I am upset over the shooting at FSU, especially since it is where I went to college, but I decided I didn't want to write about another shooting.
Instead, I was thinking the other day, when asked to complete a customer service review, why 10 out of 10 is practically required for a survey now. When did this change?
I remember when you filled out a rating survey, whether at a restaurant, car dealer, or bank and you were supposed to be honest because what you said or how you rated the service you received was important in order to fix issues or praise staff. Now it seems, unless you put 10 out or 10, which is a perfect score, those you are scoring get in trouble or worse lose their jobs. Who came up with this type of rating? There is no such thing as a perfect score in everything, so where you might feel the service received was 10/10 in some area, maybe it was 8/10 in another, which is still an excellent rating.
According to the uspolitics.com poll, the overall presidential job approval ratings were never 10/10.
Instead, I was thinking the other day, when asked to complete a customer service review, why 10 out of 10 is practically required for a survey now. When did this change?
I remember when you filled out a rating survey, whether at a restaurant, car dealer, or bank and you were supposed to be honest because what you said or how you rated the service you received was important in order to fix issues or praise staff. Now it seems, unless you put 10 out or 10, which is a perfect score, those you are scoring get in trouble or worse lose their jobs. Who came up with this type of rating? There is no such thing as a perfect score in everything, so where you might feel the service received was 10/10 in some area, maybe it was 8/10 in another, which is still an excellent rating.
According to the uspolitics.com poll, the overall presidential job approval ratings were never 10/10.
End-of-Presidency Job Approval Ratings
President Rating (%)
Bill Clinton
(2 terms, D, 2001) 66
Ronald Reagan
(2 terms, R, 1989) 63
John F. Kennedy
(partial term, D, 1963) 63
Dwight Eisenhower
(2 terms, R, 1961) 59
George H. Bush
(1 term, R, 1993) 56
Gerald Ford
(partial term, R, 1977) 53
Lyndon Johnson
(1+ terms, D, 1969) 49
George W. Bush
(2 terms, R, 2009) 34
Richard Nixon
(partial term, R, 1974) 24
President Rating (%)
Bill Clinton
(2 terms, D, 2001) 66
Ronald Reagan
(2 terms, R, 1989) 63
John F. Kennedy
(partial term, D, 1963) 63
Dwight Eisenhower
(2 terms, R, 1961) 59
George H. Bush
(1 term, R, 1993) 56
Gerald Ford
(partial term, R, 1977) 53
Lyndon Johnson
(1+ terms, D, 1969) 49
George W. Bush
(2 terms, R, 2009) 34
Richard Nixon
(partial term, R, 1974) 24
And this is only showing presidents since 1961. Bill Clinton had the highest with 6/10 and that is amazing considering all the scandal during his presidency. Of course this is only one type of rating, each one has slightly different scores.
So if an approval rating for a president of 6/10 is historically the highest ever, why isn't 6/10 or 7/10 good enough for service ratings?
We have become a society of marketing not merit. It is no longer good enough to do your best and make it in your career or school based on merit alone. In order to get the 10/10 you must market yourself and if you do that well you may not have to have any merit. Look at people like Paris Hilton or the Kardashians. Have they ever really done anything noteworthy in society to earn their fortune and notoriety? No. But for some reason they have risen to the top of fame and fortune because they have turned the art of marketing and "doing nothing" into getting 10/10.
When a person feels that they must put 10/10 on a review and the employees and employer feel that only 10/10 is worthwhile than the 10/10 suddenly has no meaning. I remember when I did my teaching practice in the U.K., the teacher in-charge of my training would often comment about lessons I did and say they were brilliant. Being from the USA the word brilliant is only used when something is exemplary. I was so thrilled when I heard this word because I thought, "Wow, I have hit this lesson out of the park." What I soon learned after being there a while was that the British use the word brilliant all the time and therefore it doesn't have the same impact to them as it did to me.
What we are teaching our children by saying that a 4.0 grade point average isn't good enough or only 10/10 is worthwhile is that ratings are no longer real and don't matter. The only thing that does matter is how well you promote yourself in the media or on youtube. We are teaching our children that you don't need merit anymore, but instead you must be hypercritical, expect perfection, and be perfect. The problem? Nothing is or can be perfect and merit is actually important.
Don't expect 10/10 and be satisfied with satisfactory.
So if an approval rating for a president of 6/10 is historically the highest ever, why isn't 6/10 or 7/10 good enough for service ratings?
We have become a society of marketing not merit. It is no longer good enough to do your best and make it in your career or school based on merit alone. In order to get the 10/10 you must market yourself and if you do that well you may not have to have any merit. Look at people like Paris Hilton or the Kardashians. Have they ever really done anything noteworthy in society to earn their fortune and notoriety? No. But for some reason they have risen to the top of fame and fortune because they have turned the art of marketing and "doing nothing" into getting 10/10.
When a person feels that they must put 10/10 on a review and the employees and employer feel that only 10/10 is worthwhile than the 10/10 suddenly has no meaning. I remember when I did my teaching practice in the U.K., the teacher in-charge of my training would often comment about lessons I did and say they were brilliant. Being from the USA the word brilliant is only used when something is exemplary. I was so thrilled when I heard this word because I thought, "Wow, I have hit this lesson out of the park." What I soon learned after being there a while was that the British use the word brilliant all the time and therefore it doesn't have the same impact to them as it did to me.
What we are teaching our children by saying that a 4.0 grade point average isn't good enough or only 10/10 is worthwhile is that ratings are no longer real and don't matter. The only thing that does matter is how well you promote yourself in the media or on youtube. We are teaching our children that you don't need merit anymore, but instead you must be hypercritical, expect perfection, and be perfect. The problem? Nothing is or can be perfect and merit is actually important.
Don't expect 10/10 and be satisfied with satisfactory.
RSS Feed