In light of recent events, maybe it’s time we rethink what “responsibility” really means.
Today, we’re going to talk about “responsibility.” If you read my work very much, you know that I think the best way of handling any mistake or customer issue is with honesty and candor, and acceptance of responsibility. Unfortunately, we have elected officials who should probably read those columns. I’m talking, of course, about the unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your profession) Rep. Andrew Weiner.
I’m not going to repeat the details of what happened – if you’re one of those who doesn’t know, Google his name. Or Google “idiotic guy with a midlife crisis,” if you prefer. What I want to talk about is something he said in his press conference where he finally fessed up after a week of lying and accusing. He said, “I take full responsibility.” Then he proceeded to explain that he would accept no real consequences for what he’d done; he planned to keep his job. And it’s that word – responsibility – that I want to address, because I hear this from salespeople all the time. Few really mean it anymore than Andy did.
“Responsibility” is defined as “the state or fact of having to deal with something,” or “the state or fact of being accountable or to blame for something.” Acceptance of responsibility, accountability, or blame means that you also accept consequences. It’s that last part that people have problems with, but when one does not accept consequences, acceptance of “responsibility” is nothing but an empty gesture acknowledging that which everyone else already knows.
Once, I had a salesperson working for me that committed one of the “big three.” My “big three” violations for any salesperson are violations that fall into the areas of Illegal, Immoral, or Unethical. If a salesperson does one of those three things, there is in my opinion no return, and separation must follow. When I met with the salesperson and brought up the violation – a serious one – he said, “I did it and I accept responsibility.” I said that this was good, and in accepting responsibility, did he want to write out a resignation or simply give a verbal one?
He replied that he was not resigning, and if I wanted him gone I would have to fire him. I explained that the appropriate consequence of his act was to no longer be employed, and that if he was serious about accepting responsibility, I would allow him to resign with dignity; if not, he would be terminated. Needless to say, I had to go through the termination process.
More common is the salesperson, customer service person, or company itself that messes up and causes its customer some sort of harm or inconvenience. What does the “acceptance of responsibility” mean in this case? Probably not a firing or end of customer relationship; at least not unless it’s a frequent issue. If your steak isn’t done correctly and you have to send it back, it might mean getting a free dessert. If you’re supplying parts that force a customer to miss a deadline, it might mean a charge-back of some sort.
The point is that, when you “accept responsibility” for a negative action, you should be prepared to accept reasonable consequences or penalties that make your customer whole again (and not coincidentally, keep the relationship whole). Notice that I said, “reasonable.” To mess up, for instance, on installing an air conditioning unit in a home in such a way that it takes two extra days is not a reason to give the installation for free; that would be unreasonable. A discount, or some sort of free future service, might be reasonable.
To do less than accepting consequences is to reduce “responsibility” to mere words. Unfortunately, we live in a weaker and weaker world these days in which more and more people appear to believe that the words are enough. I’m sick of it. My encouragement to you – the sales profession, the vanguard of our business world – is to not participate in that weakening.
Of course, I suppose if you do, you have enhanced potential political credentials.
