When the system fails, the customer feels it first.
No one seems incompetent. On the contrary, everyone seems to be doing their best within their responsibilities. The problem isn’t with the people on the phone. It’s with the system that has stopped working as a system. Initially, this type of service is detailedly architected. Insurance is designed based on a specific audience, known risk scenarios, and estimated volumes. From there, coverage, response times, provider network, support systems, decision-making processes, and training for the people who will operate all of this are defined. The promise made to the client “when you need us, we’ll be there” is, or should be, an operational promise: underpinned by concrete choices about how the work will be done, by whom, with what means, and under what conditions. When that promise is put to the test. Insurance companies, banks, health plans, or any long-term service business thrive on a promise that is only fully revealed in critical moments. Initially, this promise is usually well-supported. Over time, however, something changes, not abruptly, but silently. A decision here, an adjustment there. A new technological system that solves a local problem but creates another one down the line. A change of supplier. An emergency hiring. A redefined goal to respond to short-term pressure. Each decision seems rational when viewed in isolation. The problem is that no one is looking at the system as a whole anymore. What once functioned as a coherent flow begins to operate as disconnected parts. The original system is not redesigned; it is patched together. Exceptions become routine. Implicit dependencies cease to be visible. Operational coherence begins to be lost. From the customer’s point of view, this fragmentation appears as bureaucracy, delays, inconsistent responses, and broken promises. The experience ceases to be predictable precisely when it matters most. Internally, the impact is different, but equally profound. Meetings begin to exist to align what the process no longer sustains. “Key” people become indispensable to make the system work. Decisions are made outside the formal flow. Multitasking ceases to be the exception and becomes the norm. Human effort becomes the main mechanism of stability. When people start to compensate for systems At this point, something critical happens: the system stops protecting those who work in it. People start spending constant cognitive energy interpreting unclear rules, working around integration failures, explaining inconsistencies to the client, and “finding a way” to get things moving. The client feels it first. People feel it later. And yet, the diagnosis usually points elsewhere. There’s talk of lack of commitment, attitude problems, resistance to change, or the need for more training. Investment is made in discourse, culture, and behavior, trying to correct in people what was generated by the job design. The classic diagnostic error Most organizational dysfunctions don’t stem from unprepared individuals, but from the progressive loss of operational coherence. When no one is responsible for ensuring that the system continues to make sense as a system, the cost inevitably appears in two places: in the customer experience and in the exhaustion of those who work to sustain it. Before asking how to engage people or improve customer service, perhaps it would be more honest to ask: what system are we asking them to sustain through their own efforts? No organization should depend on constant human compensation to fulfill the promise it made to the customer. When that happens, the problem is no longer a one-off issue. It’s structural. Disclaimer: Originally published in Portuguese by HSM Management (Brazil) https://hsmmanagement.com.br/burnout-nao-e-falta-de-resiliencia-e-falha-no-desenho-do-trabalho/ Infograms:
Retraining The Operator Does Not Mitigate Risk
If you think your processes are robust enough to prevent risk issues and yet, an issue still occurs, the way you handle it makes all the difference.
Improve Cyber Security With a Tool from The 50’s
Gambling with risk management? How cyber security could increase process robustness with a tool that could be sketched with a pen and paper.