LinkedIn has become a great source of positive reading and
professional anecdotes. You get to read experiences and incidents from across
the globe. Most of the times, however, stories seem one dimensional and I know
they never are. There are positive and negative aspects of most actions and at
least from the point of the perpetrators, there is a perceived goodness about
them. Thinking back, I realize I have been privy to many events that require an
analysis. So, sharing one such story I came across in the year 2005.
Story that I am about to share
is practically a hearsay. I only knew the manager and not the subordinate
involved in this and manager never discussed it with me. But the office gossip
brought this into my notice. In 2005, I was horrified and practically hated
that manager for what I was told he did and it affected my relationship with
that gentleman. He is one of the only managers whom I chose to not to be in
touch with. However, after fourteen years and having seen so many different
kinds of people, I don't know if my judgement of that person was right or not.
So, sending this story and inviting you to share your point of view.
Telecom industry was undergoing tremendous changes in 2002,
especially since AirTel had launched cost effective outgoing and free incoming
calling services. It took four months for AirTel to print their first set of post-paid
services’ invoices and a cycle of collection process was initiated. In simplest
form, collection process is straight forward. You send bill to customer with 21
days to pay. After 21 days and a grace period depending on your process gets
over, you restrict outgoing facilities for the customer which is called barring
or dunning. Practically, there are a lots of data preparations and checks that take
place before even a message intimating service barring is sent. A team of
executives usually work on preparing the data, take required approvals and then
initiate dunning.
This happened in 2003 or 2004,
I am not certain of the year. But the process for collection was set as
described above and one executive was assigned the responsibility for dunning.
The structure in AirTel was very elaborate with COO heading circle and managing
heads of HR, Admin, IT, Finance and Customer Service (CSD). CSD Head would supervise
heads for Contact Centre, Service Assurance, Audit & compliance and Service
Management Group (SMG). SMG head was responsible for all activities in
collection process including dunning.
On that fateful day, dunning
executive made an error in preparing the file and customers who had already
paid were included in it. Now, process was set long back and he had been doing
this every week so naturally he had developed a routine and a level of
confidence. Apparently, the approving authorities also had enough confidence on
this guy that they failed to check and validate the data. Result was that
thousands of regularly paying customers were barred. A chaos ensued with
customers shouting at call centre and front-end service executives. Lots of
apologies and war like actions took place before the issue was managed,
customers were pacified and their services restored. Punishment however was
pending.
Next day, SMG head called
entire service delivery team at their floor which included front end and call
centre executives who had handled the crisis. The dunning executive was
summoned too and he was chastised in front of everyone. SMG head then announced
that this dunning executive would be summarily sacked. Only way he would be
allowed to stay on job was if he took out his own shoe and put it on his head in
front of everyone. I am assuming lots of shocked whispers and requests would've
passed around however SMG head did not relent. Dunning executive had to put his
shoe on his head in order to survive that day. Soon, he left the company for
another.
I joined in 2005, and this
story was regaled to me as an introduction of the SMG head and was advised to
keep safe from him. I did not get any details of punishment directed towards
the approving authority. I practically avoided this gentleman as much as I
could and as a result failed to get in his good books even after exceptional
performance. Only after he had resigned and left, I started to get praises and
ratings that I deserved.
After all this time, having encountered
my share of 'Horrible Bosses' and survived them; I am not convinced if what
happened then was in any ways tolerable. I still feel what our SMG head did
back then was wrong but over the years many of my colleagues had defended his
actions to me. They say, it was required that dunning executive is punished
because he was making errors regularly. Some say, SMG head was directed by his
superiors to sack the executive but he chose to save his job by humiliating him
thus. Many have asked me what I would've done if I was in either of their
places.
I would like to think I won't
make such an error however no matter what the situation might be, I would never
take steps that both the gentlemen above did. What do you think? Do you have
any opinion on this?
