When feedback is received from a client or citizen, the outcome can go one of two ways. Whether in corporate business or national politics, the trajectory of that feedback is entirely within the leadership’s control.
If a problem is solved promptly, clients are delighted. Consider a recent experience I had: I noticed an Indah Water Konsortium (IWK) manhole cover where the exposed metal edge posed a direct hazard to the tyres of passing cars. I sent them a photo. Within a few hours, I received an update from IWK confirming that the area had already been patched.
Bravo, IWK!
 |
| Exposed manhole cover can damage car tyres |
Repair in the process on the same morning
 |
| Photo showing the manhole cover has been properly patched back |
A satisfied client is a loyal client. When people feel valued, they part with their money willingly. Even when things occasionally go wrong, they will step up to defend your organisation. What more could a leader ask for?
The Escalation of Indifference
Conversely, when feedback is met with arrogance or indifference, it hardens into a formal complaint. If that complaint is ignored, it quickly snowballs into a major public issue. When that happens, leaders have no one to blame but themselves when the matter begins trending on social media and dominating mainstream news.
During customer service workshops I have attended, instructors often share a striking statistic:
A satisfied client is a loyal client. When people feel valued, they part with their money willingly. Even when things occasionally go wrong, they will step up to defend your organisation. What more could a leader ask for?
When organisations are this proactive, it is always because the person at the top—the CEO, the Minister, or the Director-General—pays close attention to grievances.
They set a clear direction for their staff to maintain a "zero-complaint" benchmark, proactively finding solutions before a piece of feedback mutates into a complaint, and eventually, a crisis.
The Escalation of Indifference
I recently experienced the harsh reality of this truth with Keretapi Tanah Melayu Berhad’s (KTMB) e-ticketing system and customer care staff. Simply because I missed checking a small, ambiguous box stating "I am travelling myself," I was denied my legitimate senior citizen discount.
Despite escalating the complaint directly to Transport Minister Anthony Loke, nothing was done. To this day, my money has not been refunded after I cancelled the ticket and chose to travel by express bus instead.
While this terrible experience has since been published in news portals, KTMB seems unbothered. Unless there is a fundamental shift in its corporate culture—starting with a change of guard at the top—it will surprise no one if commuters begin abandoning KTMB’s train services entirely.
As it stands, few would give its Komuter services an 'A' grade, given the frequent breakdowns and delays. Nothing has changed since 29 years ago.
To reclaim my money, I now have to escalate this matter to the Tribunal. Imagine that. If a consumer has to go through this level of bureaucracy just to claim his money back after cancelling the ticket, why would anyone choose to suffer the same ordeal? We naturally gravitate toward organisations that are customer-friendly. KTMB should treat customers with greater care.
Consequently, I now choose to travel via a premium coach service, which is not only more comfortable but ironically RM50 cheaper than KTMB’s ETS tickets. If you ask me, would I ever recommend others to use KTMB, MU answer now is a straight No! a thousand times!
Shrugging Off the Consumer
Organisations often complain, "It’s unfair that we work so hard, yet one complainant can ruin our entire reputation." One complainant cannot but a thousand or tens of thousands can because if the mistreatmeny can happen to one person, it can happen to anyone.
Think about it: when the feedback first arrived, how did you respond? Did your staff simply blame the client for a minor clerical oversight, or did they actively try to rectify the mistake and give a senior citizen his due?
When you register a KTMB account, your profile is already verified as a senior citizen. Why can't the system automatically cross-reference this via the IC number?
Instead, the default response is to shrug the customer off, blaming the customer for his own mistake. No one likes to hear that!
People take the time to provide feedback because they have paid for a service and want to see it improve. They want problems rectified so they can continue using the service smoothly and recommend it to others without guilt.
In KTMB’s case, instead of fixing a glaring system flaw, staff infuriated me by insisting it was entirely my mistake. They hid behind rigid policies, claiming the rules were "termaktub" (engraved in stone). To this, I responded out of sheer frustration:
"Even under an ISO quality system, standard operating procedures can—and should—be reviewed and amended to make the system more customer-friendly."
"Even under an ISO quality system, standard operating procedures can—and should—be reviewed and amended to make the system more customer-friendly."
KTMB’s utter inflexibility is what made my blood boil. Even when a frontline staff member named Khairil genuinely wanted to help, he was presumably warned by his superiors not to interfere.
Historical Amnesia and Political Fallout
History proves that no organisation, no matter how massive, is guaranteed market leadership. Arrogance has brought down many corporate giants that once flew high. In Western corporate structures, a CEO presiding over this level of systemic customer disdain would be the first person shown the exit door. No one is indispensable—especially those basking in past achievements instead of working to sustain their position.
Take Celcom as a historical example. It was once the undisputed number-one telco in Malaysia, with Maxis trailing behind. However, its customer care infrastructure was deeply flawed. A call to their careline routinely rang more than ten times before being answered—if the line didn't disconnect entirely first.
I distinctly remember a phone bill that recorded a ridiculous sequence of 39 dropped calls, each charging 20 sen, for connections that never lasted beyond 3 seconds. It wasn’t about the money; the bill was covered by my employer. It was about the principle. I made it a point to pursue a refund because the charges were absurd. What could anyone possibly communicate in 3 seconds?
Those were the days of analog mobile technology, yet Celcom happily pocketed the money for dropped calls. I took the matter all the way to the then Minister of Multimedia and Communications, Chan Kong Choy. Nothing was resolved; not a single sen was refunded.
Because Chan Kong Choy was also my local Member of Parliament and chose to do nothing, my frustration grew. This indifference, coupled with a string of other unresolved community issues, caused me to lose faith entirely in MCA as a political party.
The pattern repeated at the state level. In Selangor, the State Exco in charge of local government was equally ineffective at resolving localized housing project issues. This is why MCA, and specifically Selangor State Exco Tang See Hang, attracted heavy public criticism at the time.
Conversely, I could always rely on individuals like the late Pius Martin to get things done. While the ministers were absent, local leaders stepped up. For years, Persiaran Cemara was a pitch-black stretch of road without streetlights. With the assistance of Pius Martin (a Gerakan State Assemblyman), the Petaling Jaya Municipal Council under Datuk Mohamad Nor Bador finally installed streetlights and planted trees that have now grown to full maturity.
His successor, Lum Weng Keong—also a former State Exco—remains a good friend to this day. We still meet for meals to discuss the country's political landscape.
The Ultimate Lesson
MCA, Gerakan, and the broader Barisan Nasional coalition did not lose the historic 2008 General Election because of hardworking grassroots leaders like Pius Martin or Lum Weng Keong. They lost because top-tier politicians failed to address the everyday grievances of the people.
What begins as a simple piece of feedback, when left to fester through neglect and arrogance, will inevitably explode into a political crisis.
I share these lessons in the hope that modern organizations—both corporate and governmental—will look in the mirror, listen to their stakeholders, and avoid a catastrophic, self-inflicted shipwreck.
Comments
Post a Comment