I'm not a bitch because you aren't listening.

[Fenris]

@Stoid

However, it is because I wanted to understand, because I always want to understand, that I went on to be very comfortable and competent with computers, and why I ultimately was able to step into my supervisor’s shoes and improve on the work she had been doing.

And if it’s your supervisor, that’s one thing and depending on the job the answer should be anything between “You’re there for data entry-here’s the keys to push. Why? Because we’re paying your salary, that’s why.” to “Great question, let’s schedule a few hours this afternoon when we can go over it in detail and you can learn the nuances of the program you’ll be using.”–it depends on the job.

But if it’s the IT/Tech Support people, I can state with 100% confidence that they aren’t there to teach you. They’re there to get your problem fixed and get on to the next person. If you made a boneheaded mistake, they’ll tell you what you did wrong and to not do it again (“Don’t delete random files in the “Windows/Sys32” directory. Even if you don’t use them very often. Why? Because it breaks your computer and I have to spend an hour fixing it. Want to learn more? Take a class.” )

[TokyoBayer]

@Stoid

@Frank

I’m mildly curious. Is this the law library where you’ve been doing all your case research

Yes.

OK, fuss up folks. Who sent the anonymous tip to the management to get the policy enforced? Or was it the appellee?

[VinylTurnip]

@Jeff

The next time I take my car in for an oil change I’m going to demand that the attendant walk me through the process step by step.

“OK, first thing, very important: lefty-loosey… hey, pay attention, kid! Now, where was I? Oh yeah. Lefty-loosey, righty-tighty…”

[MandaJo]

@Fenris

Really, when a customer asks “Why” to a policy, what they’re really saying is “I want to find a loophole.” and frankly, back when I was in customer service, I didn’t want to get caught up in a half-hour debate with a me-monkey over an issue I couldn’t change even if I wanted to (and often, I didn’t want to) when I could be helping real customers.

Exactly. And if they aren’t looking for a loophole, they are looking for a quote, so that when they escalate it they can say “your own employee said it makes no sense”, which puts the employee in a tight spot, to say the least.

[Guinastasia]

@supergoose

When did she say she could?

Nor would I have known that briefs were stored upstairs in an area off limits to patrons, meaning I would have to request them from a librarian.

Bolding mine. What other reason could she possibly need for knowing where they were? What difference does it mean if she knows where they are – she’d still have to request them from a librarian?

And someone calling me a “brain-dead corporate zombie” is NOT going to make me help them. In fact, when someone insulted me in the past, I would immediately reply, “If you are going to insult me like that, I will not help you.” The vast majority of the time, my supervisors backed me up. (Come to think of it, I really don’t remember a time they didn’t!)

[Stoid]

@Gustav

Be honest, if he had said “I don’t know”, would you have said “oh, ok” and dropped the issue?

Of course. I wanted to understand the policy, and once he’s told he’s incapable of assisting with that, what would be the point in continuing? I dropped it relatively quickly anyway, when his robotic repetitions of the policy operated as a substitution for the words “I don’t know”. That’s exactly my complaint. “I don’t know” would have been simpler, faster, more straightfoward, and far less irritating. It would have taken one question and one answer to get to the same place.

I’ve learned a long time ago never to utter those words, because the next words out of the customer’s mouth are invariably something like “Oh so you don’t know how to do your job is that what you’re saying? Well what am I talking to you for, WHERE’S YOUR SUPERVISOR?” No one ever accepts “I don’t know” for an answer. Never happens.

I think asking for the supervisor (sans the snarkiness) qualifies as accepting the answer “I don’t know”. Is it your contention that once you say that you don’t know, the person who is seeking answers should take that to mean that* no one *knows and cease trying to find out? Because those are two different things.

[MandaJo]

@Stoid

Of course. I wanted to understand the policy, and once he’s told he’s incapable of assisting with that, what would be the point in continuing? I dropped it relatively quickly anyway, when his robotic repetitions of the policy operated as a substitution for the words “I don’t know”. That’s exactly my complaint. “I don’t know” would have been simpler, faster, more straightfoward, and far less irritating. It would have taken one question and one answer to get to the same place.

You know that because you were the one doing the asking, but most of the time, after “I don’t know” the patron comes back with “Well, if there is no reason, can I go ahead and sign up? I promise I’ll leave if computers start to fill up” and then the clerk has to be like “No, because it’s the policy” (while feeling like a mean jerk) and the patron is like “But you just admitted there is no reason for the policy” and then the clerk is like “I know, ma’am, but that’s the policy and I have to follow it” (and feels even worse) and then the patron is like “Is your boss even here? Who is going to know?” and the clerk is like “Be that as it may, ma’am, I have to follow the policy” (Still feels like a jerk but is starting to get really annoyed at the other person for putting them in this position) and then the patron is all “But you admitted I wouldn’t be harming anyone and it’s really important. Can you cut me a break? Please?” And here the clerk is back to repeating the policy verbatim without explanation, and the next hour is ruined because the clerk feels both guilty and angry now.

Repeating the policy is not about repeating the policy. It’s a way of saying “I am not going to have a conversation about this”. After a few rounds of the above conversation, you learn to do that. Surely you can see not wanting to get sucked down that rabbit hole?

[Stoid]

@Guinastasia

Bolding mine. What other reason could she possibly need for knowing where they were? What difference does it mean if she knows where they are – she’d still have to request them from a librarian?

I’m a little confused about your confusion. I’m in a library…most of the materials are in front of me on shelves and I can get to them without assistance. I couldn’t find briefs, I asked the librarian, she said they were upstairs in a room off limits to the public and I’d have to get a librarian to fetch briefs for me if I wanted to see them. What’s the mystery?

And someone calling me a “brain-dead corporate zombie” is NOT going to make me help them.

So true. Which is one of several very compelling reasons I would never, under the most trying of circumstances, say that, or anything similar to that, to anyone. The “bitch” referred to in the OP is merely a matter of tone. As noted, I have been known to have a bit of “snip”. Abusive, insulting, and rude I save for my post-encounter rants.

[Guinastasia]

So did you ask the librarian to get them, or did you just help yourself? If it’s the latter, no wonder no one wants to help you.

[Stoid]

@MandaJo

Repeating the policy is not about repeating the policy. It’s a way of saying “I am not going to have a conversation about this”. After a few rounds of the above conversation, you learn to do that. Surely you can see not wanting to get sucked down that rabbit hole?

How is repeating the policy likely to be more effective or bring closure more quickly than speaking plainly: “I do not know the underlying reasons for the policy. I only know that my job is enforce it. I’m sorry I can’t help you beyond that.”

Repeating the policy seems so much less effective, less direct, less clear, more irritating, more confusing and far more likely to extend the exchange into more rounds of struggle than plain, clear, direct responses.

I certainly accept that people have had lots of problems communicating with lots of people who were being unreasonable and absuive and wouldn’t accept anything that wasn’t exactly what they wanted. I’ve worked with the public, I’m familiar. But I don’t get how being less clear or direct or specific or frank is better. Some people are going to give you a hard time no matter what, and actually, in my own experience, being crystal clear and direct with such people really is going to shut it down quicker than dancing around.

In the example you gave, for instance, the clerk is being a pussy and is not being clear.

most of the time, after “I don’t know” the patron comes back with “Well, if there is no reason, can I go ahead and sign up? I promise I’ll leave if computers start to fill up”

The correct answer is not to repeat the policy. The correct answer is “I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that there was no reason. I simply don’t know what it is. What I do know is that it is very important for me to do what I’ve been told to do, and I’m very grateful to you for understanding that I don’t want to risk getting in trouble by bending the rules or anything. Jobs are hard to get these days. Now. Was there some other way I could help you? Perhaps something you wanted to see online is available on the shelves?”

And if the patron persists beyond that point, you get the supervisor.

The scenarios being put forth I’m sure have happened, but persistent people can be shut down very effectively without everyone involved turning into a mess of anger or guilt. And completely unreasonable people who are spoiling for someone to take their frustration with life out on will find a way, so giving them crappy answers won’t help.

[descamisado]

I’ve only read comments from other posters about stoid’s reputation for obdurance and belligerence, so I’m not going to comment on that per se.

I would like to offer her a bit of advice though. I can be just as questioning of rules as she seems to be but I’ve learned that, in cases where a rule doesn’t make sense, I try to seek out a person who can explain it and try to come prepared with a suggestion(s) that might tweak that rule. You said:

I was a the library, where I’ve been for many, many, many hours over the past 2 years. There are 14 computers. The system for using them is simple and makes sense: you need to sign in for a computer and you only get to use it for an hour. If you want to continue using it you have to sign in again for another hour. They are designed to knock you off automatically after an hour. If there is a waiting list, you have to go to the end of the waiting list.

From this, it is not clear whether the information that you’ve been on a computer for one hour goes beyond the computer itself, or whether it is by sight that the librarian knows a patron has had more than two sessions (do the librarians change shifts and, if so, how do they keep up?).

At the library I patronize (with about 80 computers total), they recently changed from two 30-minute sessions per day, with automatic time limit extensions if they’re not busy to unlimited numbers of 30-minute sessions. The entire computer network is integrated and automated – sign-in, extensions, etc.

Because of this integration/automation and the large number of computers, you can sign up limitlessly and the system can still accommodate sudden influxes of new users – automatically kicking off those who’ve been re-upped and extended at the 30 minute session-end.

Perhaps you can discuss the policy and suggest such integration (though it might not work as well with only 14 computers)? If it’s possible, no multi-session user gets to abuse the system at the expense of incoming users and the librarians would not be tasked with keeping up with who’s had two sessions or questions about the two-session rule.

[Stoid]

@Guinastasia

So did you ask the librarian to get them, or did you just help yourself? If it’s the latter,

How could I “help myself” when I didn’t know where they were? Are you asking me if I then went poking around where I wasn’t supposed to be looking for more places I wasn’t supposed to be trying to get to the briefs, vs. just asking the librarian to get them for me? Cuz if it’s the former…uh, no.:rolleyes:

no wonder no one wants to help you.

Except… I’m getting scads of help from all over the place. Hell, for all my trials there’s a case to be made that I’m among the most blessed people you’re ever likely to come across, if the measure is the help that I’ve received and continue to receive every day. I’m constantly amazed and grateful. How many people have friends who will show up and buy their business, support them, try to buy their house to keep them living in it…? Lawyers who take their calls and answer their questions for months?

I am humbled every day. …but I also embrace it for the acknowledgment as well. I must be doing something right. Doper disdain notwithstanding.

[MandaJo]

@Stoid

How is repeating the policy likely to be more effective or bring closure more quickly than speaking plainly: “I do not know the underlying reasons for the policy. I only know that my job is enforce it. I’m sorry I can’t help you beyond that.”

Repeating the policy seems so much less effective, less direct, less clear, more irritating, more confusing and far more likely to extend the exchange into more rounds of struggle than plain, clear, direct responses.

Because every time you introduce new information–“I don’t know” or “More people might come in” or “the processors get overheated” or whatever, it’s an invitation for more dialogue. It says “This topic is still open for discussion”. It gives the patron hope that if they come up with the right counter-argument, the right clever observation, the right objection, they will get what they want. It absolutely carries the potential to extend the conversation, where repeating the policy more or less insures that the conversation will stop.

Have you ever talked to a telemarketer who had an answer to everything? Who used the rules of polite discourse (don’t hang up until the other person agrees the conversation is over) to keep you on the phone, because whatever you said to disengage, they would never say back “Ok, well, what about . . .” or “One more thing . . .” until finally you had to hang up? Some people are like that naturally.

I certainly accept that people have had lots of problems communicating with lots of people who were being unreasonable and absuive and wouldn’t accept anything that wasn’t exactly what they wanted. I’ve worked with the public, I’m familiar. But I don’t get how being less clear or direct or specific or frank is better. Some people are going to give you a hard time no matter what, and actually, in my own experience, being crystal clear and direct with such people really is going to shut it down quicker than dancing around.

In the example you gave, for instance, the clerk is being a pussy and is not being clear.

Some people are pussies. Some people hate confrontation. Some people feel really, really guilty when they have to be the agent of another person’s unhappiness, even if it’s not their fault. And some people are not quick on their feet.

The correct answer is not to repeat the policy. The correct answer is “I’m
sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that there was no reason. I simply don’t know what it is. What I do know is that it is very important for me to do what I’ve been told to do, and I’m very grateful to you for understanding that I don’t want to risk getting in trouble by bending the rules or anything. Jobs are hard to get these days. Now. Was there some other way I could help you? Perhaps something you wanted to see online is available on the shelves?”

And if the patron persists beyond that point, you get the supervisor.

So what could have taken 2 or three minutes (repeat the policy 3 times until the patron gets the point and stops asking) turns into a half-an-hour ordeal that leaves you a shaking mess because you had some woman explain to you that you’ve ruined her life by enforcing a stupid policy and then escalated it to your supervisor, where that same lady describes you as “unhelpful” or “doesn’t even understand your policies” and then your supervisor upbraids you after for escalating what should have been something you could stop in your tracks–how is that simpler? How is that easier? How is that better for anyone?

Now, obviously, that won’t happen every time you engage a patron as to the details of the policy, but even if it only happens 10% of the time, why risk it? It can ruin your day, and there is no way the patron will get what they wanted either way.

The scenarios being put forth I’m sure have happened, but persistent people can be shut down very effectively without everyone involved turning into a mess of anger or guilt. And completely unreasonable people who are spoiling for someone to take their frustration with life out on will find a way, so giving them crappy answers won’t help.

And one very effective way to shut down those people is to repeat the policy and refuse to get involved in any discussion as to why.

[Stoid]

@5-4-Fighting

I’ve only read comments from other posters about stoid’s reputation for obdurance and belligerence, so I’m not going to comment on that per se.

Belligerence? I appear to have a gift for bringing it out in others, but I don’t think it’s really true of me.

Perhaps you can discuss the policy and suggest such integration (though it might not work as well with only 14 computers)? If it’s possible, no multi-session user gets to abuse the system at the expense of incoming users and the librarians would not be tasked with keeping up with who’s had two sessions or questions about the two-session rule.

That’s an excellent idea. As I mentioned, I did get the name of the person who can actually make a difference.

Even if the computer system isnt’ sophisticated enough, it’s pretty easy to do manually as well, since there is a sign up sheet. Patrons who sign up beyond the second hour will have their name highlighted on the sign up sheet, and if there’s anyone waiting, the highlighted names get booted off. Kinda like the pool at the Y. I can swim all damn day if there’s no one waiting. But since I have to sign up with the time when I get in, they can kick me out if a line starts to form and I’ve gone over my allotment.

[Fenris]

@Stoid

How is repeating the policy likely to be more effective or bring closure more quickly than speaking plainly: “I do not know the underlying reasons for the policy. I only know that my job is enforce it. I’m sorry I can’t help you beyond that.”

< years of experience >
“Why don’t you know the underlying reasons for policy? If you don’t, who does? What’s your name? What’s your manager’s name? Why can’t you help me beyond that? Can’t you make an exception for me? I pay your salary! You know who ELSE enforced policies that they didn’t understand? THE NAZIS!”

Or:

Customer: Why don’t you know the reason for the policy?

Clerk: I just don’t. I never asked.

Customer: Why didn’t you ask? Don’t you care?

Clerk: Look, I’m just doing my job.

Customer: Your < finger quotes > job < /finger quotes > is customer service. I’m a customer and I want to know WHHHHHYYYYY I have to follow this policy?

Clerk: Because that’s the policy.

Customer: Yes. And I want to know WHHHHHYYYYY it exists.

Clerk: Because that’s what my boss told me.

Customer: Fine. Let me talk to him.

Clerk: She’s not here, but even if she was, she didn’t make it either.

Customer: OH-HO! So you KNOW WHO MADE IT?!

Clerk: No. I just know it came down from corporate.

Customer: Fine. Who in < finger quotes > corporate < /finger quotes > made it?

Clerk: I don’t know. Are you going to < follow policy > or not? There’s a line of 10 people behind you waiting.

Customer: I’m fighting for them too. Give me your corporate directory.

Clerk: My what? Lady, I get the company newsletter twice a year. That’s about as much as I know or care about beyond my paycheck.

Customer: So you’re telling me that you won’t tell me the reasons for this policy?

Clerk: I don’t know the reason for the policy.

Customer: Who does know the reason for the policy?

ad infinitum.

There is no person in the world (except perhaps our OP) who asks “Golly! That policy makes no sense. Why is it in place?” if they’re not looking for a loophole, a gotcha or a fight. And in the OP’s case, I’d be inclined to say “It ain’t my job to satisfy your idle curiosity. Get on the board of directors and ask for their minutes.”

Trust me. The robotic repetition of the policy works–you’re going to piss off the customer either way, but repetition is less work and less confrontational.

Customer: That’s outrageous! What’s the reason for this policy?

Clerk: The policy is such-and-such, ma’am.

Customer: Yes I know! I’m asking why!

Clerk: The policy is such-and-such, ma’am.

Customer: Are you going to give me any answers?

Clerk: The policy is such-and-such, ma’am.

Customer: I asked you a question! Why do I have to do this?

Clerk: The policy is such-and-such, ma’am.

Customer: < head explodes >

And at that point, they leave (win), call for the supervisor (me, back in the day) who does the same routine and the buck stopped with me, unless the customer wanted to write a letter to “The Office Of The President”, 95% of which ended up in the crank file with a “Dear Customer, We’re sorry our policy didn’t suit your needs. We consider the satisfaction of ALL our customers to be a top priority. We’ll try to do better in the future” form letter.

And what’s even nicer is that Miss Manners endorses it. When you don’t want to accept an invitation, the correct answer to “why” is “I just can’t” repeated as many times as needed until the questioner shuts up.

[Lord_Ashtar]

I’m reminded of a thread I read on this very board. It was probably about six months ago or so. The OP was pitting a whole bunch of lawyers because they wouldn’t answer some questions for her for free to help her sue somebody. Some people tried to explain how what she was asking for was advise, which should cost money since it’s what lawyers get paid to do and all that. She insisted that she didn’t want advice, she just wanted some direction. When it was explained that it was still advice and that lawyers generally shied away from that sort of thing without defining the attorney/client relationship because they could get sued, she swore up and down that she wouldn’t sue. I think she even offered to pinky swear to it.

Damn, if only I could remember who the OP of that thread was. Roid? Noid? Oh well, I’m sure it’ll come back to me. Bottom line was that whoever that OP was, she also didn’t understand the policy. When it was explained to her, she kept looking for loopholes and excuses as to why her situation was so different from all the others. Shoot, I really wish I could recall who that was. The OP of this thread could learn a lot from reading it for comprehension.

[Stoid]

@MandaJo

Because every time you introduce new information–“I don’t know” or “More people might come in” or “the processors get overheated” or whatever, it’s an invitation for more dialogue. It says “This topic is still open for discussion”.

I see your point in the case of actually answering or trying to answer the question, actually introducing new information. But “I don’t know” is not appropriately lumped in - it’s not giving new information. It’s exactly the opposite. It’s the indicator that the end of information has been reached.

Some people are pussies. Some people hate confrontation. Some people feel really, really guilty when they have to be the agent of another person’s unhappiness, even if it’s not their fault. And some people are not quick on their feet.

I understand all the negative feelings and how certain interactions can escalate. The case that has not yet been made, in my opinion, is for why irritating non-answers that give the impression you aren’t listening are more effective at avoiding all the negatives and escalation than forthright and clear answers would be, especially forthright, clear, non-information-giving answers such as the example I offered. The only way anyone seems to be making the case for repeating the policy or something similar is by painting all encounters with anyone who asks as an encounter with a nutjob that can’t be reasoned with under any circumstances.

It’s also being put forth, without underlying logic that I can see, that it is somehow better, more effective, less likely to result in escalation, to repeat something at someone expecting them to somehow read into the repetition the true meaning of the repeater. And I don’t buy that, either. If everyone was so great at understanding what everyone else really means all the time, not only would there be no war, (or maybe there would be nothing BUT war…), there would be no romantic comedies.

Speak plain. Be straight. Simpler, easier, faster. And crazy will always be crazy…when you treat everyone like they’re crazy, they’ll make you right.

[Gustav]

@Stoid

I see your point in the case of actually answering or trying to answer the question, actually introducing new information. But “I don’t know” is not appropriately lumped in - it’s not giving new information. It’s exactly the opposite. It’s the indicator that the end of information has been reached.

“Why don’t you know? Don’t you think you should know? Isn’t it your job to know? Can you find out? Well why do you think it is? If you don’t know, it can’t be a very good reason. Is there someone else who knows? Why don’t you go find out and come back to me?”

[MsWhatsit]

Anyone who has ever worked in any customer service job for longer than two minutes knows what an unbelievably bad idea it is to tell a customer, “I don’t know.” Saying "I don’t know’ is the fastest way to make certain types of customers completely wig out and start demanding to know why you are incompetent at your job, what the hell kind of establishment this is anyway, etc.

Of course you would never do anything like that, Stoid, but enough people do that it’s not worth anyone’s while to actually say “I don’t know” in response to a customer question. So there’s the answer to the question of why customer service people won’t just say “I don’t know.” And somehow I feel confident that you’re not going to be happy with this answer, either, and will keep demanding more and different answers. Even though you are definitely not one of those people.

[descamisado]

Sorry about the “belligerent.”

I didn’t know.