For what specifically?

A week or so ago, on the evening news there was a report about a gentleman who lost his insurance because his wife paid the premium 2 cents short. The insured, a Mr. Ronald Flanagan, was in the middle of receiving cancer treatment at the time of said cancellation.

When asked by ABCNews Reporter David Muir (I think it was), whether an apology would be issued once the ridiculousness of the cancellation had been exposed, the customer service representative working the case responded, "For what specifically?" Excuse me? Your organization terminates the insurance of an ailing man (never mind a Vietnam veteran ailing possibly on account of his service to his country and his exposure to bioagents during that service), in the middle of treatment and you have to ask for what specifically you might need to apologize? The mind boggles at the stupidity and cluelessness of this employee. The question is though, is it the employee or his organizational circumstances that make him stupidly clueless?

Organizations have to be right. The need to protect the organization from all liability is taught to employees almost from the moment they get through the front door. All well and good to limit liability, but when you are proven to be wrong, surely, surely, surely, you can admit the error and move on? Doesn't there come a point when treating people with decency trumps limiting liability? I refuse to believe that that is too much to ask.

For people who are already ill, like Mr. Flanagan, there are few choices. They can't just run out and change policies mid-stream as no one will have them on their books. Given this reality, there is no need for real customer care on the part of the insurer, but that fact alone makes it all the more precious when it is extended. Has anyone considered that unhealthy people actually might have healthy friends who could be in the market for insurance products? Has anyone considered that treating one sick person well might generate a stream of business from those friends and family? Has anyone considered that good deeds do, ultimately, yield good outcomes?

Were the customer care rep to be in Mr. Flanagan's shoes, how would he wish to be treated? I presume, and I don't think it a ridiculous presumption, that he would hope to be treated with empathy and respect. Why then did he not think to treat the client in the same way? Why then did he not understand that an apology would be necessary? Why would he even need to ask, "For what specifically?" when asked about apologizing?

The fact that a client is in treatment for a life-threatening illness should trigger a whole new set of customer care standards. Why not let the fact of a client's illness determine how staff interact with them? Maybe one day, companies will eventually treat all clients well, but let's just take the baby step of treating the ailing client well first. We'll figure out the rest later.

I know it's a stretch, but if we could just try walking a mile in another's moccasins we might find ourselves changed by the experience, changed in a good way. Empathy isn't weakness. Trust me on this.

Find a link to one of many stories about Mr. Flanagan's experience here: Two cents