Customer Service and the psychology of acquiescence
Jacquelyn Hamer
While I do not accept that a lack of resolve on the part of consumers to insist on their right to fair, just and efficient service justifies poor customer service, I have been compelled to take account of points-of-view that have been expressed to me regarding what I will describe as a psychology of acquiescence on the parts of a surprisingly large number of Guyanese consumers. This, in the view of some analysts, is largely responsible for the condition of poor customer service that obtains in our country today. What has been suggested to me is that here in Guyana we have had a situation in which the notion of the customer being king has been stood on its head and that what obtains in many instances is that the service provider is the wearer of that crown; and the feeling is that what has happened is that some service- providers have simply occupied the space that service seekers have relinquished.
Perhaps the most intriguing argument I have heard to support this view is located in what has been described as the bad old days, the days of shortages, and queues and rampant black marketing and smuggling and suitcase trading. It was during those days, some believe, that the psychology of acquiescence, the standing on its head of the axiom of the customer being king was spawned.
While I have seen no scientific evidence to support it, there is something to be said for the view that during those difficult days some interesting changes occurred in the relationship between sellers of consumer goods – particularly items of food – and buyers and I have therefore decided to put it to readers to have then make up their own minds about its validity or otherwise. I remember, for example, the scheming and conniving of the hoarders and black marketers – some of whom are still in business today – and the manner in which these practices reduced consumers to mendicants. I remember the long faces in long queues, the sense of gratitude and relief felt by consumers upon acquisition of some critical item and the fact that whatever it was had been acquired at an exorbitant price did not matter one iota. It was the acquisition of the item that was important.
It is true that in those days the service provider, the seller was king. It was an ugly, exploitative system which prevailed because there were shortages and the exploitation did not result in the sense of outrage that ought to have been felt. People were simply grateful to acquire those scarce items.
If you ask me to what extent the experience of the period of shortages in Guyana has created a condition in which consumers have learnt to accept their lot without protest I would have to say that I do not know. If you ask me, however, whether there is still evidence of that acquiescence, that acceptance of whatever is put before us, I would have to say that I believe that there is. In some instances, greater availability of consumer goods appears to have changed little in the way of the psyche of mendicancy that obtained during the period of scarcity. I have found too that among some traders there is a persistence of the same unfathomable barefacedness that attended their posture in those days.. Consumers are still expected to pay higher prices, to accept – both in quality and quantity – less than they are paying for and, moreover, not to protest these injustices. This contemporary condition, some say, is a throwback to those of shortages to which I referred earlier and worse there appears to be no enforceable recourse in the law. I have thought about this practice carefully and I believe that it is one of the more glaring and disturbing examples of lawlessness in our society.
The Consumer has to accept some of the responsibility! If you do not condition yourself to stand up for your rights – if you know them, that is – you have to take some of the blame for the poor customer service that you receive. The fact is that some traders and some service providers are locked into the notion that the act of providing the good or service is in fact a favor to the consumer rather than a business transaction or, otherwise, an entitlement. We need to disabuse them of that idea. I concede though, that this is a tough ask. If there are honest, honourable traders who form part of our commercial community there are, at the same time, dishonest characters including smugglers, ‘merchants’ who offer expired goods for sale, store proprietors who knowingly offer defective goods for sale and who refuse either to exchange them or provide refunds after the consumer has discovered the defects and corner shop proprietors who would not hesitate to short change a child sent by a parent to purchase a pound of sugar. These are all examples of poor customer service which amount, in my view to acts of criminality.
This, of course, brings me to another issue, that is, the issue of knowing what your rights are and being able to enforce them. The fact is that the paltry attempts at consumer education that obtain in our country through the occasional newspaper article or television programme are simply not enough to address the problem. The notion of service providers’ responsibilities and service seekers’ rights must be ingrained into our service culture through high-profile and energetic lobbying by the state organizations and the various NGO’s that claim responsibility for consumer protection must rise to that challenge and the enactment and enforcement of the appropriate laws.
I have browsed through the extant Consumer Protection Act and I propose to address its contents in my next column because I believe that it contains critical information on important issues and that if its contents are enforced we can witness an improved regimen of consumer service. . For the time being, however, we rely entirely on what a public official described to me as moral suasion, an approach of coaxing traders and other service providers into doing what they really ought to be compelled to do under the law. I have found the section of the Act on the exchange of goods particularly interesting and I propose to address it in some detail particularly because I believe that the assorted ‘policies’ on some business places on the exchange of goods are, in some instances, deliberately designed to defraud consumers.
It would make little sense for us to continue to preach the gospel of good customer service, to offer courses and urge compliance when, in fact, there is an absence of an enabling environment. The fact that people – in this case, service providers – are taught the right thing does not mean that they will apply it. An understanding of what good customer service is, for example, has not been able to remove corrupt practices at several state agencies. This is why the ball is returned to the consumers’ court. Whatever education on good customer service is forthcoming must also impact the recipient of that service. Ignorance of one’s rights and a refusal to assert those rights even when we know them will inevitably, at one time or another, result in exploitative situations. That, I fear, is the current reality of our service culture.
