The Emotive Power of Rankings

In the 1970s, J.D. Power began publishing his ratings and rankings of initial quality as reported by new car buyers. The publishing of these results, which were based on comprehensive independent surveys designed and conducted by his firm, were notable for two reasons.

First, he published the entire set of rankings (i.e., top to bottom, first to last). This was not a common practice in those days, and is still relatively rare today. Second, the rankings consistently showed that U.S. auto manufacturers (General Motors, Ford, Chrysler and American Motors) were putting out products that were markedly inferior in terms of quality and customer satisfaction to those of their foreign counterparts, particularly the Japanese.

At the time, executives at the U.S. car companies, at least outwardly, were highly resistant, even hostile, toward the survey findings. Some even tried to publicly discredit the firm. Later, they attempted to make the case that customer satisfaction was not a particularly important metric. Their companies sold millions of automobiles per year they argued, proof of their quality and consumer appeal. The survey results were irrelevant at best — and possibly downright wrong — as far as they were concerned.

However, over subsequent decades, the U.S. car companies slowly came to acknowledge that the problems detected in the J.D. Power surveys presented an accurate representation of quality issues they initially wanted to ignore. As a result, they began to focus on customer satisfaction to a greater extent.

Today, ratings of many American-made cars measure up very well with those of their global competitors. Moreover, we all drive better cars today as a result of J.D. Power’s passion and commitment to his process.

In retrospect, it’s easy to see now that J.D. Power’s ratings were in fact capturing very meaningful market intelligence. Yet, the auto companies’ early denial and subsequent slow response was all too predictable. After all, who among us wants to believe we rank in the bottom half of anything, much less in the eyes of our own customers?

Intellectually, we all understand there must be a bottom half to any set of rankings. But our belief in ourselves and our cause almost always leads us to conclude that it’s our competitors, those other poor souls, who fill such ranks — not us.

The lesson: only a closed mind is fully certain. The best way for organizations to avoid being blindsided by the negative consequences of low quality and customer satisfaction is to tackle the issue head on.

Accordingly, below are some of the common traits and practices of the oilfield supply sector’s top performers that strive to make quality and customer satisfaction lasting corporate assets rather than nagging long-term liabilities.

Top-rated companies:

  • Track and discuss performance and progress at the highest levels of the organization;
  • Evaluate, and even compensate, employees based on observable results;
  • Hold executives and managers accountable for performance;
  • Prioritize around employee training and retention;
  • Motivate and challenge employees to be the best;
  • Provide employees with the tools and support required to meet the needs of customers;
  • Go out of their way to structure multi-year contracts with customers where possible. The resulting stability in revenues and work flows offers greater visibility, and allows for more confident investment in people, equipment and technology;
  • Underpromise and overdeliver as standard practice. A goal of exceeding customers’ expectations permeates the organization. In B2C-oriented industries, this much talked-about concept is referred to as “surprise and delight“;
  • Plan with an bias toward the long term.

By definition, only a limited number can stand out as among the “best” when it comes to customer satisfaction, quality or any other metric. However, history has shown that substantial financial rewards await those that reach the upper ranks.

Organizations and leaders who open themselves to learning from customers how to improve in key areas of their business stand the greatest chance of reaping greater strategic and financial payoffs over time.

Here’s to hoping more companies see it this way.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.