Abstract
Notions
such as the ‘virtual organisation’ and ‘virtual
teamwork’ have recently received much attention. Focusing on
the customer-facing work of a ‘Relationship Manager’ in
a major UK retail bank that is moving towards a ‘virtual’
model, we empirically assess the proposed outcomes of such organisational
change. We consider the way IT-mediated resources are brought to bear
within the interaction, the way any decisions made subsequently get
justified to the organisation, and the way strategic plans are instantiated
in everyday work. Our findings indicate that it is the stable interactional
competences that Relationship Managers exhibit in their negotiations
with their customers that enable any changes, ‘virtual’
or otherwise, to be rendered ‘real’.
Keywords:-
Organisational Change; Conversation Analysis; Ethnomethodology; Financial
Institutions; Information Technology; Interaction Analysis; Managerial
Work; Organisation Theory; Skill ; Sociology of Work; The ‘Virtual’
and the ‘Real’; Virtual Customers; Virtual Organisation;
Virtual Teams
Introduction
Financial
institutions have long been in the forefront of the use of distributed
computer systems. Recently, in conjunction with the sorts of major organisational
changes, they have begun to explore the increased use of IT to support
decision-making, quality control, and customer services (Burton, 1994).
These systems are intended to facilitate shared work across the
organisational divide. This form of working, where organisational function
or process is considered more important than organisational location
has been characterised as ‘virtual teamworking’ (Zimmerman,
1997). The organisational objective that resides behind this is the
replacement of administrative structures with flexible networks of workers
and organisational units. These are linked by information technology
to give co-ordination to their activities, and their skills and resources
are combined to achieve common goals (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).
Notions such as ‘virtual teamwork’ are associated with the
now much-hyped concept of the ‘virtual organisation’ (Henderson
& Venkatraman, 1997; Zimmerman, op cit.). Such organisational
forms, it is claimed, address major transformations in the social, economic
and technological environment in which organisations operate (Nonaka
& Takeuchi, op cit.).
Just
as organisations are perceived to have changed in response to technological
developments so, too, have the associated skill requirements. Zuboff,
for example, writes of new forms of organisational behaviour "in which
relationships are more intricate, collaborative and bound by mutual
responsibilities of colleagues" (Zuboff, 1988, 6). In a similar fashion
Casey detects the development of new forms of teamwork, "in which people
share knowledge, skills and resources and work co-operatively in the
manufacture of their products" (Casey, 1995, 109). Relationship to a
product, to team family members and to the company, it is argued, "displaces
identification with occupation and its historic repository of skills,
knowledges and allegiances" (ibid.). Such teamworking is purportedly
"less fettered by the constraints of traditional hierarchies and spheres
of responsibility", and consequently "engenders a heightened sense of
empowerment, commitment and collective responsibility" (op
cit., 45). This sort of analysis clearly impacts on various debates
on ‘skill’ but such diagnoses of organisational change need
to be subjected to close empirical examination. Other views are considerably
less sanguine about the consequences of technological change and more
sceptical about the likelihood of such a transformation in teamworking,
skill, identification and empowerment (Kunda, 1992). As Ducatel puts
it: "The absence of an a priori direction in which the technology will
take organisations makes the empirical investigation of how computer
network technology is being implemented of the utmost importance and
urgency" (Ducatel, 1992, 166). It is just such an empirical enterprise
that we have elected to undertake by explicating some of the lived-in
and achieved characteristics of everyday work within an organisation
that could be described as ‘virtual’.
The
particular focus of this paper is the work of a Business Manager, a
‘middle manager’ in the Business Centre of a major UK retail
bank, who describes his job as ‘relationship management’.
The strategic plan this bank has developed has been implemented in various
ways. The most significant of these is the centralisation and standardisation
of its ‘back office’ processing through the creation of
specialist centres such as Lending Centres, Service Centres and Securities
Centres. All of these are intended to service ‘high street’
Customer Service Branches and, in tandem with these, the Business Centres.
It is against this backdrop of ongoing centralisation and standardisation,
then, that this study has been conducted.
Business
Managers spend much of their time in face-to-face interaction with customers,
balancing their needs with the needs of the bank, trying to evolve and
maintain a relationship between them. This relationship is not between
abstract organisations, but between managers and the owners of businesses.
For each party this involves locating their own sets of relevances within
the work that they understand the other party to do, and making these
subject to ordinary, orderly work in their conversations. However, the
work is also about building and preserving a personal bond between the
manager and the customer. This too is achieved through extending the
interview beyond the strict relevances of bank business: swapping stories
and jokes; discussing leisure activities and mutual friends; developing
a sense of ‘investment’ in each other. A whole range of
technological support and decision-making packages have become a resource
that Business Managers are expected to draw upon in this interaction.
Yet, in practice, we find that most of their decisions come to be based
upon their personal knowledge of the customer. One of the key resources
they draw upon is the stories that customers tell and it is the dynamics
of the conversations themselves that often shape future outcomes.
We
look here at one particular interview and relate it to some of the subsequent
records the Manager is obliged to produce. The procedural implicativeness
of such computer-mediated records becomes itself a resource through
which he seeks to justify to the ‘virtual organisation’
the ‘real’ decisions, based on ‘real’ interaction,
that he has made. In this sense, then, we feel such managers can aptly
be considered to be a locus through which the ‘virtual’
ideal and the need to practically achieve the ‘real’ work
with ‘real’ customers gets negotiated. Whilst they must
engage with their customers and arrive at practical decisions, they
must also account for those decisions in the terms of the organisation
within which they reside.
Case
Study - Conducting a Customer Interview
The
individual whom, for the sake of anonymity, we shall henceforth refer
to as ‘Simon Douglas’ is one of four ‘Relationship
Managers’ in the particular Business Centre that we chose to study.
As we have already intimated Business Centres are specialised units
whose function is to ‘front’ at a more local level the combined
functions of the other processing units within the bank. The staff in
a Business Centre are, in that case, effectively the point of contact
between business customers and the Bank. It is through their actions
that particular customer requests can come to implicate numerous other
units1 . ‘Simon’s’
professed objective is to maintain and develop the Bank’s relationship
with his own portfolio2 of such customers.
He aims to keep them on-board with the Bank and expand income from them
through things like lending or selling them other bank ‘products’.
This ‘relationship management’ is largely achieved through
direct contact with the customers, either face-to-face, or on the telephone,
with a great deal of the face-to-face contact occurring ‘out’
at customers’ businesses.
An
important characteristic of Simon’s work is that, whilst imbued
with routine, the actual routines are configured around ‘as needs
must’. This is because Simon’s work is essentially reactive
and customer driven. It quickly becomes apparent that there is no such
thing as a typical working week or even a typical working day for Simon.
Every day is different and, whilst he clearly does have certain tasks
that he must prioritise, most of his work is contingent upon the inflow
of his customers’ enquiries and requests. So the outflow of his
activities is largely geared towards the resolution of these. He does
have a number of purely administrative tasks to fulfil. However, these
tend to be ordered in an ad hoc fashion around what he clearly
sees as the chief objective of maintaining his relationship with his
customers.
The
customer interview we focus on in this paper is what is termed an ‘Annual
Review’. As a matter of course all business customers have interviews
once a year. This ‘Annual Review’ is partly a means of maintaining
contact. However, it is also used to update customers’ requirements
and frequently seems to be treated as an opportunity to increase lending
or make other sorts of sales. Most of Simon’s work proved to revolve
around preparing for, engaging in, and dealing with the repercussions
of this sort of personal interaction with his customers.
Preparatory
Work
The
interview in question was to be held at nine o’clock in the morning
which, for Simon and his colleagues is considered to be a fairly early
call. Simon’s assistant, Janet, had already arranged an appointment
for him to visit the business which was some ten miles to the South
of the town in which the Business Centre is based. Janet
had spent some time the previous evening preparing the customer file,
including the various documents Simon would specifically require in
the interview. She had then left it on his desk in readiness for the
morning. Prior to driving to see the customer Simon spent a short while
browsing through this file and making notes on anything he particularly
needed to cover3. The following
extract from our fieldnotes illustrates the kinds of preparations Simon
goes through:
Simon
Douglas reading notes in preparation for a customer interview (out)
Looking at a spiral bound document including photos and plans.
Flicking through the document - turning backwards and forwards.
...
Janet puts Risk Analysis Summary on Simon’s desk
Simon continuing to study booklet
Searching for paper on his desk then in his briefcase
Grabs a blank sheet and tears it in half
Making notes on this in tandem with reading the booklet
...
Flicking through other documents in the file
Looks at the RAS (Risk Analysis Summary)
Inserts this in the customer notes
Continuing to search through the paper file
Reviewing letters sent to customer previously
Stacks file together and binds with a rubber band
The
method that Simon adopts stands in interesting contrast to the method
we saw being adopted by a much more recently appointed manager in the
Business Centre called ‘Kevin’. At first sight Kevin’s
customer files closely resembled Simon’s, both in the extent and
the nature of the attached documentation. However, Kevin’s expressed
preference is to "bottom the file". What he means by this is that he
likes to read through from top to bottom. This is because, in most cases,
he is meeting a customer for the first time and feels that in this way
he can maximise his knowledge. Simon, however, largely uses printouts
of the latest information in articulation with the most recent Appraisal
Form. An Appraisal Form is a document that the managers work up themselves
out of their particular and highly situated recollections of an interview.
This contrast reveals the extent to which more experienced managers
will rely upon their
personal recollection and knowledge of customers
to see them through the contingent requirements of an interview.
Having
completed his preliminary study of the documentation Simon gathered
up the file, his notepad, and his calculator, put them in his briefcase,
and got ready to go out to visit the customer.
Demeanour
Work and Topic Management
The
interview in question was with an individual whom we shall call ‘Graham
Croft’. ‘Graham’ is one of two proprietors of a frozen
meat products company. The company had been doing business with the
Bank for a number of years and Simon himself conducted the previous
Annual Review. However, at the previous Review Simon had noted a slight
downturn in business, a downturn that Graham had provided plausible
reasons for at the time. Simon had looked at the printouts of the company’s
relationship with the Bank over the past year. Having related that to
the previous Appraisal Form he was no longer certain that the reasons
Graham had given him the previous year were ‘true’. There
had continued to be what he termed ‘a cash drain on the bank account’.
Trying to establish the ‘real’ cause for this was Simon’s
chief objective within the interview and it did, indeed, inform a great
deal of the discussion that ensued:
Simon
If you look back to the previous year (.) This is exactly the same
sort of printout for the
previous year you can see that there is a much heavier utilisation
on both sides (.) That’s
credit (.) So during the year That last year you were ((phone ringing))
significantly
Graham
Big difference
Simon
Yeah (.) So there is so what that actually tells me is y’know
despite what (.) your views were in terms of that stock position
at Christmas (.) that seems to tell a slightly different
tale w [hereas
Graham
[( )
Simon
actually over that period there’s been an absolute drain
on cash on the b- on the bank account
So,
when Simon goes out to visit a customer he takes with him what seems
to constitute a loose sort of ‘plan’ with regard to what
the Bank requires from that customer. This is based upon his reading
of the file, the brief, the previous Appraisal Forms, recent printouts,
etc. and these are often summarised between the hand-written notes and
the Customer Brief
4
.
The customer, however, also brings to an interview a set of formal or
informal requirements. These, too, may or may not have some sort of
documentary basis which the Business Manager will almost certainly not
have previously seen.
Simon
Tha- that’s the nitty gritty of it (.) errm an that needs
doing (.) so what do you (.) your
management figures look like Graham? (.)
Graham
Hhh (.) you have a look (.) Just done December’s (.) very
good (.)
Simon
That’s just the month is it?
Graham
Yeah
Simon
Are these sort of in::
Graham
Yeah they’re in order but if y’look in November’s
absolutely atrocious
...
Simon
...These figures (.) the (.) sort of monthly figures do these include
yours and Bill’s
drawings as partners or not?
Graham
Yeah
Simon
Do they? Where’s that go in?
Graham
General overheads
Simon
It goes in there does [it?
Graham
[Yeah ours is set en’t it so
In
the above abbreviated extract Graham produces a set of figures and Simon
and Graham then have to work together to arrive at an understanding
of these on the spot
5
.
Notice how Simon systematically raises questions about certain features
and how Graham then provides him with further explication regarding
the points he has raised.
Under
the circumstances, then, evolving and maintaining the relationship is
dependent to a considerable degree upon how a fit between these requirements
is negotiated and achieved within the interview. Achievement of that
balancing out of requirements work is implicit within the interview.
It therefore becomes a case of each party to the interaction meshing
his/her sense of ‘the work that they do’ with ‘the
work that I do myself’6.
In
face-to-face interaction this meshing of relevances work that people
like Simon and Graham achieve is not something aside from and separate
to how they understand and orient to achieving their ordinary interaction.
In practice it proves to be something that they have to achieve in
and through the everyday interactional competences that they possess
(Harper & Hughes, 1993; Hughes, King et al., 1996). For each
party airing their requirements and negotiating how these can best be
achieved becomes a matter of locating a suitable set of shared relevances.
This they do using the same sorts of methods that members use to establish
shared relevances within any other sort of conversational interaction
(e.g. see Sacks, 1978, 266). The negotiation of shared relevances, in
that case, clearly makes the work of any such interview ‘work
we are doing together’. It is not a matter of merely laying down
demands upon each other saying ‘this is what I want from you’.
Not that such interactional situations cannot occur. It is rather that
such a thing would amount to a swapping of ultimatums. Ultimatums are
clearly not an everyday part of something like an Annual Review. As
Simon put it after one interview that he found particularly difficult
to control, they don’t want to ‘seem rude’7.
The
sense each party to the interaction has, then, of there being some locatable
set of relevances which they share, is not something simply taken for
granted and put to one side. Instead it turns out to be something that
they have to work at recurrently throughout the conversation. A good
deal of this work is informal, light-hearted in character, and redolent
with personal details. Work of this order has been characterised elsewhere
as ‘demeanour work’8 (King
& Randall, 1994; & Randall & Hughes, 1994). In the following
extract we can see how, despite having raised a potentially important
topic for discussion, both Simon and Graham slide into a swapping of
stories about lottery wins. It is Graham who starts it, but Simon aligns
with it by laughing and providing recognition of the conventional humour
of what, in other, more earnest circumstances might be viewed as flippancy.
He indicates implicitly within this his preparedness to engage with
such asides rather than dismiss them. That then provides Graham with
the opportunity to flag a story, "I won on Saturday", which Simon indicates
his receptiveness to through his question requesting further details
about the amount:
Simon
So what are you lookin for for this year then Graham (.) be- becoz
it is due for the Annual Review now y’know
(2.5)
Graham
I’m (.) I’m lookin for a lottery win
Simon
hehhehhehhe
Graham
I won on Saturday
Simon
Did you really? (.) A tenner?
Graham
No (.) Four numbers
Simon
Four?
Graham
A hundred and ten quid
Simon
That’s quite good actually for four numb[ers
Graham
[Yeah and of course I didn’t have anythin to do wi it It was
Lucky Dip weren’t it?
Simon
Right (.) I’ve had four numbers before and I got err::
Graham
Fifty quid?
Simon
Less than that (.) In fact I’ve had four numbers twice now
(.) and it was less than fifty quid both times (.) coz I expected
quite a bit of money fer that (.) It’s quite hard to get four
numbers en’t it? (.)
Graham
I’ve only ever had three (.) That’s before (0.5) And
I thought it were a very good do
Simon
I was talkin to two customers yesterday that sold the er (.) the
two million pound one (.) ...
A
way to show understanding of someone’s story and work that up
as an example of ‘we must live in the same world because I’ve
had a similar experience’ is to tell a second story (Ryave, 1978;
and Sacks, 1992). Simon does precisely this with the tale of how he
has had four numbers that have come up twice. Graham further develops
this sense of ‘mutuality’ and shared relevances through
his alignment with Simon’s assessment that "it’s quite hard
to get four numbers". This he does through his "and I thought it were
a very good do".
This
sense of shared locale, acquaintances and activities is something that
relationship managers regularly turn to as a resource. Names of acquaintances
proved to be something they were especially ready to pick up on and
subject to further demeanour work:
Simon
Well can we not ring the accountant up and get him to fax it? (.)
Graham
Aye (.) could do (.)
Simon
I- I- I don’t need it desperately urgent [ly
Graham
[well I can I’ll get him to do a copy and I’ll pick
it up and drop it off [( )
Simon
[who deals with it is it Peter**** in Lancaster?
Graham
Colin **** and Geoff****=
Simon
=Geoff ****? Right (.) How how long’s it gonna be before he
does em?
Graham
Well I don’t know I only give em in:: Was it last week?
In
the above extract, from an earlier point in the interview, it has transpired
that Graham has not got an up-to-date set of completed management figures
to hand for Simon to look at. This is because he has sent the only copy
off to his accountant. Note the way that Simon reveals his concern with
pinning a name to the accountant. Relationship managers reveal a consistent
tendency to try and pin precise names and locations to the people to
whom their customers refer. These names then become a resource that
they will use. Not only do they present another potential source of
information about their customers, they are also a resource that they
can introduce back into future interviews with other customers who might
share that acquaintance. There is a sense, then, in which Simon is engaging
in a kind of practical networking here. In this particular case it pays
a double dividend. Through getting the name of the accountant Simon
is also able to pin down quite specifically who is accountable for the
subsequent fate of the management figures. However, Simon’s concern
with names does not so much seem to be a case of seeing them as something
he can exploit down the line. It is more a case of him picking up on
details that will enable him to register and display recognition of
the people and places to whom his customers refer.
Sacks
describes locating ‘personal relevances’ in this way the
development of a sense of ‘investment’ in the other person,
such that one might appropriately display that what happens to them
personally matters to you (Sacks, 1978, 261). At least one good
reason why someone might want to work up this sort of level of ‘investment’
in a customer interview is to do with rendering the products of that
interaction not just generally but personally accountable. In
that way the outcomes can be seen to gain credence through the extent
to which they are attributable. There is a certain degree of impotence
about saying, should things go wrong, it was ‘the Bank’s
fault that it happened’. However, it is an altogether more powerful
thing to say that it was the particular fault of ‘so-and-so’.
At an interactional level, then, the abstract character of organisations
is recognised and oriented to, and this is demonstrated in interviews
where accountability becomes not so much a matter of ‘what
says?’ as ‘who?’.
When
it comes to Simon and Graham working their own particular requirements
into the conversation, or locating specific relevances within the job
that they each do, they can’t simply put these straight on the
table. They have to be manoeuvred into the talk so that they can be
seen to be of mutual relevance. Furthermore, their actual placing within
the talk is critical both in terms of how they are understood to relate
to what has gone before and what they are implicative for subsequently
(Heritage, 1984, 245). In the following example we witness Simon using
the conventional topic marker "as I was saying". This is a recurrent
and commonplace strategy for marking a ‘same topic as was mentioned
before’ relationship through a whole range of different kinds
of conversation (Sacks, 1992, 254):
Eileen
Right (.) Thank you {Eileen is Graham’s Assistant}
(5.0)
Simon
So (.) errm (2.0) As I was sayin tha- that (.) That (.) The
way that I interpret those figures is what that’s tellin me
(.) namely that in the last twelve months there has been a drain
on the account (.) Somewhere in the region of (.) maybe [ten or
Graham
[Yeah
Simon
fifteen thousand (1.8)
In
the following Simon displays his recognition that one cannot just shift
topic in a conversation without a) saying that that is what you are
doing
9
,
and b) acknowledging that the change of topic itself requires some sort
of accounting for. In other words its relevance to the interaction has
to be rendered explicit in some way, in this case because it was a question
that arose out of Graham’s Review the previous year:
Simon
Just, just changin tack slightly (.) coz I know this was a question
that came up last time errm (.) it went up to Region this time last
year as well didn’t it (.) It’s a question of en- environmental
issues (.) Now (.) you don't process (.) You only process frozen
stuff don't you?
We
can also see how Simon skilfully achieves a return to the topic he first
introduced prior to the demeanour work they engaged in about the lottery,
through first of all explicitly setting that discussion aside and allowing
Graham the space to align with that:
Simon
So disregardin the lottery Graham
Graham
Yeah (.) well we can’t rely on [that one can we
Simon
[hehheh No (.) Not really
Graham
Hehhehheh
Then
he renders his previous request for some sort of indication of what
Graham will want from them over the coming year a more explicit question
about the sufficiency of the ‘current limit’. In this way
he artfully puts the topic he is really interested in squarely back
on the table:
Simon
It’d be nice if you could (.) I- I mean
is the current limit enuff (0.5) or not? (1.2) I mean I’ll
be honest with ye (.) And I’ll be straight with ye I wouldn’t
really want to be goin much
higher
Graham
No (.) well I [don’t
It
is notable in the way such topics get introduced that the interaction
is not simply oriented to as an open negotiation. Instead they are seen
to be an activity where, whilst both parties may have certain objectives,
one is clearly understood to be managing the introduction of the topics
for discussion. Through their mutual recognition of Simon’s right
to manage topic introduction a certain sense of Simon being the ‘interviewer’
and Graham the ‘interviewee’ is achieved. However,
whilst
Simon displays an assumption that he is the one who
can put forward
new topics for discussion, it is also important, as we have seen, that
this be put over in such a way as to be accountably a topic that is
for discussion and not
an ultimatum. The above clearly demonstrates
this particular orientation through the way Simon is careful to set
out his point about the ‘current limit’ as a question: "is
it ‘enuff’?". Note how he pauses, quite significantly, first
of all where the question can indeed be read as a complete question,
and then again after he has offered an alternative answer. Both of these
points are reasonable places for Graham to jump in with some sort of
expression of his requirements. It is only when Graham shows no inclination
to do this that Simon feels able to go ahead and parameter the question
with his own preferences. He presents this as something both recognisably
open to discussion
and as something on which he has his own position
which he obliges Graham to now take into account.
Where
Numbers Speak a Thousand Words
At
least one of the recurrent ways in which managers present and negotiate
the more specific relevances they share is through the use of numbers.
Numbers, it becomes quickly apparent, are not evidently meaningful in
and as of themselves within such interaction. Rather they are a resource
upon which to construct stories, represent appropriate understandings,
or set out projections (Harper, 1989).
Simon
=right so you can see that (.) you were sort of creeping up there
to twenty thousand in May
Graham
yeah
Simon
and then it started to go down a bit back up again in October then
down again back up again in December which is when we spoke
Graham
Yeah
Simon
and it’s (.) almost nothing for a really ( ) period but
on the same side (.) y- your best position was getting higher and
higher up to there (.) it did start to run down (.) to here but
it hasn’t run down to the levels it has done in previous years
(.)
Graham
[[yeah
Simon
[[I can show you the limit
Graham
yeah
Simon
It started to creep up again now so that y’know (.) since
October the account’s not been below ten and its not been
below thirteen since (.) well
Graham
Christmas
Simon
yeah
Graham
Christmas
Simon
If you look back to the previous year (.) This is exactly the
same sort of printout for the previous year, you can see that there
is a much heavier utilisation on both sides (.) That’s credit
(.) So during the year That last year you were ((phone ringing))
significantly
Graham
Big difference
Simon
Yeah (.) So there is so what that actually tells me is y’know
despite what (.) your views were in terms of that stock position
at Christmas (.) that seems to tell a slightly different tale
Simon
is able to introduce a certain set of figures within the conversation
and put both those and his interpretation of them up for discussion.
The issue revolving around these figures forms the longest single topic
discussed within the interview, with both parties putting forward several
possible ways of understanding why the figures might look like that.
In the end, though, a full resolution of the matter is never achieved
and Simon agrees to hold it in abeyance until he has had a look at the
missing management figures.
A
further important point to be made about the above interaction relates
to the way that the printouts in the file get implicated and drawn upon
within the talk. These printouts in particular might be seen as the
IT-mediated resources that are most to hand within the interview itself.
However, it also has to be seen that the placing of these printouts
in the file in the first place requires a rough projection of what will
be of relevance during the interview. Once the Manager is actually conducting
the interview the wealth of the information available on RBP is reduced
effectively to what is ‘to-hand’ within the file ‘here-and-now’.
Formulations
The
interaction in a customer interview is not simply understood to be the
same as the sort of everyday conversation that might accompany, say,
a chance encounter in the street. It is specifically oriented to by
both parties to be just what it is - a customer interview. Orientations
to this recognition surface regularly because an interview of this kind
is quite explicitly understood to have consequences for future outcomes.
In something like a customer interview both parties quite explicitly
understand that their talk is directly linked to future action. This
understanding results in certain specialisations within the talk that,
whilst subject to the orderly methodology of conversational interaction,
reveal their attention to future outcomes. One particularly significant
specialisation that is visible in customer interviews is the use of
‘formulations’.
We
have already commented on Simon and Graham’s clear orientation
to their own perceived roles as ‘interviewer’ and ‘interviewee’.
One particular ‘interviewer’ phenomenon is the production
of formulations designed to exhibit understanding of topics and their
perceived level of significance (Greatbatch, 1992; Heritage & Greatbatch,
1991; Heritage & Watson, 1979 & 1980) 10. In the
context of a customer interview managers like Simon seem to use formulations
in quite specific ways. The most notable feature of this is that they
are not just presented in such a way as to summarise what has been said.
They quite explicitly project what each party has said will be done.
Furthermore, such formulations don’t just reveal an orientation
to the implicativeness of what they are doing for future courses of
action. They also display attentiveness to how those courses of action
can best be rendered relevant and accountable in terms of what the manager
perceives to be the Bank’s objectives. During the course of the
interview with Graham, Simon produces several formulations of this kind.
First of all he provides a formulation relating to the talk about missing
management figures and the apparent problem revealed by the printouts:
Simon
So (.) as far as trading’s concerned (.) Y’ y’still
think you’re bein profitable errm (.) ((rustle)) obviously
(.) the (.) the figures that (.) you can get me (.) on the management
might just throw some light on why this has occurred with this ten
to fifteen thousand change
Graham
Yeah (.) well itsa (.) itsa big difference ain’t it?
Notice
how Simon summarises Graham’s perspective upon the situation as
amounting to one of considering the business to still be profitable.
He also implicates the need for Graham to provide him with the management
figures he has said he is going to get. From Simon’s point of
view there is a need to make a decision during the course of the interview.
Can he continue to support Graham’s business on the terms they
agreed at their previous Review, or is he going to have to suggest some
revised course of action? If he is going to leave things as they are
he is going to have to support that decision somehow. One reasonable
way of doing this in terms the Bank can recognise and approve is to
state that the business is ‘profitable’. The same decision
if the business was not profitable would clearly have potential ramifications
for how the account was going to operate. However, the important thing
here is that Simon recognises not just such a potential trouble but
that his putting his support behind a business that was not profitable
would be highly
accountable. Furthermore, the accountability
here is not to Graham but to Simon’s own superiors and his sense
of the organisation he works for. However, having established the business
might be deemed profitable is not sufficient. A further level of accountability
here also attaches to the way such an assertion might be
evidenced.
Clearly at a level of friendship and trust (just the sorts of outcomes
the demeanour work might accomplish) Simon might well consider Graham’s
word on this perfectly adequate. However, he has to orient here to what
the
Bank will deem adequate. To achieve this Simon has to ensure
that Graham produces hard figures to support his assertion. Of course
figures are open to all sorts of manipulation and this is itself something
that both the Bank and Simon recognise. However, the management figures
have had to pass through the hands of an accountant. At this point an
institutionally ‘approved’ third party is also rendered
accountable, a third party who is subsequently going to have to produce
fully audited accounts. In other words, by stressing the requirement
for the management figures, Simon is also attending to the Bank’s
concern with ‘risk’ and its need for an independent ‘witness’
to the ‘facts’.
Another
feature of this formulation that needs to be pointed up is the way that
Graham aligns with what Simon has said. Furthermore, he explicitly summarises
and approves Simon’s perspective by acknowledging that it is
"a big difference". This is a crucial part in any formulation. Formulations
are used by participants to summarise their understanding of the interaction
so far and what implicativeness it might have. Clearly, since formulations
in this kind of context are likely to have consequences for the future,
it is important that agreement is reached on whether or not the formulation
is ‘correct’.
They
discuss several possible causes for the perceived problem. Graham then
explains that he has cancelled the company pension plan and is planning
to sell a vehicle to reduce overheads. At this point Simon provides
another, more extended formulation:
Simon
Yeah (.) So there is somethin underlyin that (.) I mean:: the one
good thing about it I’d say (.) Is that it’s not deterioratin
at the moment (.) I mean obviously you’ve now reached a quieter
time
Graham
Yeah
Simon
And it’s not goin dramatically worse than it was this time
last year
Graham
No
Simon
So (.) It could well be that durin the
course of the year you have taken the necessary action t- to (.)
Graham
Well we [‘ve
Simon
[ste- stem the flow from from wherever it’s goin
Graham
( )
Simon
I know you always look at your overheads and
Graham
Yeah
Simon
keep on top of them
Graham
Well we try our best (.) Y’know It’s like anything
Again,
as Simon works through this formulation, Graham systematically aligns
with everything that is being said. This includes the rather telling
"I know you always look at your overheads". Finally, we can see the
following formulatory episode at the conclusion of the interview:
Simon
So just summarise Graham (.) Yer goin t let me have (.) copies [of
Graham
[I’ll get (.)
Simon
[[them figures
Graham
[[I’ll find the up-to-date (.) [I’ll put
Simon
[You’re gonna
Graham
all them copies of them (.) and I’ll call at accountants to
get a copy of that
Simon
Right (.)
Graham
Profit and lo[ss sheet
Simon
[and you’re gonna have a look at them as well
Graham
Yeah we’ll have a look at them
Simon
Right
Graham
And I’ll get back to you on [them
Simon
[And like I said I’d also recommend (.) i- it’s no problem
t get Mike t have a chat with you (.) like I [say
Graham
[Yeah
Simon
He’s not goin t hassle you=
Graham
=yeah yeah well get him to (.)
Simon
I’ll get him to give you a ring and phone to arrange a mutually
convenient time He’ll just need an hour or so to go thru [what
Graham
[right
Simon
he needs to go through
Graham
Hohh: (.) Tell im he’s comin to see a fella who’s got
nowt
Notice
here how Simon also provides a formulation of what he has said
he
will do. He has said he will get an Insurance Adviser to talk to Graham,
an accountably appropriate way of demonstrating to his superiors that
he has, indeed, been attentive to sales. It is not just that this orientation
has been ‘managed’ into the interview. What matters is that
this orientation has been rendered open to display to Simon’s
own organisation.
Reconfiguring
the Customer
The
‘contractual’ character of formulations is important in
relation to how managers like Simon get to actualise the Bank’s
strategic objectives. One of the professed aims of the Bank’s
strategic plan is the reconfiguration of customers such that their behaviours
and interactions with the bank are rendered wholly predictable (similarly
see Woolgar, 1991)11. Clearly
a part of this is related to the growing amount of information compiled
and used at a bank-wide level through their Retail Banking Platform.
They are especially concerned about the quality of customer notes on
their relational database. Under the circumstances it is easy to see
why the Bank should wish to formalise and standardise the formats for
the presentation of such information (Randall et al., 1995).
It is but a small step from there to wanting to ensure that customers
behave in a way that will best facilitate such a uniformity of approach.
At the heart of this ‘configuring the user’ (Woolgar, op
cit.) idea lies the notion that both customers and staff can simply
be trained to behave in a rational and ordered fashion. In the case
of customers this amounts to ensuring that they join the right queue,
make single enquiries, ask questions ‘in the right order’
and so on. However, such a belief runs counter to the everyday observation
that, even if not all customers are awkward, many are. Customers ‘typically’
make multiple enquiries involving moving in and out of a range of screens
and software packages. They also ‘forget’ then ‘remember’
enquiries, digress, waste time and generally behave in ways that cannot
be accounted for by any simple process model. In the case of relationship
managers there is also a profound tension between such goals of standardisation
and the ‘new consumerist’ ethos (see Burton, 1994; Gabriel
& Lang, 1995; and Lash & Urry, 1994) that informs the way they
are encouraged to work with their customers as individuals. The ‘art’
of relationship management resides, then, in the accomplishment of both
fulfilling a customer’s individual requirements and making these
somehow fit with the standardised requirements of the bank. A great
deal of that work, as we have seen, is conducted through talk. More
specifically, it is accomplished through acknowledging a customer’s
needs and then presenting that in an appropriate formulation that the
customer is able to ratify. That is work that is profoundly ‘skilful’,
or more accurately, ‘artful’ (Anderson et al., 1989;
Pycock et al., 1995).
Working
Up the ‘Story’ of the Interview
When
the interview was completed Simon drove back to the Bank, ready to report
on the interview and make certain recommendations about the future of
the relationship on an Updated Appraisal Form. Simon completes these
documents, in the first instance, on a laptop computer. The Appraisal
Form constitutes the official record of the interview, and the decisions
that were made. Once Simon has completed it a copy is retained in his
laptop-based portfolio, another copy goes in the customer file, and
a further copy goes to their Regional Office for sanction. Relationship
managers work through such forms in a systematic and highly sequential
fashion. They use the procedural implicativeness of the forms themselves
as a resource through which to arrive at justifications for their decisions
(see Benford et al., 1995; and Hughes, King et al., 1996)
12. The
forms follow a seemingly rational progression from: ‘Non-Financial
Information’, where various background details are given about
the people who run the business at a more personal level; through ‘The
Business and it’s Circumstances’, where fairly precise details
about the turnover of the business and it’s profit and loss etc
are given; through ‘Account Operation’ where a history of
the customer’s relationship with the bank is effectively given;
and on through things like ‘Proposition’, where requests
for loans get detailed; ‘Management’ where information is
given about how the business is actually run; to overall assessments
under the headings of ‘Positive’ and ‘Negative Features’.
Frequently, as we have already intimated, they locate the contractual
formulations they first worked up in the interview as evidential support
for the decisions they have made. Here, for instance, are some
excerpts from the Appraisal Form Simon completed in relation to his
interview with Graham:
[Completing
Appraisal Form]
...
Noting overheads "pruned"
Noting overall Net Profit returned to previous ‘good’
levels
Noting overall cash retention (just figure)
Detailing what latest management figures "indicate" - "Turnover much
reduced"
Noting Gross Margin "reduced"
Noting lost contract
...
Noting "overall Net Profit of £XXXXX represents reasonable
return prior to drawings but likely to change on audit"
Noting partners have cut back on expenses and reduced pensions "to
reflect reduced income"
Notes selling van to save HP
In
the above we can see Simon locating the formulatory work he did with
Graham about cutting the overheads and the business remaining profitable.
He also indicates the need for further evidential support on this issue
and represents Graham’s general talk about cutbacks in a more
formal and direct fashion. Further along Simon keyed in the following:
(Goes
to ‘Proposition’ section - Shifting cursor over text as
he scans for details to alter - Highlights a section and deletes -
Entering new comments)
"in so far as business is concerned we are simply asked to mark forward
at current levels..."
"Graham Croft recognises the reasons he proffered last year were only
partly true as evidenced by higher borrowing"
Causal factor listed as "reduced turnover"
Noting "position is stable"
Suggests with actions they have taken "they are confident that cash
retentions will be seen in the current year.."
...
Noting private account opening alongside loan and application for
personal credit scoring
...
In
the next extract we see Simon making an overall recommendation that
summarises the decisions made during the interview about the marking
on of the limit, the Personal Loan which needs Regional Sanction, and
the proposed visit from a Personal Financial Adviser about possible
Insurance ‘sales’:
Goes
to ‘Recommendation’ section
Highlights and deletes a portion of text
Reads previous Appraisal Form - Stacks displaced documents
Entering new text re viability assessment - "I have confidence in
these hard-working customers and have no hesitation in supporting
them for a further 12 months. The need for a personal loan falls for
Regional consideration since our security is charged directly to the
partnership"
Re loan enters "This represents an ideal opportunity to cement customer
to XXX Bank individually"
Goes to Sales section
Entering note re PFA
Generally noting opportunities for products - particularly BDLP or
BOP
Note
in addition how this is interleaved with standard ‘emotive’
phrases such as ‘hard-working’, ‘I have no hesitation’,
and ‘an ideal opportunity’. These, it will be noted, operate
at the same sort of affective level as the ‘demeanour work’
in the conversation. It is not so much that they are intended as asides
to enhance a relationship and develop a sense of personal investment.
This is something they clearly cannot be expected to do in the context
of a highly formal record. Rather, through the way in which they clearly
register as assessments that are
personal, they can be seen to
make the comments individually accountable. Here too we see an orientation
to an organisation that is, in the actualisation of the work itself,
far from abstract. Simon is not so much preparing his comments for overview
by some
thing as by some
one. They are intended to be persuasive.
However, it is only in an assumed world of shared ‘moral’
perspectives that such comments could be hoped to be persuasive. In
that assumption Simon is orienting as much to his common understandings
about
people as the organisation itself.
We
have seen how it is the actual dynamics of the conversation that constitute
the real work behind a relationship manager’s decisions. It is
just this sort of work that informs what manager’s frequently
refer to as ‘gut feeling’. ‘Gut feeling’ is
something we have encountered and commented upon elsewhere, in the practical
application of the lending acronym, ‘CAMPARI & ICE’.
This acronym was intended as a means of assembling a 'case' for a lending
decision (Hughes, Kristoffersen et al., 1996). We found that
Lending Managers often used CAMPARI & ICE retrospectively to justify
a decision already made on 'gut feeling' or on their apparently 'intuitive'
deployment of lending ‘lore’ developed over the years. As
one Lending Manager put it, "You usually find that the decision you
make from your gut is the one you go with". What is gut feeling but
a folk-term that recognises the experiential and emotive dimension of
some particular body of information? As one particular Area Manager,
who had himself been a Business Manager for many years put it: "at the
end of the day...it’s got to feel right in here". Once
it ‘feels right in here’ the decision is as good as made.
The work then becomes accounting for that decision in ways that can
be seen and understood as complying with organisational objectives and
‘rules’.
We
have seen how Simon draws upon ‘decisions’ and ‘suggestions’
that were worked at mutually during a customer interview and then justifies
them within a relatively formal Appraisal Form. In this way he is able
to display his orientation to the current ‘style’ and ‘rules’
of the organisation he is working in. This amounts to what Bittner would
have termed a ‘gambit of compliance’ (Bittner, 1965).
The Appraisal Form in this context has become a resource
through which Simon can arrive at a post hoc rationalisation,
and procedurally ‘adequate’ display of such decisions. In
that way they can be seen to be duly attentive to certain institutional
considerations (Dant & Francis, 1998; Garfinkel, 1967; and Suchman,
1987) 13. A whole
host of such considerations might be seen to underlie the decisions
a manager makes, both within and beyond the customer interviews. In
particular, when it comes to making loan decisions, a great deal turns
upon what is referred to as the manager’s ‘Discretionary
Power’14. Underlying
this there are labels the computer-system automatically attaches to
customers known as ‘Risk Grades’. This scalar means of crudely
assessing the relative risk of lending to a customer lies at the heart
of whether they are authorised to do so without seeking further sanction.
Such constraints upon their lending power at first sight seem fairly
generous. However, when there is some uncertainty about this ‘discretionary
power’ the speed of response becomes a major issue. This is because
decisions that cannot be made then and there have to be sent ‘up
the line’ to Regional Office. That takes time, and delay here
can be a crucial factor in influencing a customer who might be considering
taking their business elsewhere. Such a worry is evident in the following
comments that Simon volunteered just after his interview with Graham:
"One
of the (.) the major issues we’ve been facing in Lancaster
over the last (.) twelve months (.) is the aggressive nature of
er (.) ((ANOTHER)) Bank ((sniff)) where the manager there (.) seems
to have (.) the ability to (.) write quite substantial business
(.) quickly (.) which leads us to believe that he’s got a
large D P (.) he’s also been very aggressive pricing wise
(.) and they don't seem to have a policy on some of the areas where
(0.8) the Ba- XXX ((NAME of Bank)) has a fairly stringent policy
like (.) property (.) and they’ve taken a lot of business
from us ..."
Behind
all of that there is an implicated recollection of other procedural
matters such as those embodied in Process Manuals and Head Office Circulars.
The manager is also aware that his work will be subject to the scrutiny
of others, both within his own office under the ‘buddying’
system
15
,
and at Region. Additionally, he is keenly aware of the backdrop of his
own Performance Agreement, the targets he must realise, and the constant
concern he is supposed to demonstrate with achieving ‘sales’.
However, it is important to realise here that all of these are considerations
that he has to demonstrate compliance with in the relatively formalised
constraints of the documentation he must produce. All of this further
underlines the way that Business Managers recognise and display awareness
that they are not only accountable to their customers but also accountable
to their superiors and colleagues in the organisation. If a manager
is unable to make a decision he will say so during the interview. However,
once a decision is made it will get supported through the practical
display of attentiveness to all of these kinds of considerations. That
is something that is achieved within the context of things like the
formal and standardised headings and structure of the Appraisal Form.
The Appraisal Form does not really constitute a ‘story of the
interview’ as the interview itself happened. Rather, it is a ‘story
of due consideration of the Bank’s own relevances’ in an
order that the Bank has itself predetermined.
The
