There’s a fascinating thing that frequently happens when someone puts in a help desk ticket. They stop being a person and start being just… a ticket.

While this is useful for doing things like tracking trends, or analyzing problems, it presents challenges on how the problem is solved. Abstracting the person from the problem sets ourselves up for situations where our agents treat the ticket as just that - a problem - and not something that impacts the life if another person.

The usefulness of tickets

While smaller offices or organizations can rely on the “Walk up to XYZ person and get help approach”, this quickly breaks down at scale. First, after some point not everyone knows the right person to go. This makes it a frustrating experience to find help since you first have to go through a treasure hunt. Second it’s really hard for organizations to have enough of the right person at the right place at the right time to really matter (how many IT help desk techs is the right number? What if the location only has 2 employees, should they have a third employee who just does IT work?).

Since it’s (unfortunately) not possible to scale 1:1 human connections with organizations, we have to rely on some type of system to help us. This system should allow us to track multiple requests at a time, provide specific (hopefully accurate) responses, and interact with our customers. Frequently the thing that does this is a ticket. This makes tickets incredibly useful things, as they allow us to track, codify and organize pieces of work that have to be completed.

Given the size of some environments this is especially important as thousands, if not hundreds of thousands (or more!) issues pop up every year. While some percentage of the population will figure out a way to get face-to-face service, the vast majority of folks will interact solely with whatever ticketing system is in place. While this certainly makes it easier for the group providing support (IT, HR, whatever), it results in some interesting behaviors that may not have cropped up if a 1:1 in-person interaction were taking placee instead.

Do you have a ticket?

Many times the first questions out of a support techs mouth when presented with a customer with a challenge is something along the lines of “Ticket number”. Hopefully it’s more polite than that, so let’s go with “Could you please let me know your ticket number?” as the default. Already we have a problem. Instead of acknowledging the person in front of them (and almost as important acknowledging the pain that person is experiencing) the tech has gone straight to the ticket. While this may be a result of some process the tech is trained on, it immediately divorces the person from the equation.

While this makes complete sense (I certainly agree work needs to be accounted for), it immediately pushes the conversation away from help a person and towards placating a system. Systems are intended to serve us, to make our lives easier, not to enslave us to process and procedure.

To help combat this I work on starting those conversations with something like “What may I assist you with?”. I make a conscious effort to use “assist” and not “help” since they help frame the conversation. “Assisting” someone makes it a more collaborative, “us vs. the problem” approach, while “help” makes it more of a “you clearly can’t do this yourself, give it to me”. While this difference may seem minor, it makes the customer feel like they are part of the solution, instead of part of the problem. This becomes important when I need them to do something for me (reboot their machine, send a screenshot etc.), or if the problem comes up again (they’re less likely to think I”m incapable and more likely to want o work on a solution).

PATS (Person Abstraction Ticketing Syndrome)

It’s a little easier to avoid this abstraction with in-person (even video) requests since you get immediate body-language feedback and can more easily build a connection with the customer. Things can get really hairy when interactions are solely through a ticket and there is no direct connection with the customer. In these instances both the agent and the customer can forget they are working with another live, breathing human. At best this shows up as a different tone in responses, at worst customers get shuffled around between different teams until they get fed up and escalate.

This breakdown occurs since tickets cannot capture enough information (let alone the information provided by body-language or spoken word). Frequently they don’t even come close to soliciting questions that pull out context, for example not asking WHY something is being requested. This relatively lack of information makes it very easy for the agent to treat the ticket as another piece of the computer - something to be dealt with using as little energy as possible.

The customer, unfortunately, is in the same boat as the agent; they’re not getting enough information either. Compounding this is the frustration they feel due to the underlying cause (e.g. their computers broken), and the frustration of having to navigate some ticketing system (No one’s ever told me it’s a joy to use a ticketing system). Now, on top of that frustration, they have received what is likely a curt response (or at worst something totally unrelated to their request) to their plea for help.

As work on the ticket continues this transforms into a nasty reinforcing loop. The agent becomes more and more annoyed at having to deal with that particular ticket, and the customer feels more and more frustrated at not getting what they need. This tends to result in agents resenting customers, and customers thinking agents are un-caring machines. Eventually one of a few things happens:

1. Miraculously the ticket gets resolved - both parties are relieved, but not happy

2. The ticket gets transferred - The agent realizes they cannot help the customer so they punt them to another team. This effectively restarts the process, but does nothing to reduce the customers frustration.

3. The customer gets fed up and escalates - This can take the form of an email to a manager/director/C-suite and is not a lot of fun.

Even the best-case scenario is not a good once as the steps taken to get there were painful for both sides. In order to avoid these less-than-ideal outcomes, we may need to take a few drastic steps…. Remember they’re human too, and Get out of the ticket.

Remember they’re human too

This is something I always (try to) keep in the back of my mind when I work on tickets. Whoever is on the other end of that digital paperwork is another living, breathing person who needs me to help them out. Depending on the day and the person this can be more or less challenging, but the ideal end result is to treat the ticket like I would someone in real life. I wouldn’t for example, not respond for 3 days to someone who is standing in front of me saying “hello” (hopefully they wouldn’t stand there that long!). Nor would I respond to a detailed plea for help by running away and telling someone else to deal with it (e.g. blindly reassigning the ticket).

While it’s true the rules and expectations for dealing with tickets may differ then those for in-person interactions, we still need to push ourselves to treat customers the same. Remembering that they are, in fact, human, and do, in fact, need our help, is a quick mental shortcut to improving their interaction. Very frequently this also helps improve the relationship with your customer - they feel like they’re being treated well, so they will be easier to work with. This helps solve challenges on both sides, the agent feeling like something’s being dumped on them without enough info, and the customer who’s feeling like they’re being treated like a machine.

Getting out of the ticket

There are tickets that, for whatever reason, blow up and escalate. Maybe it took too long to resolve, maybe the customer doesn’t feel like you’re responding fast enough, or maybe the customer cannot effectively describe their challenge in the ticket. The reason doesn’t matter, but this is the point in time where the agent has to get out of the ticket and setup some in-person connection (not that they could’t do this earlier, they should!, but they REALLY need to do it during an escalation). This could be walking to the customers desk, video chat, phone call etc. but the point is to make a more human (and real-time) connection.

Doing this solves a number of challenges. First it demonstrates the agents sincerity in resolving the issue. This alone can have a huge impact on the situation (especially if the ticket has been sitting, or going back and forth for a while). Second it removes the distance a ticket creates and allows for more immediate feedback. Now the agent doesn’t have to wait for a screenshot, they can see exactly what’s happening. Third it helps build a real connection between the agent and the customer. This is incredibly important to both the current challenge, but more importantly it builds a relationships between both sides.

This third benefit is the most important since it builds towards the future. Next time there’s a ticket the customer is more likely to provide more info and be a bit more understanding in delays. The agent is more likely to give the customer the benefit of the doubt and provide better support. Additionally both sides will tell other people about the interaction. The customer will impact how others perceive their help desk and vice-versa. This ripple effect is immensely powerful and helps stop the negative feedback that crops up with ticketing systems, and (even better) helps improve the relationship between tech and partner teams.

Only Human

At the end of the day we’re all human. We do the best we can and sometimes we make mistakes. Regardless of the situation we still need to treat each other as living, breathing entities and not as lines of text on a screen. Keeping this in mind helps elevate both the level of service provided, but also the relationship between agent and customer. The strength of this relationship is directly related to how our customer perceives us, impacting how they treat us and what they tell others about us.

Keeping the human aspect at the core of support not only helps the customer feel heard and respected, but improves our workplace and job satisfaction as well. After all, who wants to work at a place that treats its people like machines?