There is much discussion and indeed mission statements in the public sector about the need to focus on customers. However, I don't think the public services have customers in the same way that say Pizza Hut has customers. I think the public services are there to serve & engage citizens whilst being accountable - through politicians - to taxpayers/citizens. This makes the whole relationship a far more complex one.
I think saying that the public services have customers simplifies and indeed commodifies the relationship. For example if I want a pizza, I buy a pizza: the transaction has ended. However, if I, as a police officer (say), wish to serve and help my community become a safer place to live and work, I have to work with the local citizenry to achieve that. I cannot do it alone. There is no simple one way transaction there.
Yes, all public service workers should give good customer service to the citizens / service users / public that they are there to support and help. That almost goes without saying in my view. But that is but one small part of a much richer relationship.
The role of public service workers is to be transformational not merely transactional. The job of the public services is to generate sustainable social outcomes, not merely perform a series of one way transactions.
Sadly, the use of the word customer has become all to common in the public services. People may defend its use as reasonable shorthand. I take a very different view. If there is a shorthand to use, it should be 'citizen' not customer.
For me the biggest danger in this use of the word 'customer' is that it shapes (consciously or unconsciously) the business of providing care, education, community safety (etc.) into being a commercial enterprise. It is not. It is more subtle, more complex, indeed more important than that!
Original blogpost at: http://jonharveyassociates.blogspot.com/
_____________
Not sure how to add a comment to the comments below - so here is my response as an edit...
Of course there are times when the word customer can be useful - indeed I would argue strongly that the public services do need to improve their 'customer service' in many quarters. However, the people being served are also users, patients, clients, travellers, etc etc. In my view it is the subtlety & diversity of the various relationships that need to be emphasised. I don't believe this is an ideological point but an organisational improvement one. What I believe is ideological is the idea that these complex relationships can be boiled down to one - that of customer. That, for me, is a dangerous ideology as it leads to inefficiency and ineffectiveness.
So citizens can occupy many roles - the essence of providing a good & efficient service is understanding the relationship, I believe.
As for the responsibilities of citizens - yes there are many. I have argued for the need for 'empowered citizenship' - where citizens are not only helped to be active - but actively do the right kinds of things. (See http://jonharveyassociates.blogspot.com/2009/05/empowered-citizenship.html )
I alwys thought it was a bad move when the railways started calling people customers instead of passengers - suggests to me they are more interested in selling a ticket than actually getting you to your destination.....
ReplyDeleteThis post seems a little ... ideological to me.Looking at people from a webbies point of view then as a person who has used online council services surely both apply?If I want to do something online I am definitely a 'customer'. I am in and out as quickly as possible. All the consideration of me as a 'citizen' really only applies when I see or get a substandard service and start to wonder about those council taxes you mention.Referring to or regarding me as a 'citizen' when I just want to know what they've changed the damned bin collection time to strikes me - and I suspect your average (different word) 'punter' - as pretentious.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Paul on this and see it as part of the failure of New Public Management -http://greatemancipator.comIt is nothing to do with being pretentious - its all about public value and social capital!Mick
ReplyDeleteI tend to agree with Jon on this for the simple reason that a few years back the residents I work with who live in council owned housing said they didn't want to be referred to as 'customers' as they felt the term gave them a lesser status than the word 'resident'.Personally, I'm not too keen on citizen either!
ReplyDeletePaul's comment and Jon's post both, IMHO, reveal deficiencies in behaviour from either side of the public service fence. Public servants and those being served constantly ignore that partnership."consideration of me as a 'citizen' really only applies"Sorry Paul, you remain a citizen always whether you like it or not. "The job of the public services"Jon, any thoughts on the job of citizens? The customer word also avoids the citizens' responsibilities.
ReplyDeleteI have always understood that someone who is being served in any authority,the word being SERVED is something that someone does for a person e.g in shops an assistant serves a customer by doing something for them,a DR serves a customer as the DR has done something for them, the civil service is serving the people of the country because they are doing something for the people.The word citizen is given to everyone,everywhere in a place of residing e.g.village,town,city country.A citizen is anyone,anywhere,of nationally in any nation.It is only another word for person!Even the QUEEN serves the people (citizens) of her country by doing her best for the customers who serve the nation,(army,navy,airforce,).everyone,everywhere WHO resides is a customer and citizen.everyone somewhere serves someone, which means everyone is a CUSTOMER & CITIZEN WITH HUMAN RIGHTS. JANET TURNER (CUSTOMER & CITIZEN OF DONCASTER ,BRITAIN)
ReplyDeleteWhen I first read Jon's post I thought this was a debate that had been resolved a long time ago. Seeing the flood of responses I'm obviously wrong.A conclusion I'd draw from the numerous comments is that the issue of terminology is not as easy (either way) as you might think. One point I'd make in favour of "customer" for at least occasional use is that it gets staff and councillors to understand the concept that our people/service users/clients/citizens/whatever have choices. For example they have choices to: (sometimes) use our services or not - e.g private vs council sports centres to say good things about the services we provide or not in extremis to move to another area because they don't like what do.These things are salutory reminders if we think we have a public monopoly on provision.
ReplyDeleteThere is certainly value in encouraging public sector staff to recognise that people have choices - sometimes over the service that they use and often over the feedback that they give. However, we don't get much choice over who collects our rubbish, provides our street lighting or who arrests us. Yes, we can elect to go to a hospital 25 miles away - but more often we make the simple 'choice' to go to the one closest to us. The main point of my blog post was emphasise the importance of building deep partnerships between service users and public service providers. I believe we cannot generate sustainable social outcomes without such partnerships. Indeed, in these budget tightening times, it is also my belief that there is much efficiency to be had by engaging the public in joint quests for improvement. The problem I have with the term 'customer' is that it is so limiting. By enriching our language with such terms as user, stakeholder, client, patient etc - we come to see the relationship as complex & two way - but worth the investment in getting right. I hope that we don't just rely on ideas such as 'customer choice' and 'market forces' to get us through these stringent times. I hope the public services can equally harness the potential of deep engagement and involvement of the public to create (efficiently and effectively) a safer, healthier & happier Britain.
ReplyDeleteJohn'The problem I have with the term 'customer' is that it is so limiting. By enriching our language with such terms as user, stakeholder, client, patient etc - we come to see the relationship as complex & two way;Yes but you're seeing it from your perspective. From mine, trying to improve online processes, I see great lessons to be learnt from business who use the term 'customers'.The reality is that going, in your perception, beyond 'customer' is all well and good but first we have to get 'customer' right. Some of that improvement will come from feedback from 'citizens' but a big chunk will come from regarding customers as customers and serving them as well (online) as many businesses do.
ReplyDelete