Service, Smothered in Arrogance

Firms in the US market seem to be evolving (or, arguably, returning)  to customer orientation.  There is slow and painstaking progress toward customer service rather than operational efficiency, long-term objectives rather than short-term, innovation rather than governance, and the like.   But throughout them all there is the subtle sense of something pernicious: a spirit of arrogance that slows and subverts progress toward the goal.

In a general sense, people seem to recognize, almost instinctively, the arrogance of the opposing argument, but that same sense is less attuned to that of their own.   That is to say: there is a great deal of arrogance on the part of those who argue in favor of customer service, long-term objectives, and innovation that, objectively considered, accounts for the lack of progress and the resolution of those who are resistant to it.

In more specific terms: even firms who seem to be growing the right culture are simultaneously smothering it with their own arrogance.  Every employee may be focused on customer service, but each has a different idea about what constitutes great service as well as the way in which it might be achieved and is far more fond of his own ideas than anything that someone else might suggest for achieving the very same goal - that much is inevitable and quite natural - but the winnowing process in which the various ideas are considered is infected with a virulent strain of narcissism, that is so widespread that it has gone beyond a psychological defect on the part of a few misguided individuals to a cultural one that has become typical of a depressing many.

In a culture of arrogance, ideas are not considered, but dismissed. There is a preference for the first idea, regardless of whether it has any merit, which is vigorously defended against any suggestion of an alternate course or objective.   Any culture or any individual that maintains that there can only be one right answer is smothered in arrogance, and will smother better ideas to avoid even considering that the first-blush conclusion or knee-jerk reaction may have been entirely wrong.

In a culture of arrogance, everyone may be encouraged to speak freely, but no-one will be heard.  The first mover has an advantage, to the disadvantage of ultimately achieving the best results, and it's the person who speaks longest and loudest rather than the one who has the most well-reasoned ideas that holds sway.   The notion of scholarly humility - which encourages us to accept the possibility we're wrong especially when we're at our most certain - is utterly unheard of.

In a culture of arrogance, information is solicited so that it may be dismissed.   The first mover's argument may not be based on facts, secondary research is chosen carefully to support a foregone conclusion, and primary research is rigged or subverted to gather evidence for a hypothesis rather than explore its veracity.

In a culture of arrogance, the quality of an idea is far less compelling than its popularity or the approval of those in positions of authority.  While lip-service is paid to innovation, tradition typically wins out when a decision is ratified by a ranking authority or relegated to the consensus of the irrational and uninformed.  Two plus two equals five when a person with an impressive job title says so, or when it is supported by the vote of lesser mortals who do not know the fundamentals of mathematics.

I could likely go on for a while, but sense I am already belaboring the point: that one of the greatest obstacles to progress is the arrogance of those who claim, and might even genuinely wish, to support progress.   And while there are far more immediate objectives to achieve toward the goal of evolving organizations to survive an increasingly competitive marketplace, it's likely that this merits some consideration before it becomes epidemic.