Is grace an entitlement?
Clearly, some take grace for granted and expect it as an entitlement, especially when they are being serviced by sales personnel.
A lady came forth to pay for her purchases, which had included some bandages and alcohol swabs, and presented a ten-dollar note for payment. However, the note was significantly damaged; the Singapore crest on the top left corner was desecrated, so much so that half the crest could not be seen. To protect the interest of the store, I declined the note as legal tender, and explained that we cannot accept the note due to the damage.
The lady was relentless and insisted I accept the note. She claimed that she did not have other notes to pay for her $3.65 purchase, and she needed the items urgently for her daughter. She further insisted that the bank will definitely accept the damaged note, and taunted us to contact her if the bank refused. I looked at her daughter, who seemed absolutely fine with no imminency of a haemorrhagic shock. The lady further explained that she had gotten the note from elsewhere in a weak attempt to justify her request.
I stood firm and rejected the note, quoting Section 19 of the Currency Act. Finally, the next customer, who happened to be a neighbour offered a intact ten-dollar note. The lady declined at first, saying, "What if the bank doesn't accept?" Eventually, she accepted the goodwill and the transaction commenced. On her departure, she labelled me an inflexible service staff. She then asked for my particulars and threatened to lodge a complaint against me "for my inflexibility", and added that she was "disappointed" with me.
Clearly, there is a conflict of interests here, between that of the consumer and retailer. On my side, I need to act in the best interest of the customers without compromising on that of the company and staff. I was not planning to take on such a liability for the possibly selfish desire of the customer. Especially when her claim of desperation and urgency was not at all compelling. It would not have been fair to the company and staff, or any other unfortunate customers who may end up taking up the damaged note. I was both legally and morally justified to decline.
On the other hand, the lady had probably felt that she could stomp her way through, banking on her status as a customer. It was apparent that she knew her request was not a legal one, and she was trying her luck with the store. When a social grace was not entitled to her(which was not to her expectations), she turned nasty and decided to launch a threat in attempt to force her way through. Child's way.
In retrospect, she probably felt upset for her mistake in accepting the damaged note, and hoped to rectify it by paying it forward(literally). She was clearly abusing social graces, and expected it as her right. Despite that, I did have the choice to "dispense" her a social grace, and offer to settle her purchase out of my own pocket.
In reflection, I have only one question to pose: Do you accept the note?
EDITED
Hello weaboon!
ReplyDeleteI guess I would accept the note, based on social grace alone, unless the company specifically forbidded us from doing so.
Therefore, I find that I can also agree with the way you have acted! :) I am also impressed with the generosity of the customer behind the lady you mentioned. How did you know she was the lady's neighbour?
It was sheer coincidence. The customer next in line identified herself as a neighbour living the same block. Despite the commotion, I in fact was heartened that the other customer was willing to help a fellow neighbour.
ReplyDeleteI would have accepted the note too if the enterprise belonged to me. The worst outcome would be at worst a personal charity of $10. However, in the mentioned incident, any monetary mishaps would actually have to be burdened upon my fellow colleagues and the company.
The damaged note may be only partially refunded, depending on the extent of damage. Furthermore, the refund is on the grace of MAS, which means they will have the ultimate say on the amount to be refunded.
Hi Wee Boon, it was pretty sharp of you to have noticed the defaced Singapore crest, it must have been those paper dollar notes..was it? I have a small point to make, and that is, if you had accepted the partially-defaced 10 dollar note, it would have incurred the company a loss of not $10 but $3.65. The lady must have stirred a fair bit of suspicion in you, and her response "What if the bank doesn't accept it?" sounded quite sarcastic. I really think you stuck to your beliefs, had the interest of the company at hand, and did the best you could. The lady's idea of 'flexibility' pertains to breaking the rules. Of course she'd want you to be more flexible. She could have been embarrassed to have someone point out her mistake. If you'd accepted the note, it would have bugged your conscience the entire day, right? So I say, it's right you didn't. Now I know why you value integrity :)
ReplyDeleteThanks Stephanie. The note happened to be a polymer note, with the clear window on the top corner bearing the crest. By the Currency Act, the damaged note no longer holds value. Thus, by accepting the note, a loss of $10 may be incurred, with $3.65 for the products and $6.35 paid out as change.
ReplyDeleteI perhaps have had been judgemental and hence, believed that the lady was simply out to relieve herself of the damaged note. However, her justifications had seemed more like excuses(depsite excusing her tone) when the observations did not match up to her claims. In short, her case was not a convincing one, which was ultimately why I chose to exercise the right and rejected her.
I concur that the lady's idea of flexibilty did seem to involve bending the rules. In this case, the deviance was to an extent which I could not tolerate. Thus, I was not willing to risk a liability merely for her selfish convenience. Should her case be genuine, I would have compromised and could perhaps deferred her payment or even provide her daughter first aid with supplies from the staff stash.
Nice post!
ReplyDeleteI think I would not accept the note. But I would pay $3.65 and give her the items. It's not avoiding the conflict but rather the bigger picture. Customer satisfied, no tarnish on company's reputation and less trouble. However, this only applies to small amount of money.
All in all, I think what you did is right by all books. The same integrity shall apply across most if not all our matters especially financial ones. Respect!
(Perhaps you might have reacted to her selfish side, something that goes against your belief system.)
A background story to share. It may not be as accurate as I recalled it from memory. I think it is Home Depot. There was this man in a hurry to get some tools from Home Depot and his items amounted to $9.56. There was a VERY long queue behind him. Unfortunately, the cashier has no change for the $100 he gave and that was all the cash he has. Sensing his urgency and the situation of the long queue, the cashier girl gracefully took out $10 from her purse and put into the register. She returned the balance and receipt as well as the $100 with a smile to the man. The man was momentarily stunned and promised to return her the money. The man turned out to be the MD of Home Depot, son of the chairman. (This may not be accurate and what followed after that remained fuzzy in my memory.)
Hi weaboon,
ReplyDeleteI think you have touched upon something more here. I feel that there are some Singaporeans (not all, just some) that feel thing because the service industry is suppose to put customers first, they try to push their way through everything. I have had the unfortunate opportunity to witness this on a few occasions. I think that it is more a social problem then an anomaly. Then again, im not a sociologist. :)
This is a concise, complete presentation of the scenario, Wee Boon. You paint a clear picture of the customer, yourself, the scenario and the dilemma.
ReplyDeleteAt first I was a bit confused by the term "grace." You might have explained that in more detail at the start.
Here are some other areas that need attention:
1) I was not planning to take on such a liability for the possibly selfish desire of the customer. Especially when her claim of desperation and urgency was not at all compelling. >>> I was not planning to take on such a liability for the possibly selfish desire of the customer, especially when her claim of desperation and urgency was not at all compelling.
2) the damage note >>> the damaged note
3) Despite that, I ultmately had the choice to be utterly nice and dispense her grace. >>> ? This sentence's meaning is unclear to me.
4) Do you accept the note? >>> Would you accept the note? (hypothetical)
You've also generated some very good feedback. Thanks for this!
Hi Weeboon,
ReplyDeleteWell done post!!And you described a very clear situation. Well, if it was me, I might peroform like this:
Okay fine lady, according to the condition of the note, we could confirm that the machine will definitely not accept the note. as you insisted that the bank will accept it, I would like to call the nearest bank first to check with whether it accepts it. If its answer is yes, I could accept, if not, please change to another note.
hehehe, sounds a bit bossy...but so far I haven deal with the situation before...Maybe I am not a person with enough patience to deal with this kind of people...
Have a nice weekend~~~
Hi weeboon, Brad mentioned you're post is concise and complete. Just to add something regarding your writing style, I enjoy reading it because you describe your thought in a lucidly way, which is concrete, and from this post, you have communicated to me effectively your beliefs and values!
ReplyDeleteThank you guys for the comments! I guess my personaility and beliefs does show up in this post quite clearly.
ReplyDeleteSingapore does try hard to promote courtesy and grace. (I am sure everyone will remember the Singa Lion.) In fact, we try so hard that we offer monetary incentives for giving way on the expressway, and we pose penalty for not doing so. This does reflect very sadly and badly on our culture.
As Daniel mentioned, it is quite a common sight where customers super-inflate their statuses and sometimes make unreasonable demands. On the other hand, for a staff at the service frontline, it is also a duty to ensure that the customers needs are satisfied. Thus, a compromise is often inevitable.
Similar to the cashier's act in Yong Xin's story had done, an example of a compromise was to pay out of one's own pocket. It was a graceful act indeed--one that should not be indulged in. The matter was not in the amount to be paid, but in principle. Any other customer should be entitled similar treatment, when they claim that they have no other means to pay for the purchase(besides a damaged, or a very large denomination note). Such claims are often impossible to acertain and refute. As a result, the cashier might end up "gracing" every other customer, in the honour of professional equality. Thus, in my incident, I would have been right to reject the lady. By standing firm, I would not be detrimented on most of the similar occasions, and it is hence usually the better option. Such is as reasoned with IQ.
However, when reasoned with EQ, it might have been a better idea if I had relinquished my right, and accepted the damaged note. By showing grace, it would have appeased the lady, and resolved the particular conflict peacefully(albeit at the expense of $10). Whilst in this occasion, we incurred a small monetary loss, we avoided loss that could have arisen due to complaints and customers's bad experience. Thus, accepting becomes a better choice in this episode.
As shown above, using different reasonings will arrive at different conclusions. Frankly, I did consider exchanging the damaged note with a normal one from my own pocket. However, her actions and claims gave me reason to believe that she was merely trying to get rid of the note. Thus, I decided not to indulge her, and stood firm against her demand.
In retrospect, an alternative would have been to simply retain the note, and get the lady to write a declaration. This way, the lady can access her purchase which she needed so urgently, and the payment will be accounted for in due time.
hey weeboon, this is a concise, complete and detailed post. You have described the emotional dynamics behind the conflict very clearly. In your case, I would probably consult my supervisor first before making a decision. If my supervisor agrees with my judgement, I will ask my supervisor to explain to the customer. That way, the customer would lose his power of 'threatening' me and any false accusation of me can be denied since my supervisor has been informed.
ReplyDelete