The art of Listening!

Service Delivery and the art of listening is what keeps me wondering these days.

My previous post about tourism in Austria is actually a good example.  Austrian tourism workers are genuinely ”good listeners”.  They really hear what tourists are asking for and most of the time, they deliver!  These people are service minded and flexible, they are open to suggestion and they don’t fear what’s new and happening.  They don’t cling to conservative values (except for their own well-known traditions) but are always seeking that small opening helping their business take “the extra mile”.  They are not blinded by budget forecasts and process flows but instead every move they make starts with listening to the customer.

This way of doing business for many creates a lot of uncertainty.  It implies that you adapt your business model to continuous change.  A kind of dynamism we tend to swear off in times of economical crisis where we seek stability and retention above all.

Being in ICT Service Management, I get confronted with this attitude daily.  We are afraid to provide transparency as this could generate change and change attributes uncertainty about our future.  We are afraid to communicate as communication implies confrontation which will force us to reflect on what we do and how we do this.

In other words, we’re afraid to listen… 

Enterprise (ICT) innovation readiness, what’s in a name

With every newly launched social platform (eg. Google+), the question about enterprise use and engagement value pops up again.

What defines “enterprise readiness” in Social Media/Business?  Is it the adoption rate of managers, the leadership quality of founders or C-level directors?  Or maybe employee pressure to be able to use these platforms for work purposes?

It’s my experience that only few companies really measure this in their KPI’s on innovation.  They measure the amount and the success rate (usage in figures) of new initiatives but not their innovative value.

So is it really necessary to innovate?  A question that defines the baseline of the KPI’s (if present).  Innovation should “enable” a company in generating added value.  This added value can of course be measured in numbers or can be measured in satisfaction, motivation and engagement.  ”Use of”, needs to be defined.  It’s not just the raw metrics, it’s also the subjective value: the why.

On top of that, not so long ago I read following tweet:

@oscarberg: Funny how people often instinctively reject new technologies that can give them new or improved capabilities

I do think rejecting new technologies instinctively is an attitude many CIO’s would face when reflecting on themselves and their work.  The pressure they experience in delivering “direct revenue-generating systems” makes them reject a lot of opportunities of engaging other C-level or even board level directors.  We consider “engagement” mainly as a plus when talking about employees, the workforce but it’s probably even more important when considering the upper part of the working-piramid.  This will, most probably, influence the innovation KPI’s in a very positive way.  Engagement is bidirectional!  Senior management still thinks they are, by default, “engaged”… .