View Single Post
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 29
03-08-2012, 11:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by superchum View Post
No it absolutely doesn't matter. When you're facing the customer, or interacting with them publically, it is not a good thing to insult them or agree with others insulting them. A lot of places terminate you for doing so. It's bad customer service. It's bad business.

There's no real defense for this you can offer. It's a bad move. A really bad move. It's also not the first time a cryptic employee has done something like that. Which shows it's an acceptable form of interaction at that small company that can't seem to keep employees, hire new ones effectively, or make money.
To throw some kerosene-flavored anecdata into the fire, the one and only time I worked retail tech support, it was for a big chain. Serious bucks in corporate. You've probably heard of them but I'll decline making them a target. I don't know if it was the area we were in or the clientele we attracted but we would *routinely* get real gobsmackers as customers in there. Rude, mean, crude.... being called names, being insulted. And we did good work. We routinely got awards from corporate for our service. We routinely were told by our store manager that we were doing good and doing all the right things and hitting the right buttons.

But heavens help us if we ever verbally swung back at a customer. Nobody ever did that while I was there, but it was made clear to us that doing that would result in instant and immediate termination.

It's all well and good to say that the employee of a company should have the right to bite back at a customer. And I would love it if there was no need to get to that. I don't think any person should be subject to ad hominem attacks. And it is a curious and interesting question, and makes for a good rational debate: Should an employee be allowed bite back?

But we're not really talking about that, are we? We're talking about a tweet that blasted a good chunk of the forum community, catching most of the rest in its periphery, and an employee chimes in to agree with said blast. This is not 'biting back.'

As superchum has noted, this is a time period where Web2.0 is part and parcel of a corporate identity. If you identify as the employee of a company, especially if your title has 'Lead' or 'Senior' in it, every word you speak is indelibly linked to the corporation. I have mixed feelings about this, of course. But when corps are asking you (general you) to like them on facebook, follow their twitter feed, etc., that links those forms of communication to the corporation, and encourages people to see communication from members of the corporation through those channels as being from the corp itself. It might be different if companies didn't have facebook pages or twitter feeds. It might be different if employees weren't using those channels for apparently 'official' communications -- and don't think that this 'teasing' wasn't given Cryptic's blessing or is some sort of 'leak.' It's approved all the way up the ladder. At that point, there is no way to differentiate between official and personal communication.

I don't lay that at the feet of Geko, though. This is going to be a continuing problem for all smaller companies that don't go into Web 2.0 without clear-cut policies. I'm not fond of it myself; one wrong move and BOOM, you've stepped on a landmine and got more than egg on your face. But corporate culture has been careening headlong into social media and most corps are not taking appropriate precautions before stuff like this happen.

And now that I have hit you with a wall of text, I will leave it at that and bid you all -- corporation and person -- a good day.