Here's how today's customer service lets people down

The simple act of getting a refund for a canceled flight or resolving an issue with your internet service can turn into a Herculean task. Economist Dan Davies, in his latest book, introduces the concept of "accountability sinks," a term that encapsulates why dealing with customer service has become increasingly frustrating.

Davies explains that businesses have devised algorithms to determine outcomes such as who gets bumped off a flight, ensuring that the system's verdict is final. This method absolves individual employees from responsibility, creating a scenario where customers' grievances often go unaddressed. "The gate attendant, though facing frustration, is not to blame," Davies notes, emphasizing that the real issue lies within the system itself.

The rise of accountability sinks is not confined to airlines. It extends to various industries, including internet service providers, cellphone companies, banks, and credit card companies. In these sectors, customer service representatives are often constrained by limited options within existing systems. This lack of flexibility and personal judgment calls leaves customers feeling disregarded, intensifying their negative emotions.

A Historical Perspective

The evolution of accountability sinks can be traced back to the 1980s, an era marked by privatization and the advent of free-market capitalism. Influential figures like Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan, and Margaret Thatcher championed profit-making and shareholder value maximization. Companies, in turn, embraced automated systems to handle complex decision-making processes, alongside cost-cutting measures that often sacrificed middle management and customer service roles.

Davies argues that while technology has enhanced decision-making processes, it has also severed feedback channels. This disconnect means companies risk losing touch with customer sentiment, potentially fueling mounting frustrations without their awareness. "By severing feedback channels, companies risk losing touch with customer sentiment," Davies warns, advocating for direct interaction between customers and decision-makers.

The Broader Implications

The concept of accountability sinks is vividly illustrated by the case of Boeing. The company, plagued by fatal crashes and quality control issues, exemplifies the detrimental consequences of prioritizing cost optimization and share buybacks over manufacturing quality. Davies points out that such practices have led to significant repercussions for Boeing, eroding its brand reputation and fostering customer resentment.

Despite the short-term gains from these practices, Davies warns that accountability sinks will eventually backfire on companies. The accumulated lack of accountability over time may culminate in a significant reckoning, exposing the repercussions of neglecting customer concerns and operational integrity. "The lack of accountability can lead to customers feeling disregarded, intensifying their negative emotions," he emphasizes.

The Path Forward

To mitigate the adverse effects of accountability sinks, Davies advocates for a more balanced approach that combines technological efficiency with human empathy. He suggests that even if the outcome remains unchanged, the act of being heard holds significant value for customers. Direct interaction between customers and decision-makers can help bridge the gap, fostering a sense of understanding and respect.

The rise of accountability sinks highlights a critical flaw in modern customer service practices. By prioritizing efficiency and cost-cutting over genuine human interaction, companies risk alienating their customers and damaging their brand reputation. As Davies aptly puts it, "Businesses must find a way to balance technological advancements with the need for personal accountability to ensure long-term customer satisfaction."