons here. The first is the importance of having well-thought out policies for the use of video. The Chief's claims that she can't control how the video is used suggests the absence of a such policy that would, among other things, prohibit unauthorized disclosure.
The second lesson is how timing can make a bad situation worse. A few weeks ago, banning helmet cameras would probably not have made the news. Coming on the heels of a major airline crash that has liability issues associated with it invites speculation that the sole purpose of the ban is to protect the department from future liability claims.
Turf Battles: A Tail from the Dog Park
Princess Leia, Ruler of the Universe
One of Kona's pals is a chihuahua/poodle mix named Princess Leia. Leia weighs about eight or nine pounds soaking wet but that doesn't keep her from running with the big dogs. She usually does this by hiding behind someone's legs and dashing out when she sees an opportunity for play. However, on those occasions when she arrives first to an empty dog park, Leia shows why she is called "Princess". She assumes the park is hers and aggressively confronts all who seek entry. She barks, she charges, she's completely fearless.
In this Princess Leia is not unlike a lot of people I have met during my career. We sometimes have a tendency to carve out an area of influence and aggressively defend it against all comers. There are times, of course,when this is necessary. I once had a department head seek to absorb my office into her department and I had to play a bit of hardball because it was not in the best interests of the public to do so.
But I've also seen vicious infighting among government agencies to preserve duplicate or contradictory programs. I've seen good programs cancelled because of these turf wars. Worse, I have seen desperately needed help turned down because of the fear that accepting it would somehow diminish someone's perceived influence over their "turf."
The onlookers at the dog park are always amused by Leia's antics. We know that she wouldn't survive a serious encounter with most the dogs she chases and none of them take her seriously. So the next time you're thinking about engaging in a turf battle, think about what an outside observer would see. Is this really the way you want to look to your peers?
Producers fired over embarrassing Asiana crash broadcast
A couple of weeks ago I commented on how a local television station suffered considerable embarrassment by airing what was thought to be the names of the four pilots involved in the recent Asiana Airlines crash in San Francisco. The station had done its due diligence: the names came from a normally reliable source and were confirmed by the National Transportation Safety Board (the "verification" was provided by a summer intern). The names turned out to not only be wrong but offensive to the Asian community. Asiana threatened to sue the station and the NTSB.
The station corrected the problem almost as soon as it was aired (following the next break), offered profuse apologies, and promised to investigate and discipline those responsible.
One would think that the dust would settle rather quickly after a few weeks, particularly as Asiana decided not to proceed with its threatened lawsuit. Not so – the incident has become toxic to anyone associated with it. At least four producers at the station have been fired.
There is no question that the incident was embarrassing to a station that prides itself on the accuracy of its reporting. Certainly there should have been consequences for those involved. They should have known better. They should have been a bit more culturally sensitive, particularly in the San Francisco Bay Area. But termination of employment? It seems a pretty steep price to pay for a moment of stupidity.
I'm always leery of expressing opinions without knowing the facts. There may have been egregious conduct on the part of the producers that warranted such a drastic measure. But my experience with the reporters and producers in the Bay Area has almost always been that they are hard-working professionals dedicated to getting the facts right. This sort of lapse seems out of character and it's hard for me not to believe that they were sacrificed to political correctness.
If this is indeed the case, the station may well have an additional reputational problem. A story that might have gone away quietly continues to play in the news. At least one of the producers is suing for wrongful termination, which guarantees that the story will continue. It's a good example of how to make a reputational crisis worse.
Manslaughter Conviction for Costa Concordia Crisis Coordinator
Last year I wrote about the conviction for manslaughter of a group of seismologists in the Italian courts for their predictions related to the L'Aquila earthquake. Now the Italian courts have upped the ante.
Five employees of the Costa Crociere SpA cruise company have been convicted on multiple counts of manslaughter related to the wreck of the Costa Concordia. Two bridge officers and the helmsman were sentenced to 20 to 23 months in prison (the captain will be tried separately) and the Concordia's cabin services manager received two years and six months. However, the company's crisis coordinator received the longest sentence: two years and ten months.
Sentences under two years were suspended and the longer sentences replaced with house arrest.
Now one must be careful about drawing assumptions because there are no details on why the crisis coordinator was tried and convicted. It is unclear whether he was on the vessel and responsible for deaths through negligence or merely developed emergency plans for the company. The court's reasoning behind the verdicts will be released within 90 days.
However, the sentence does have a certain consistency with the L'Aquila verdict on the part of the Italian courts: a tendency to blame planners as well as those actually responsible for the incident. As did the L'Aquila verdict, the conviction of a crisis coordinator raises an interesting question of responsibility. Since most crisis coordinators have limited authority both in planning and executing emergency plans, should they be held accountable for inadequate planning in a court of law? Or does the true responsibility lie with the organization for which they work? In the case of the Costa Concordia, Costa Crociere avoided criminal prosecution through the payment of 1 million Euro fine.
If this is becomes a trend in other countries, it makes the use of standards and program documentation critical. Professional practices are not just the right thing to do, they may be your sole defence if you're called to account for your stewardship.