管理大忌：三大致命的美好愿望

????全世界都迫切需要優質的服務。服務做得好的公司——看看西南航空（Southwest）和美國網絡鞋店Zappos——在保證盈利的情況下都實現了企業增長，并贏得了回頭客。服務做得不好的公司則受到了無情的懲罰。美國銀行（Bank of America）經常在客戶滿意度調查中排名墊底就是一個活生生的例子。

????企業有太多理由要服務好客戶，那么，為什么優秀的服務依然不多見？

????原因之一就是“好意”。事實證明，優質服務的核心障礙并不是落后過時的想法，也不是麻木不仁的管理層，很多時候問題恰恰在于人們希望做“對的事情”。美國銀行最大的問題可能就是現在它不想讓任何人失望。

????而且，像這樣的情況并不少見。談到服務，下面三類好的出發點往往會造成適得其反的結果：

1. 凡事力求做到最好

????最好的服務提供商總是在客戶最看重的事情上不遺余力，在客戶最不看重的事情上則留有余地。美國著名的醫學中心梅奧診所（Mayo Clinic）為患者提供當日預約服務，條件是放棄選擇指定醫生的權力。但任何急難癥患者（這是梅奧診所擅長的領域）都會樂于接受這樣的安排。

????此類折衷策略構成了成功的服務模式，沒有人需要為此致歉。西南航空（Southwest Airlines）無需為不提供正餐和行李轉運服務而感到羞愧，因為正是如此，它們才能提供廉價的密集航班，而這些也正是顧客真正想要的東西。

????如果西南航空力求事事做到最好，如果它既想成為一家廉價航空公司，又想提供高端豪華的艙內體驗，同時每天多次飛往全球任何一個地點，這套模式絕對行不通。這家公司最終會虧欠，而且什么服務都流于平庸，這正是大多數大型航空公司走下坡路的原因。

????如今的美國銀行（Bank of America）似乎正在向零售銀行的所有領域推進，可以預料的是，效果不會令人滿意。美國銀行正在試圖降低成本、提高便捷性、擴充產品領域以及提供友好的服務，或許它的名字就已經決定了，一家面向全美國人民的銀行絕不能讓任何人因為任何事情失望。

????美國銀行沒有設計一個或多個服務模式【看看豐田（Toyota）和雷克薩斯（Lexus）各自的策略】根據關鍵服務要素進行優化，而是選擇全面鋪開，勝算渺茫。它不是最便宜、最方便或最友好的儲蓄銀行。它讓所有的人都大失所望，原因卻又各有不同，僵化的策略無法讓任何人真正滿意。

????你們的客戶最看重什么？如果確保他們獲得這些，他們愿意放棄什么？回答好這些問題，是提供優質服務的第一步。

????The world is desperate for good service. Companies that get service right – see Southwest and Zappos – are rewarded with profitable growth and devoted customers. And companies that get it wrong are relentlessly punished. Bank of America's persistent presence at the very bottom of the rankings for customer satisfaction is one such example.

????There are powerful incentives to serve customers well, so why is service excellence still so rare?

????Here's part of the problem: good intentions. It turns out a central barrier to service is not backward thinking and callous management. More often than not, it's the very human desire to want to do the right thing. BofA's biggest problem may be that it's trying not to disappoint anyone right now.

????The bank's not alone. When it comes to service, below are three good intentions with consistently bad outcomes:

1. Trying to be great at everything

????Great service providers tend to over-deliver on the things their customers value most, and under-deliver on the things they value least. Patients at the Mayo Clinic can get same-day appointments, but in exchange for that exceptional access, they must give up control over which physician they see. It's a deal that anyone with an urgent, complex medical issue – Mayo's sweet spot – is more than happy to make.

????These kinds of strategic tradeoffs are built into great service models, and no one apologizes for them. Southwest Airlines (LUV) shamelessly refuses to feed you a meal and transfer your bags, because that's precisely what allows them to deliver cheap, frequent flights – the things their customers really want.

????If Southwest tried to be great at everything, if it tried to be the low-price airline with a tricked-out, high-touch cabin experience that flew anywhere in the world multiple times a day, the model wouldn't work. The company would end up losing money while being mediocre at everything, which describes the trajectory of most of the major airlines.

????Bank of America now seems to be pushing itself on every aspect of its retail offering, with predictably disappointing results. It's trying to win on cost, convenience, product scope and friendly service, a strategy that's captured in its epic name: a bank for all of America can't let anyone down, on anything.

????Rather than designing a service model – or multiple service models (see the distinct strategies of Toyota (TM) and Lexus) – that are optimized for key service attributes, Bank of America (BAC) is going for it on all dimensions, hitting it out of the park on none. It's not the lowest-cost, most convenient or friendliest place to deposit your money. The bank is disappointing all of us in different ways, without the strategic freedom to make anyone truly happy.

????What do your own customers value most? What would they give up if they could reliably get those things? Answering these questions is often the first step towards exceptional service.