On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > My apologies for not being clear. I was assuming that the floor clerk > was already out of the equation. Around here, most floor clerks > automatically pass you to the floor manager the moment you've got a > complaint.
Fair enough. Around here, we (I work part-time in a camera store/lab) deal with problems ourselves, and only call managers if we need to. > It's been my experience that not being belligerent does work, > until....Holding up the line, without being belligerent puts pressure on the > "next" person in the chain of command to solve the problem expediently. If you need to put that kind of pressure on the staff to get them to solve the problem, you need to find someplace else to go. That type of service is inexcusable, unless you're being rude to them. Around here, people with complaints tend to voice them in a reasonable manner. I'm not sure what you mean by "holding up the line." If you have a problem, the clerk should help you resolve it as quickly and thoroughly as possible. As a rule, they don't have a problem with helping you for as long as it reasonably takes to fix whatever's wrong. If you intend that phrase to mean "taking longer than necessary to inconvenience other customers," that would demonstrate to the clerk that you're more interested in irritating people or causing a confrontation than in actually fixing the problem. > Out of earshot does not necessarily mean that there is an attempt to > be boisterous. Being calm, but within earshot once again, puts subtle > pressure on the "problem resolver." True enough, although I'd say again that any store that needs pressure put on it to resolve a mistake they made isn't a store that I would want to go to. > It isn't the confrontation that I enjoy, it's not taking the sloppy > work, or inappropriate behavior, that I don't tolerate. Unlike the > politically correct crowd that seems to rather accept shoddy > workmanship rather than confront the producer. Argh... this is one of my pet peeves. We seem to live in a culture that has a flight-or-fight mentality, as if there were only two ways of responding to a conflict. You don't have to suppress your standards and give in, and you don't have to view them as an opponent and attack them. If you want my rant about Aikido and the approach I like to use, email me off list... that's way too OT. :) > I happen to work in the insurance field, doing investigative work. > An aggressive attitude is necessary in my field since I'm often > investigating fraud. My job is to notify the individual the "ways of > the world" or as a former boss once put it "hit them between the eyes > and tell them like it really is." That's one way of dealing with conflict, yes. Hitting people, whether verbally or physically, can work well until you come across someone who hits harder, and then you're sunk. It's also one of the poorest ways of resolving a conflict. You may get what you want in the short term, but you pretty much sever relations in the long run. chris - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
