I understand that customer service reps do a hard, yet important job. However, calling them "heroes" is a little too much kool-aid for me. It reminds me of every startup claiming that "this changes everything".
Customer service reps are often the lowest paid employees in a lot of organizations. But think about it: the customer's impression of your company is probably derived from the people they speak to. And nine times out of ten, they're talking to your CSR's - not the CTO, or Finance, or marketing.
There are probably a lot of nice people at Comcast, but my negative opinion of them is almost entirely derived from my customer service / billing issues with them.
> And nine times out of ten, they're talking to your CSR's - not the CTO, or Finance, or marketing.
The CSRs's behaviors are direct results of decisions made by these very same people. If the CXOs at Comcast gave enough of a shit they would have competent customer service reps and plans that had clearly defined charges. But their current slimy and confusing practices earn a lot of money, so the people at the top don't want to do anything to shake that up.
And that is basically the point of that segment of the podcast. The parking company execs invested in the customer support dept and treated them better with with lower calls per day, colorful titles and nice zen rooms. They indicated zero turnover afterwords in that department and probably helped that company retain customers as a result and probably lower costs due to lower retraining. Unfortunately, large companies with monopolies don't need to do that to retain customers as they dont have much of a choice.
This is a good perspective. I hadn't thought of it that way --- probably because I was mentally comparing a very large company (Comcast) with a much smaller one (SpotHero). But you are right, in both cases it is decision trickling down from the top that affect the behavior of CSRs and how the company is perceived.
At my company, everyone is required to work customer service. Over the holidays, everyone from the CEO down to the newest tech or marketing hire will do 10 hours of "Holiday Help" on the phones on our busiest days. And, as part of training, I spent over 20 hours on the phones as a customer service representative. My real job is a software architect.
With the focus on customer service, most of the team building and special events are oriented toward the people on the phones (and chat and email). Quality of life perks are available to everyone (free and discounted snacks, meals,and drinks, free downtown parking, 100% paid employee health and life insurance, etc.) and customer service representatives are hired with the intention of retaining them for years, with promotion and new role opportunities available. The goal of every customer contact is to resolve any problems and make them happy enough to buy from us again, even if we lose money on that individual sale, and regardless of the time it takes on the call. Metrics are based on customer happiness rather than contacts per hour.
At my company (not SpotHero) we literally call them Support Heroes. And they have done some truly heroic things for our customers. Some of the stories can be truly emotional.
Going a step further, as someone in marketing I suspect they are likely one of our company's larger contributors to the value and awareness of our brand. It is very hard to quantify, but I don't think there is a single person I work with who wouldn't agree that they add value and are not a cost center.
In the modern world, all large battles are fought out behind desks.
A researcher who gives up a $200k job at a large IT company (e.g. Google or Facebook) for a measly paid job at a university to work on a project with eventual high societal impact IS a hero.
These are not battles. These are just people/companies having careers and making money. Even the researcher is usually forgoing the well paid job to do the research because the research is interesting to him - he's just trading off one for of payoff (money) for another (job satisfaction). Meanwhile, there's no payoff in volunteering to go to a war with a high chance of getting killed or maimed.
Re: battles. There are still real battles in the world (Ukraine, Syria) where there's plenty of heroes.
To sum up, I'd say that it's a blessing that a lot of the world is so peaceful now that the meaning of the word 'hero' is getting washed down to literally 'people doing their (maybe slighly unpleasant) jobs'.
My father put 30 years into the US Navy. He recently passed away. At his funeral, a Marine Corps Colonel got up and thanked him for his service, and called him a hero. However, it was not for his service to the Navy. It was for his whistleblowing activity at the Veterans Administration, where he worked as a full time civilian. He was never put in physical harm, but his whistleblowing put his career at risk. There were unfair retaliatory actions taken against him and the stress of what he was doing took a toll on his life.
I think you're right that most people that work in a contractual fashion with a money payoff should not be considered heroes, but it's also not true that only people who go to war should be considered heroes. Rosa Parks (and the less famous women who did the same thing and preceded her), for example, are certainly heroes.
> Rosa Parks (and the less famous women who did the same thing and preceded her), for example, are certainly heroes.
Not every activist or revolutionist is violent. Sticking to known examples: Gandhi is another excellent non violent example. Sticking to politics, Nelson Mandela. Mark Felt, also a whistleblower. More recent examples are William Binney, Edward Snowden, Julian Assange. These are my examples, of people I consider heroes. History will decide who the public's heroes were.
These people go against authority, often get ignored or bullied in return, including loved ones and relatives. Like the poster from Fargo, "What If You're Right And They're Wrong". It indeed takes great courage and often sacrifice to go against the tide.
That support employee who's ignoring his protocol and is risking a sneer (or worse) from his boss, the one telling you truth while he's now allowed? He's performing one heroic deed. If its a pattern, we can speak of a hero.
What motivates this crusade to own the word "hero"?
Also, IMO military service is a lot more gray area than black and white when viewed in cultural and societal context. I've known several active and veteran members of a few branches of the US military, and while I commend their skills, I don't think many of them would describe everything the US asks them to do as "heroic". A sizable fraction of the current world mess is the fault of the governments currently fighting it.
But all of this is barely relevant to a discussion about what might be termed everyday heroism.
If you listen to the podcast, I think that "someone who puts [them]self in harm's way for the benefit of others" very precisely describes what these customer support employees are doing.
"In harms way"? Doesn't that seem rather ... barbarian. It seems to reinforce "Only those that die gloriously in battle shall sit with the Gods in Valhalla."
I did not used to hear the word "sacrifice" a lot. I hear it a lot now. I don't like it as a standard of behavior and wish it would stop.
I though it was a short way to make a clear point. Let me write a longer version then:
Is it barbaric? Maybe, but, whether we like it or not, the world has a defnite component of barbarism to it. There are wars going on as we speak, and there are threats of much bigger wars constantly hanging in the air.
It not impossible to eliminate physical danger out of our lives and to dismiss it (because one does not witness it first-hand at the moment) is not very mature. I'm not even mentioning the natural calamities, fires, car crashes etc., where there's room for heroism as well.
We mostly live with less barbarism and physical danger than any cohort of humans who have ever lived. Obviously, the people in Aleppo drew the short straw there.
I'd just prefer to see no sacrifice of any kind, especially on my account.
It seemed that way to me at first too.... But they are answering a cry for help from your customers AND they are saving a potential customer for your company. . They are often misunderstood and dont get much credit. . It makes a lot of sense from a customer viewpoint.
What's interesting to me about this podcast was the suggestion that the solution to burnout is not less work or taking a break, but getting appreciation for the work you put in. Burnout seems to not be really about the work involved but the appreciation you get for doing that job and whether you feel your job is making a difference.
While "stop being a victim" seems pretty dismissively sarcastic to me, if you reverse the meaning it can actually be useful advice in some work situations: if you are a victim, change the situation or leave.
I guess what I meant is that there are true victims who are being harassed or abused, and telling that group of people to change their mentality and perspective (without changing their circumstances) would be dismissive.
I mean more in the workplace, where it's possible to think of yourself as a victim, a sort of ... variation on self-pity. When I have seen this, it ... didn't help.
I remember her writing something about burnout being to do with your brain being effectively trained to associate hard work with failure (but I can't find where she said that, so it might have been someone else). My strategy to self-heal was to put myself in situations or activities where I had many small-to-medium-sized wins.
You're right, there should be a balance, overwork is harmful even when you are doing something you are passionate about. But passion, appreciation, and the feeling that your work is benefiting humanity seems to ward off burnout. That seemed to be the case for the people in this podcast, and it also seems to be the case for people like Elron Musk who work outrageous hours but don't seem to get burned out.
What is the connection between the parent and your reply? Is there something in that link regarding the appreciation given for work done that I'm missing? Do you deny that excessive quantities of work could be (partly) a response to the lack of acknowledgement?
If someone is working hard and burned out, then continue of that will lead to death, so advice to continue work is very bad advice.
For example, if someone is damaged a knee, he need to relax until knee will restore it health. What will happen if someone will continue to run and jump with damaged knee instead?
If your brain is damaged, I will suggest to relax at least until brain will restore it condition. If you will continue to damage your brain, as suggested, you may die, because, unlike a knee, our body cannot live without a brain.
The whole point is that there might be more effective alternatives. It's not rational to argue that the alternatives are bad because of things that can happen (in extremes) when the proposed alternatives are not used.
While working 80-hour weeks at a startup, our boss would walk by in the evening and say, "go home". I never knew if he was serious or not. We never went home.
(A different kind of burnout vs. call center burnout)
