TrainingConferencesAbout UsContact UsAdvertiseSQE.comRSS Feed

StickyMinds.com: brain food for building better software

Log In
 Clarify Your Search Criteria

Tips on Using Our Search Feature(s)
 
StickyMinds.com Home
ResourcesTopicsCommunityPowerPass
Home  >  Detail: Customer-Focused Verbs



A StickyMinds.com Original
Article Picture
Customer-Focused Verbs

By Naomi Karten

Send This Content to a FriendGet a Short Link to This ContentPrint This ContentSee User Comments About This Content

Summary: When building successful relationships with your customers, certain verbs such as "to respond," "to listen," and "to involve" are important and should be used. But this week's column is about another common place verb that's not at all customer focused: "to get." Naomi doesn't mean "to get a 50% raise for completing the project on time" or "to get a week off for creating a brilliant test plan." No, she means, "to get customers to do things your way." Learn how simple verb replacement therapy can help you build better relationships with the customer.


iTKO
I began noticing this use of "to get" many years ago in companies I visited and I continue to encounter it often, which is disconcerting. The problem is that it's easy to slip into this speech pattern and remain oblivious to its counterproductive consequences. For example: 
 
• In organization #1, a project manager bemoaned her customer's refusal to read her meticulously prepared weekly status reports. "How can we get him to pay attention?" she asked. 
 
• In organization #2, an IT manager complained about the headache-inducing challenges he faced as a result of his customers' demands. "How can we get them to stop issuing such unreasonable demands?" asked the manager. 
 
• In organization #3-—the most striking example of all-—a director, frustrated with his customers' resistance to process changes that would improve the development process, asked, "How can we get them to be partners with us?"  
 
Now, I'm not a linguist, but these uses of "to get" concern me because they imply that coercion is necessary to achieve the desired result, as if clobbering customers into submission is a stepping stone to a win-win relationship. Furthermore, they suggest that our way is the only way, the right way, and the best way. 
 
How Can I Get You to Read On? 
The reality is that you can't get customers to willingly do anything they don't want to do. They may grudgingly go along, especially if they have no choice, but that doesn't mean they'll like it, accept it, or whistle a happy tune while doing it. And compliance certainly doesn't mean that they'll become a joy to work with. 
 
IT personnel who persistently use get-oriented language fail to realize that customers aren't resisting or resenting the decision (or solution, process, procedure, or action), but how the decision was made. Unilaterally, the decision is made without customer input or participation, or even without any explanation of the rationale behind it. And then it's foisted on them as a fait accompli — a done deal; agree quietly because we said so. Is it any surprise that many customers consider the decisions of their IT organizations as "just another hare-brained scheme they've come up with to make our lives difficult," as stated by one IT customer whom I interviewed. 
 
Verb Replacement Therapy 
Fortunately, the solution is not only painless but rewarding as well. If you are guilty of "get" abuse, all you have to do is replace this divisive verb with customer-oriented verbs such as help, involve, and listen. Then match your actions to these verbs. So, rather than getting customers to do things your way, you'll help them understand the reasoning behind your decisions. You'll involve customers in making decisions that affect them, so they buy into those decisions. You'll listen to their concerns so that you can present your ideas with those concerns in mind.  
 
In the process of helping, involving, and listening, you may discover that your solution isn't the only one or even the best one. The perspective customers bring to situations may lead to solutions that are different from yours, but at least as effective—and perhaps more likely to succeed because the customer had a say in the formulation. 
 
How would verb replacement affect organizations such as the three I described above? Let's revisit these three organizations and see what transpired: 
 
• I urged the project manager in the first organization to talk with her customer about the usefulness of the status reports. In doing so, she learned that he saw the status reports as a mishmash of little geometric symbols and technical jargon in tiny type. Not finding any value in the reports, he simply ignored them. Thus enlightened, the project manager invited several members of the customer department to help create a communication process to ensure open communication and enable the two parties to stay in synch. Included in that effort was a discussion of what status information was most useful and how best to communicate it. With a new approach that they all agreed to, get was no longer needed. 
 
• Alerted to his misuse of the "get" verb, the IT manager in the second organization held a meeting with his team about their customers’ unreasonable demands. In the course of their conversation, they came to realize that the requests declared as unreasonable were likely reasonable from the customers' perspective—from a business perspective, not a technical perspective. They agreed to banish unreasonableness from their vocabulary by soliciting more information from their customers earlier in the project. This gave them a better frame of reference in which to understand their customers' requests. 
 
• The technical staff in the third organization came to realize that they had no chance of creating a partnership with their customers as long as they defined partnerships as, "Let's agree to do things my way." They also came to accept that actions speak louder than often meaningless words. The transition to a "we're in this together" relationship wasn't instantaneous. It wasn't even quick. But once they started trying to understand, appreciate, and respect their customers' concerns (three other great verbs), their customers became more accommodating as well. No one called it a partnership, but thanks to a few verbs, that's exactly what began to evolve.  
 
Are your verbs contributing to productive relationships or interfering with them? Could it be that a little verb adjustment is in order?


About the Author
Naomi Karten has delivered seminars and presentations to more than 100,000 people internationally to help them manage customer expectations, establish service level agreements, and strengthen IT/customer relationships. Her books, Communication Gaps and How to Close Them and Managing Expectations, offer practical tools, techniques and advice for carrying out projects, delivering service, implementing change, and strengthening teamwork. Her handbook, How to Establish Service Level Agreements and her SLA guides have helped organizations worldwide establish successful SLAs. Readers have described her newsletter, Perceptions & Realities, as a breath of fresh air. Before forming her training and consulting business, Naomi earned degrees in psychology and held numerous IT positions. Contact her at naomi@nkarten.com.

Back to Top
 
 

Member Comments
Add Your CommentExpand Comments
 
Comment:    
by F. Michael Dedolph 10/10/2006

Hey Naomi, how about "get thems" cousin, "should be". After doing process improvement work for a number of years, I have discovered that it "should be" easy :-) Here it is, the sure-fire formula -- "get them" to do what they "should be" doing. Obviously: (1)it is easy (I am not doing it), (2) everyone (me) knows what needs to be done, and (3)somebody (else, NOT me) is responsible. Michael

 
 
Comment:    
by Udhay Kumar Ramamurthy 2/17/2005

Hi Naomi! Decent article indeed. And, I want to tell you that, its not only customer, in today's world, there are different departments in an Industry which needs some Verbologists involved. Do you think any Professional should be trained by them as to how they "communicate". A small feedback on your point. I feel you have used some jargons in your article which is going over the head. To be frank, do you think we need to avoid such analogies and talk in Simple English in the objective of having successful communication (the receiver and the deliverer should have the same understanding). However, a Great Article for making...Read On

Author's Response:
2/17/2005    
Hi Udhay. You are absolutely right that there’s a need for verbologists industry-wide. Most people, regardless of their specific roles and responsibilities, and whether they are on the customer or provider side of a given relationship, can benefit from greater awareness of how easily communication can go astray. Thanks for your feedback.

 
 
Comment:    
by Brad Appleton 2/15/2005

Hi Naomi! Great article. I have another verb that is possibly even more bothersome than "to get" - it is "to make", as in "How do I make them understand?", "Why cant you make them see?", "What do I need to do to make you do what I ask?" the word "make" normally has connotations of creating or constructing, but this usage seems entirely about controlling (and even stifling the possibility of the normal "creative" meaning). So might we make people get these usages of "make" and "get" out of their heads? (how indeed :-)

Author's Response:
2/16/2005    
Hi Brad. Thanks for your comments. Excellent point about “to make.” We could create quite a wonderful hierarchy of bothersome verbs! In many of the instances I’ve encountered, people really don’t like functioning in these controlling ways because it takes a toll on those doing the controlling as well as on those being controlled. But people who become aware of the impact of these bad-bad verbs are often open to considering better ways. So I have hope that we can, um, get these people to become more positive and productive verbologists!

 
 
Comment:    
by John Daughety 2/15/2005

There is another angle to the "get" verb that applies well to the QA and testing professions: in a role that in many organizations is not highly respected and may even be considered a necessary evil, it is easy to feel very little empowerment. It is easy to justify the "get" verb in such situations because one can point to extensive evidence that he/she is a powerless victim and the only way out is to change others' perspectives. In fact, I would argue that in many cases use of the "get" verb against customers stems from a sense of powerlessness within the organization - if the company dictates to me without...Read On

Author's Response:
2/16/2005    
John, I really appreciate your comments because you took the topic to a deeper level: consideration of the reasons people function in a “get” manner. I agree with you that the sense of powerlessness is often a key contributor in QA/testing contexts. I have found it interesting, though, that when I’ve interviewed people in other parts of a company I’m consulting to, almost all of them feel a sense of powerlessness and a certainty that their efforts are not understood and not appreciated. And sometimes they, too, function from a “get” perspective. Happily, the use of customer-focused verbs can create a feeling of empowerment because they help to put relationships and interactions on a much more positive plain.

 
 
Comment:    
by Gunasekarran Veerapillai 2/14/2005

Hi I fully agree with you that a small rewording of the sentence would make lot of difference. Effective communication is the basic criteria which we insist for the QA Professionals in our orgnaization. The art of communication is that the receiver should receive the message in same perception in which one delivers. Especially when you talk to a client, we should anlayse the impact of words in his perspective which may certainly change our way of delivery

Author's Response:
2/15/2005    
Greetings Gunasekkarran. I’m delighted with your comment, because your point is such an important one. Both parties have responsibility for ensuring that the message received matches the message sent. But successful QA professionals, and all others for whom communication is key, do their best to consider the other party’s perspective and to analyze the potential impact of their words. When we remember to do this, we stand a much better chance of having our messages interpreted correctly.

 
Back to Top


Marketplace

Web based bug tracking - AdminiTrack.com
AdminiTrack offers an effective web-based bug tracking system designed for professional software development teams.

Census: Web-based Bug Tracking and Defect Tracking
Track software bugs, defects, enhancements, support calls, and more. Issue tracking software that is scaleable, fully customizable and integrated with VSS. Includes e-mail notifications, role-based workflow, change history, and Crystal reporting.

Need Agile Test Cases?
Create statistically complete test cases simply and quickly.

Six Sigma Certification
100% Online-Six Sigma Certificate from Villanova - Find Out More Now.

Attend WINDOWS EMBEDDED ACCELERATION WORKSHOPS
Are you ready to learn how you can bring your next-generation embedded device to market faster?

Get your product or service listed here.
Subscribe to Better Software Magazine
Subscribe to Better Software Magazine

First Name:

Last Name:

Email Address:


Home   |   Resources   |   Topics   |   Community   |   PowerPass



© 2008 StickyMinds.com. All rights reserved.
StickyMinds.com is a division of Software Quality Engineering.
Privacy Policy    Terms & Conditions    Link to StickyMinds.com    Feedback


McCabe Software, Inc.



Better Software Conference & EXPO 2008