Editor's note: Robert Sinclair is founder and president of Sinclair Customer Metrics, a San Antonio, Texas, research firm.

“To thine own self be true” – six little words from Shakespeare packed with meaning. This phrase defines authenticity – having candor and not playing games. Unfortunately, within many organizations today, authenticity is in short supply. Sometimes being authentic within the organization can have a negative impact on advancement or even lead to job loss.

Businesses don’t intentionally leverage their own authenticity for image – style over substance, quick impressions over long-term vision. Nevertheless, it happens, somewhere in the management chain, when truth is met with resistance. When this occurs, the organizational damage can be hard to calculate.

Failure to be genuine up and down the management chain has been the Achilles’ heel of many businesses. Customers overlook nothing and detect every operational flaw of a business, easily distinguishing between superficial and authentic.

As a longtime specialist in the field of customer measurement, I’ve seen notable organizations, seriously lacking in the ability to self-assess, that are unwilling to see themselves as failing to meet their own brand promises to their customers. One might ask, “Why pay for measurement if you’re not going to use it honestly as a tool to improve?” Good question. Businesses may miss the mark by not realizing that the misuse of measurement is much more than a waste of money; it negatively skews their own self-image by overinflating the company ego based on untruths.

To illustrate my point, here’s an example many can relate to. Most people find the car-buying experience about as much fun as having a root canal. Consider the typical car-buying encounter: first there’s the negotiation with the sales person, followed by the sales manager, a back-and-forth process that can take hours just to arrive at a price for the vehicle; introduce a trade-in and you’re adding to the headache. Next comes the finance office, which is where the dealership makes most of its money. In addition to the interest rate comes all the extras like: extended warranties, maintenance plans, loan insurance, various protection plans, etc. By the time it’s done, you’ve been at the dealership half the day and feel worn out and exhausted.

So you’ve made it through the car-buying process and you’re finally ready to leave the dealership but just before you drive off the lot you hear someone say, ”You’ll be receiving a call [survey] sometime in the next week regarding your buying experience here today and it’s very important that we receive the highest ratings.” Then you are asked if they can “count on you” to respond with the highest marks in all areas. If you are bold enough to answer with anything other than a yes be prepared to have them try and change your mind.

You can be sure that attempting to influence participant responses prior to the survey is not part of any respectable measurement plan. Moreover, these measurement programs represent a considerable investment for any business implementing them. In addition to the cost of the survey program itself, there are often substantial rewards and other incentives tied to these programs. In the case of the automotive industry, manufacturers motivate dealership networks with both incentives and penalties based on survey outcomes. Equally important are the bragging rights that accompany consumer recognition, a staple in automobile advertising campaigns – “We’ve been voted No. 1 in customer satisfaction for (XX) years in a row.”

To consumers, the whole process seems phony and leads to further distrust of the car-buying experience. Unfortunately it remains prevalent within the industry and is common enough that consumers are not surprised when it happens.

When it comes to customer satisfaction ratings, gaming the outcome is not unique to the automotive industry. In every business sector where measurement takes place, company representatives artfully game measurement systems in order to attain incentives and keep management happy, leaving the enterprise with only the appearance of being better than it truly is, at least on paper. For example, recently I was on vacation with one of the major cruise lines. On the last day of our cruise, in the ship’s onboard theatre, where approximately 800 guests gathered, one of the crew members actually coached the audience on how to respond to the survey every passenger would shortly receive. ”Extremely satisfied” for all measures was the message.

That said, it begs the question: What happens when a business allows its measurement of the customer experience to become distorted? In short, it can lead to failure of the business. Measurement is essential in today’s ultra-competitive business environment. Keeping your measurement program authentic takes planning, oversight and awareness. All measurement initiatives start off aiming to keep the measurement fair and accurate but unless a conscious effort is made to preserve the customer as the central focus in all aspects of measurement, management and operations bias can slowly leach their way into the measurement program; undermining the original purpose of measurement goals. Many businesses have gone by the wayside thinking they were better at serving their customers than they really were.

Hurt the company beyond measure

Even with the potential for misuse, not measuring the customer experience should not be an option – you can put systems in place to maintain authenticity of measurement but not aggressively measuring how you relate to your customers can potentially hurt the company beyond measure. Keep in mind that every business is under the watchful eyes of its customers and they are continually measuring you subconsciously against internal expectations, your brand promise and the performance of your competitors. You are surely kidding yourself if you think for a moment that your customers will overlook even the smallest blemishes your business may have.

Therefore, it’s imperative to honestly and continually measure the customer experience. The foundation for ongoing improvement is measurement. That said, there are plenty in the workforce who don’t like being measured. Measurement introduces increased accountability and many would rather not find themselves being held accountable for something as nebulous as customer service. It’s the way in which this accountability is handled inside the organization which ultimately determines if the business improves as a result of measurement.

Consider three ways employees and organizations may respond to the added accountability and pressure to improve as a result of measurement:

  • Accept and constructively use measurement to improve areas of deficiency.
  • Change the measurement instrument or criteria, effectively lowering expectations and inflating scores.
  • Undermine the measurement process by focusing energies on score management rather than process improvement.

Constructive use of measurement leads to long-term growth and success. To be the best, organizations must identify and eliminate common corporate reactions to the increased accountability that comes along with measurement. Getting the most from a measurement program requires honesty, tenacity and integrity. If the goal is improvement, the focus should be real improvement, even if it’s incremental, rather than meeting an absolute number. If the only measure of success is about hitting a score then a program becomes all about the numbers instead of the type of process improvement that ultimately provides tangible growth through genuine customer service. There is real value in measurement when authenticity is at the core.