Reading Helene’s latest post entitled “Service vs. Experience” sparked a thought that’s been floating around in my noggin – namely that libraries really need to rethink what providing excellent customer service means. We’re not alone in this endeavor, nearly everyone who interacts with people physically or virtually is faced with the challenge of providing service that’s outstanding enough to get return visits and recommendations to potential customers. But my personal experience is with libraries, particularly public libraries – and so this is where I’m a comin’ from.
It’s all fine and good to use the phrase “excellent customer service” when writing out a mission statement or service goal document – but what does that really mean? I think for the majority of librarians that I’ve worked or spoken with it means treating everyone that walks in the door equally in terms of services and help provided (note I’m emphasizing “walks in the door”, here – I’ll get to that later). We then go about determining what these services are, as we see them. We create “rules”and ”guidelines” that each new library staffer learns the first day on the job. And because it’s easier to follow orders than actively assess a situation and make an informed decision – we often get stuck and trapped by these “rules” and “guidelines”. They become our crutches when dealing with “difficult” customers, they are our “Pass the Buck” card when customers bristle at our inflexibility.
“But if we don’t have these rules, then people will take advantage of us!” OK, that may not be an exact quote but it’s the sentiment that many librarians convey. Being human, we focus on the exceptions rather than the vast majority of honest, good intentioned customers. Since we’re in the business of helping people reach their current aspirations – whether that be the 20 page report on the obscure topic due tomorrow, the basket full of picture books that will be used (perhaps in vain) to help keep a toddler occupied during a long trip, or confirming for someone that the unintelligible but scary sounding diagnosis they just received from the doctor is not life threatening – we are dealing with people’s lives and thus we’re exposed to all the emotions (good and bad) that come out of people.
Rules limit us, and they have the potential to damage our relationships with our customers. Why not use empowering rule of Radical Trust? Trust your employees to be fluid in their interactions with customers. Expose them to your library’s philosophy and allow each to interpret as they see fit with each individual they come in contact with. Everyone does NOT want to be treated the same. I’ll even go so far as to say that the whole “Treat others as you would want to be treated” idea is limiting because it assumes that your vision of good treatment is universal.
What does this mean in practical terms?
- It means having open dialogs about “why we do things the way we do here at our library”. Too often we find ourselves using rules that were created long ago, never questioned since, and very likely need major overhaul.
- It means abolishing the need for “supervisor approval” prior to bending a guideline, like amount of time on a PC or number of books checked out on a particular topic.
- It means (gasp) waiving overdue fines if the library staff member feels it’s appropriate, and will have a positive impact on that service interaction.
- It means that interactions with our online customers are not seen as “peripheral” duties. These should be responded to promptly and courteously – using communication methods that our customers are using (IM, text messaging, etc.)
- It means repeatedly communicating to ALL library staff that their judgement is valued, and their opinion respected.
- It means constantly looking for new and better wasy to get feedback from customers on what works for them, and what doesn’t. More importantly, it means including this feedback when planning new services or facilities.
- It means that posters that convey sentiments such as ”Failure to adequately plan on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part” are thrown in the trash where they belong.
- It also means that we strike from our library language the phrase”non-traditional library customer”, and realize that this phrase was just code for “the people who come in and want things/services from us that we don’t think is very important”
What else does this mean to you?
Wow! I love this post! So glad to see you’re blogging. You have a great voice.
T- just got to comment again. Love the last statement about striking non-traditional Library customer. You hit the nail on the head!!!!!!
Love the post. Were you reading my mind?
I especially like this point:
“It means repeatedly communicating to ALL library staff that their judgement is valued, and their opinion respected.”
Working as a team towards a common set of goals shouldn’t be such a revolutionary idea, but I think that at some libraries it might be.
May I add one of my own? How about
It means librarians must stop hiding behind degrees, job descriptions, and traditional roles and do whatever it takes to get the job done.
It means thanking the patrons ..for using the library, coming in to your programs, complimenting your staff. But most of all, thanking the patrons for their criticisms of staff or service, for those are your markers to growth.
As we were reminded lately ..it’s remembering that any patron..even the little-known, elderly man with the expired card…might turn around and make a $10,000 donation to your Foundation??!
I’m going to risk making one small observation. Giving individual staff the flexibility to make decisions on a customer-by-customer basis is laudatory. The problem comes when different staff members handle the same customer in different ways, resulting in the plaintive “Well, so-and-so let me do it!” What should be the response then?
Janet
Your observation makes a very valid point. And I guess my response to your query about what we can do when faced with the “but THAT librarian did blah and blah for me!” would involve putting on a reporter’s hat (with my apologies to all real journalists out there):
WHO – Who’s making the comment (about inconsistency amongst staff)? In my opinion, striving to provide excellent customer service doesn’t mean ignoring the fact that some people are more demanding than others. Some are. (But you don’t need to let them know that you think they are more demanding than others). Another WHO to ask is – who are these customers making the comment (as a group)? Is this a good percentage of your customers, or merely those that stick out in our minds because the encounter was difficult. If it were a good percentage of your customers, then I’d find an opportunity during a staff meeting to discuss what the overall mission and service goals of the library are, giving concrete examples not just generic phrases – because it sounds like there isn’t cohesiveness there. And a third WHO to ask is – who are the library staff involved in these encounters? Does it vary, or are there librarians who are more often than not involved? Why is this? Ask questions directly. Come at it from a “this is what I’ve observed – tell me what is happening/what I’m missing”, which indicates you’re not wishing to dig for dirt, but rather an understanding of a particular situation’s dynamics.
WHAT – Exactly what did that librarian do that you are not doing? Is it giving them the benefit of the doubt about a returned book – or is it something that falls under the category of being someone’s “personal librarian”? These “personal librarian” requests are different than those requests to bend rules, but should also be managed on a case-by-case basis. If someone always wants a library staff member to take the NY Times Crossword puzzle, and make a reduced size photocopy so they can complete at their leisure – and photocopiers are available on the public floor, then this can be an opportunity for the customer to learn a new skill. It’s all in the delivery, I think. Your goal is then to convey to the customer that this will ensure that anytime they wish to use the copier, they won’t have to wait for service. Using phrases like “I want to be sure that you can have this service whenever you need it” shows that you value their request. And self-service in libraries is powerful – and will only grow.
WHERE – This is definitely something that is important for larger library facilities with multiple service desks. I took the opportunity to chat with one of my favorite librarians at one of our busiest Regional Libraries. I asked him about your observation, Janet, and he agreed that this certainly does happen, but it is more the exception than the rule. He said that he personally wants to make sure that the customer goes away happy and satisfied, but he’s observed that consistency (or at least perceived consistency) is sometimes difficult to achieve when you have so many different service points. It’s very easy for a customer to expect quick and complete service at a service desk in the Children’s area – but if this request occurs just as 50+ toddlers and their parents are streaming out of a Storytime – it’s going to meet more challenges than if the request were posed at the Adult Reference Desk. There are also natural differences among library staff in terms of how stringent responses should be to more obvious infractions, like using someone else’s account to access an Internet PC or accounts with multiple lost books.
It’s a continuous conversation that needs to remain open amongst staff and open with customers. It’s uncomfortable at times, and perhaps inconsistent at times too. I think the main thing is to convey to each customer that your ultimate goal to ensure they will leave satisfied AND COME BACK.
[...] for more great thoughts on customer service in libraries check out the posts by The Leapin’ Librarian and Helene Blowers. Leapin’ Librarian writes about radical trust and not putting library “rules” [...]