CLICK to listen to the audio version of this Daily Paradox

Is the mission of your organisation to achieve excellence? No-brainer, really, isn’t it? Every organisation wants to achieve excellence whether it says so specifically or not. I cannot imagine anyone wanting their output to live ‘down’ to mediocrity. Many companies include excellence as part of their mission statement; others just imply it.

Where do we see excellence around us? Think of the products or services you have bought over the last few weeks. Were any of them truly excellent? I am sure many of them fulfilled their purpose, were adequate for what was needed and got the job done. But ‘excellence’? I am not so sure.

Surely if a job is adequate, that is all that is required? After all, quality control is set deliberately to satisfy the customer, not to amaze him. In fact, quality today is often minimum acceptable rather than maximum attainable. Are we as buyers getting a better than fair deal?

For the problem, if problem there be, is with us, not with the supplier. We are the people who suffer. Suppliers are trained to outsource their problems, to externalize their costs, to leave themselves as invulnerable as possible to criticism and complaint.

Over the holiday period I did an experiment – not at scientific but at anecdotal level. I have many people to buy presents for, several of them overseas. I did so using the internet extensively. The outcome of my experiment was not what I had expected.

Older companies gave intelligible, easy to use directions on buying; they provided a person to speak to if the process was not working properly or if the order needed amending. They offered good and intelligible advice aimed at getting the customer what he wanted. Their produce was of high quality and the descriptions of it, while inevitably involving enthusiastic promotion, did not raise expectations too high for me to be generally delighted. And, significantly, they all asked me afterwards if I was satisfied with what I had ordered.

More technical purchases ranged from merely unsatisfactory to disastrous. Getting refunds for mis-sold products was a nightmare. Seeking advice on making the products work was little short of impossible. The attitude was ‘you have already purchased this and will receive repeat purchases whether you want them or not because we have your credit card details’.

I said the problem lay with the customer. This is true unless the suppliers are effectively in a cartel, agreeing unacceptable terms among themselves. It is, of course, impossible to say which internet suppliers are in cartels and over what aspects of selling. Many clearly agree the after-sales level of service to reduce it to a minimum. Others may or may not ‘ring’ prices. I had naively thought they were all too competitive to do that.

It is not possible to draw firm conclusions from my limited experiment but I think the following lessons can be learnt.

No customer will be happy if the service and goods he receives meet only the minimum standard.  A feeling of being cheated, unsupported and generally let down is not the basis of a lasting relationship. Happy customers think they got that little bit extra service or quality.

No supplier’s staff will be satisfied in their jobs if all they receive is complaints and returns. Good morale is achieved by customers praising the business for its efforts. When such praise is lacking the effort becomes sluggish, compounding the poor service into a downward spiral.

Excellence is tangible and visible but the cause of it is an attitude, not a rule book. A famous actor once claimed that his success was down to his having “a talent to amuse”. Everyone serving others should aim to have “a talent to please”.

That way lies excellence.