The Paradox of Automation: The Potential for Increased Person-to-Person Interaction Through Use of Technology
As you look around today, you will be able to find evidence of the current conflict that has developed. Someone sent you a perfectly timely follow-up e-mail that was devoid of personality. The response from your customer service representative came back immediately; however, as a result of the lack of understanding regarding your issue, you felt that you were not being heard as clearly as you had been prior to the response. The potential for automation is speed and scalability. The downside of automation is the potential to strip the unique and valuable aspect that people seek out most, which is knowing that a live individual is interacting with them at the end of their technological interaction.
Via Unsplash
Confusing Speed and Scalability with Communication
One of the most frequent errors is equating faster communication with better communication. There is no relationship. While using automation to create a packed system of auto-responses, scheduled messages, and CRM reminders can increase efficiency in the organization, when each message seems to have been created from the same template and each contact point appears to be done by a robot, individuals recognize the differences rapidly.
This is especially true within sales and support organizations whose primary objective is to produce large volumes of communications. As a result, these teams lose sight of tone in the process. For example, a sales rep may utilize Power Dialer software that triples the number of sales calls; however, the ultimate value of this type of activity is not simply based upon the quantity of calls made. It is what occurs during those calls. When the salesperson is utilizing a script that is inflexible and is under pressure to complete multiple calls per hour, the increased production volume does not produce trust.
Utilizing Automation to Remove Inefficient Tasks
Automation performs its best role when it removes the tedious tasks associated with administrative processes, rather than the aspects of communication that require some degree of judgment. Examples of administrative processes that can be removed through automation include logging notes, creating reminders, sorting leads, and tracking follow-ups. These types of activities save time and eliminate human error.
However, the problem arises when teams attempt to remove the need for judgment through the use of automation. An example would be a customer who asks a question that is slightly outside the norm. The customer is not seeking a template that has been polished. They are looking for a helpful response. A reader who responds to a newsletter with a personal anecdote is not expecting a response simply because the system could not categorize the message. The use of good automation allows for a clearing of space to allow people to provide a proper response when the situation calls for one.
Omitting the Reality that Personal Requires Effort
Another misconception is that personalized marketing tools can perform the majority of the work. Adding someone’s first name to an e-mail is relatively simple. Referencing a specific concern, recent purchase, or previous discussion requires additional consideration. People can tell the difference.
Allowing Technology to Facilitate the Human Component
In reality, the most effective use of automation is quiet facilitation. Its purpose is to assist individuals in remembering specifics, responding in a timely manner, and maintaining consistency in their interactions. This is the paradox. The more efficiently the technology operates in the background, the warmer and more personal the interaction can appear in front of it.
Therefore, when used effectively, technology should not diminish the quality of communication. Instead, it should enable people to interact with others with greater awareness and presence, rather than less.
