MONKEY
By Mickey Skidmore, AMHSW, ACSW, FAASW
For several months this year, I have been haggling with an organisation that was sub-contracted to replace and update my electricity meter. A bit of background will provide context. I reside in complex of two high-rise apartment buildings with more than 100 units. I found the communication from this company as somewhat odd — in that, they seemed to be communicating with me as if I were a single dwelling house or duplex. It just did not make sense to me that out of over 100 units they only wanted to change my meter. Moreover, I had received noticed from my Strata mgr earlier in the year where a different electric supplier organised an entire day to replace several meters (where in some cases electrical service may have been disrupted).
Nonetheless, they scheduled times for my update replacement, but never attended — or advised that they had been unable to complete the service. This occurred multiple times over a span of several months. From these efforts, I concluded that they were simply disorganised. I attempted to explain to them that I resided in an apartment building with more than 100 units, and that not only was I unaware of where my electric meter was in this building, I certainly did not have access to it. They would have to organise this with our Strata management. Yet, they did not seem enthusiastic to do this.
Growing tired of this, I contacted my electricity provider to lodge a complaint. I related that I had communicated and related a range of issues, concerns and explanations — until I was blue in the face — all to no avail. Several months later it became clear that this complaint department had merely “handled” me and eventually came around full circle to a similar place with the replacement company. As they had sub-contracted this company to do these replacements on their behalf, they were clearly bias and unable to mediate my concerns in a neutral fashion.
After communicating these issues with my Strata Mgr, I was informed that the utility service had already been provided master keys to access the meter closet. They simply needed to be granted access to the building — after they had provided advanced notice to Strata regarding the potential for brief power outages — so Strata could advise residents accordingly. Moreover, contact details were provided in order for them to coordinate and organise this with the Strata Mgr.
Among the numerous excuses that were made was that this company was “unable to communicate with Strata by email.” (Can you imagine?). I had long since added to my conclusion of them being disorganised, that they were inept as well. They kept putting me in the middle, insisting that I needed to organise these matters. Eventually, I assertively conveyed to them that I did not work for them, and that I would no longer participate in their dance.
In my view, this is but one typical example of a dynamic that cuts across many work environments and contributes to a toxic and dysfunctional vocational culture in Australia.
Another subtle example that may not register is grocery stores, that increasingly offer fewer and fewer human cashiers, pushing us towards self-check outs. It is already bad enough that we are forced to pay increasing and inflated prices for the food we eat, but then they want us check ourselves out too? While many may not share my view, my attitude is once again — the last time I checked, I did not work for Woolies or Coles.
And have you ever noticed how banks go out of their way to avoid human contact — pushing us towards ATMs and providing decreasing numbers of human tellers? I think it is useful to provide customers with options. There are many who prefer ATMs as the primary way to do their banking. And while I acknowledge the convenience factor in this option, no one will ever convince me that technology-driven options are superior to human customer service.
It used to be that merchants would absorb the cost of bank/credit card transaction fees as part of doing business. The idea was it hoped to attract a broader customer base where these expenses would essentially be offset via volume. Such a notion seems to have gone by the wayside some time ago. It is increasingly common these days that merchants are shifting the monkey onto their customers, passing along bank/credit card transaction fees to the purchaser. Ironically, with all the talk of potentially doing away with cash altogether, the pendulum as swung completely in the other direction — potentially leaving consumers with no choice or recourse if they wish to purchase your product or service.
Another annoying feature that is becoming increasingly common is a company sending you an email informing you that you have a message in the in-box section of their website. Medicare is notorious for this. How is this efficient? Why can’t you just provide the details in the original message? Why do I have to go to completely different website to receive an email that could have been provided in your notice?
On at least two occasions (once in the USA and once in Australia) I have been involved with mental health service organisations with the following dynamic. Across the service industry there is an emphasis on the use of outcome measures — for lots of reasons — but largely to justify funding. On both occasions, during a performance review, I was dinged because my billing or productivity hours were less than what they wanted. Following increased pressure, I had to show them my job description and point out that it was not my job to cultivate or identify clients. My job was to aid the clients seeking services. The focus on my performance never included external structural factors that had nothing to do with me and resulted in decreased demand (or disillusionment) for services. Nor were they able to account for the numerous hours of scheduled meetings that were either disregarded or cancelled — when those times could have been offered to clients for appointments.
Just as lawyers often speak “legalese”, it seems that HR departments in most organisations have their own language as well. How many of you have provided requested materials as you were onboarded with your company, only to receive communication later about materials or documents that you have already provided. Perhaps the information was not organised properly or in an optimised manner. Yet, the language conveyed to you leaves you feeling unsettled — even if that was not the intention of the message.
My Social Work background provides me with an appreciation and understanding for the diversity of language and communication. However, many HR departments may not even be aware that the expectation of the employee to understand their desired HR language may contribute to a misunderstanding in such an exchange. Contrast this with seeing an opportunity to engage the employee in a supportive conversation to review and ensure that they have organised the material optimally in their system or inquired if I had additional information that might enhance this effort.
Put simply, the dynamic I am addressing in this editorial are the vast examples of companies, organisations, agencies, services etc that seem to shift the onus of responsibility from them onto the consumer or the employee. Efforts at putting the monkey on my back, seemingly at every turn in my view, is one of fundamental dynamics underscoring and contributing to a dissatisfying work culture across Australia.
