Complaint Management: A Tool for Quality Improvement

Kurt De Meester / Paul Mahieu

Institute for Didactics and Adult Education, University of Antwerp, Belgium

Complaint management and quality assurance seem at first to be inversely proportional to each other. Quality means to satisfy the requirements and expectations of the client. Complaints are the opposite of quality in the offered service. So the fewer complaints, the higher the quality of the perceived or offered service.
Quality management points to the previous building in of quality components within the offered service. It is a prospective view for the purpose of avoiding or preventing dissatisfaction or complaints. But these strive towards an ‘inhuman’ objective: all organisations work with people and people make mistakes.
Complaint management is a retrospective view upon a client’s individual experience that is not in accordance with his or her conception of a ‘good’ organisation. Firstly, complaint management attempts to redress a client’s grievances or dissatisfaction. Secondly, it analyses the process of the development of the specific complaint. The collected information becomes the input for a prospective view. From this point of view, quality-friendly organisations do not try to avoid or prevent complaints but avoid making the same mistake again.
Complaints in this regard are critical incidents that define the client’s trust in or re- lationship with the organisation and which correct the organisation’s struggle to offer quality service. Complaints are also ‘presents from Heaven’. Oscar Wilde said once: “The only thing worse than people talking about you is them not talking about you.”
Parents and students have become more eloquent resulting in greater participation in school activities and school policy. This eloquent citizenship has a down side: the start of ‘a society of complainers and plaintiffs’. The increase of ‘individuality’ and a growingly litigious society strengthens the spontaneous defence of rights on all social levels. This is why schools increasingly are confronted with complaints from students and parents: complaints about the educational quality, the supervision at the playground, the relations between parents, students and the school…
One of the complaints which schools in Flanders are faced with are about racial discrimination. A small research study (De Meester and Mahieu, 1999) points out some recommendations regarding a high quality complaint procedure.

Vision and Culture

For many schools – and other service organisations – these complaints seem threatening. ‘Valuable’ time has to be sacrificed, the ‘daily routine’ is disturbed and the management’s ‘being right’ is questioned. The negative connotation of complaints conflicts with the quality expectations of the school. Consequently, to sustain the good reputation of the school, complaints have to be avoided. Complaint procedures are primarily seen as a ‘security function’, as a way of repairing the damage suffered and as a form of legal protection.
Nevertheless we find a contradictory statement in the literature: complaints are a blessing for the organisation which is being accused. “Every school profits in dealing positively with complaints, whether it is complaining parents, suppliers or neighbourhoods, the reputation of a school is always sensitive to active criticism” (Klaassen, 1997, p 23).
Apart from this change in mentality – from threat to blessing – complaints should not only be seen as a way to redress mistakes but as a tool towards quality improvement within the organisation. When however, the organization strives for quality, the complaint procedure has to fulfil an ‘instrumental function’: it is part of a conscious policy geared to the quality improvement of the organisation and with it the improvement of its relationship with the different organisational customers. With this vision the school aims at a maximum learning effect: instead of redressing mistakes in the present, mistakes will be avoided as much as possible in the future. Where the first vision – as a tool to redress mistakes – solely strives after a customer perspective, this perspective is widened in the latter vision: the customer as well as the organisation profit from the complaint.
This change in vision also has its consequences for the complaint procedure. The first vision deals only with the grievances or the conclusions thereof. The second vision deals with the managing of complaints. “Complaint management refers to the structured reaction of a school to complaints. A structured reaction does not only include those activities which a school board undertakes when incidental complaints occur, it also includes its long-term reaction to several complaints; ‘complaint management’ contributes to the prevention of complaints” (Klaassen, 1997, p.8).
There are four important consecutive phases of complaint management to be identified:

• the reporting of the complaint,
• the registration of the complaint,
• dealing with the complaint,
• follow up of the complaint.

The Reporting

“Some schools don’t hear of any complaints, so there must not be any” (Anon. 1994, p. 30). Of course there are, but people need to overcome their initial hesitation. Our research distinguishes different hesitations with respect to the plaintiff, the accused and the complaint procedure.
The most important reason why parents are hesitant to raise a grievance to the school is the fear that their child will eventually end up ‘paying for it’.

Parents are afraid that they will be labelled as ‘pushy’ or ‘strong willed and therefore to be avoided’ if they go to the school too often with complaints. So before they want to complain a second time they consider it seriously. Hesitations towards the school are mainly concerned with perceived inequalities between the complainant and the school.
For a long time immigrant parents, especially those of the first generation, believed in this view. School had been a strange world in which they had a blind faith. School took care of their children like a ‘good parent’, and one cannot very well complain to a parent. However we notice now that the pedagogical attitude of the ‘new Belgian’ parents have slowly evolved towards a more conscious and critical engagement.
Structural barriers or barriers within the complaint procedure on the one hand refer to the defining of the complaint and on the other hand to the customer-friendliness of the reporting procedure being used.
It is essential to use an open complaint definition. “A complaint is an expression of discontent, reported as such to the accused (person or school)” (Klaassen, 1997, p. 4-5). On the one hand, this definition holds no restrictions as to the subject of complaints – about the total output of the school – and on the other hand it does not exclude any complainants.

Complaints-pyramid

A complaint consists of an emotional component, a feeling of discomfort or discontent at a perceived injustice, and an objective one: the striving for a rectification which is perceived as being sufficient. Both are communicated non-verbally and/or verbally to the person seen as responsible for the discomfort.
“Disputes begin as grievances. A grievance is a individual’s belief that he or she (or a group or organisation) is entitled to a resource which someone else may grant or deny” (Miller and Sarat, 1980-1981, p. 527). Only a few grievances develop into complaints. Recent research shows that only 4% of the dissatisfied customers of service-related organisations complain. Dependent on the different aspects of the grievance, this percentage could be even lower. Based on the research of Welsh and Moore (1995) and the complaints-pyramid of Miller and Sarat (1980-81), we can say that grievances related to education and especially to discrimination in education rarely become complaints. These grievances nearly always stay private.
Dissatisfied but non-complaining customers may:

• resign themselves
  These resignations show themselves in absentees at Parent Teacher Association (PTA) meetings, virtually no notes in the suggestion box (assuming there is one), or items on the agenda of the teacher meetings.
• spread rumours
  The school gate is the ideal place for dissatisfied parents to spread rumours. “It is not always an intentionally malicious act but more often a spontaneous eruption of frustration” (Klaassen, 1997, p. 9).
• call in intermediaries or a third party
  To schools, dropout rates or a decreasing enrolment are the most obvious consequences.
• react with aggression
  An aggressive reaction is often the consequence of built-up frustrations which suddenly result in a verbal or even physical confrontation. Schools usually react fiercely, for example by expelling a student without taking into account what lead to the aggressive act.
• rouse popular feeling
  To rouse popular feeling is the most threatening alternative for schools because it injures the school’s image.

According to the literature (Jacobs, 1994, p.71) and our talks with the educational policy makers, such personal characteristics as social-economic position, social support or language skills determine whether or not a complaint is filed. Our research challenges these stereotypes. In relation to grievances about discrimination in schools and education it is not the ‘better’ parent who complains. The importance parents attach to education and the education of their child(ren) are the only determining factors to their complaining behaviour. Schools should therefor pay attention to complaints since they are a sign of parents being involved with the future of their child on the one hand and the future of the school and the educational system as a whole on the other hand. Parents who complain generally do not intend to undermine school policy, the principal or the teachers. Around 96% of the plaintiffs are sincere or complain with the best intentions: only 4% complain with ‘evil intent’ (Van Nuland, 1999, p.10).
How can a school improve the opportunity to complain? Through different channels, an attentive school can catch signals of contentment of its ‘clients’ and of their grievances and complaints. To be open to the outside world by, for example (in)formal contact with ‘clients’ and by taking into account their needs, are important qualities of a complaint-sensitive school.
As far as the reception of complaints goes this openness is demonstrated by the school having a widely-known accessibility policy.
A complainant will complain only when he or she knows there is a possibility to do so. It is therefore important to inform ‘clients’ of such a possibility. This information policy holds the risk of directing all problem-solving towards the legal system, so it is important that not only the formalities or procedures are communicated. The possibility to report a complaint and knowledge of where to do so need to be made clear in plain language and through focused media.
Even more essential for this information policy is the clarifying of the purpose of the complaint procedure. Our research shows that the right to complain within the policy of non-discrimination was approached from a ‘confronting’ or ‘conflicting’ attitude. In other words: rather than being a tool to reach an acceptable and lasting solution for both parties, when it comes to the choice of schools for immigrant students this right to complain results in bringing charges against intolerable practices.
In their complaint reception, ‘complaint–sensitive’ schools offer parents a wide variety of ways to report their complaint. It also focuses mainly on processes rather than structures and bureaucratic procedures. The main principles of a customer-friendly complaint reception (based on CEVORA, 1997, pp.11-14; Barlow and Moller, 1996, pp.101-108) are:

• Let the customer blow off steam.
  To interrupt a dissatisfied customer is not a good idea. His/her emotions are taking the upper hand and he/she will often react in an aggressive and noisy manner, regardless of whom is being spoken to. For the customer, you are at that moment the face of the failing organisation.
• Say ‘thank you’ and show understanding of the customer’s emotions.
  To many people it is difficult to remain friendly to a customer in this type of situation. Even though you are not responsible for the mistake which has been made, this person has just spoken to you in an irritated manner or has possibly called you names. Most people’s first reaction is to try to defend themselves, to blame someone else or to apologise. These are typical reactions from people who take the complaint personally. The real art is to keep a distance without being ‘distant’, and at the same time take responsibility.

When however one looks on a complaint as though it was a ‘gift from Heaven’, one has to act accordingly, through words and body language: namely by thanking the complainant. Just saying ‘thank you’ can sound rather hollow: one has to give content to one’s thanks by explaining that this complaint enables you to handle the problem more effectively. This encourages feedback from the customer and gives him/her the feeling that the person opposite is going to do something about the complaint. ‘I’m sorry’ gives a feeling that maybe nothing is being done or can be done and that this is the reason for the apologies.
Secondly, show understanding and apologise for the inconvenience, the irritation, the disappointment, the anger with which the customer has been confronted. It is essential to speak in the I-form, and not in the name of the organisation. By showing understanding the customer is put in the right as far as his/her emotions go. Notice that apologies regarding the content of the complaint are not offered, because at this stage there is not enough information on which to base any judgement.

• Promise to take the complaint seriously, and that you will follow up on it.
  Once you have apologised, don’t start asking for anything else right away. Doing so would change the hearing of the complaint into an interrogation. First give the customer the feeling that you are going to fight for him/her. This doesn’t mean you are going to set the interests of the school aside, it means you are recognising the individual interests of the parents and students. A complainant is allergic to: “I will pass this on”. The complaint is put into your hands and it is your priority to solve it. To the complainant the person receiving the complaint will remain the first contact person during the whole process.
• Repeat the information you received and ask for more information.
  In a first reaction customers feel they have given an accurate description of the problem, but their emotions often lead them to exaggerate. Do not minimise the problem but by asking a few questions you might find out that the real problem is a slightly different one. Also ask what it would take to satisfy them. Some customers just want to inform you that something happened, without expecting a solution for it.
• Give a timeframe for the processing of the complaint.
  The complainant not only expects you to handle the problem but also expects clarity on how long this is going to take.

In summary, a customer-friendly complaint reception gives attention to the clients emotions and his feeling of being treated as a unique individual and not as a number. However, accused schools tend to (subconsciously) disqualify the complaint by exaggerating, highlighting positive achievements or by not taking the time (or not wanting to take time) for the complainant. Such communication-patterns totally undermine the trust in the organisation.

Registration

Depending on what is hoped to achieve with the complaint procedure – individual redress, an organisational quality tool or tool for a problem-analysis which rises above the organisational context – different requirements are set for the registration of complaints. In any case, however, it is necessary that the complaint be recorded, and details kept of subsequent action.

Procedure: Dealing with the Complaint

The procedure is based on three principles: time, justice and communication. A complaint should be ‘rounded off’ in 4 to 6 weeks. This means that the complainant is informed of the ruling and the arguments which led to this decision. Our research shows that 64% of all complaints were rounded off within this stipulated time. On the other hand, to 14% took up to nine months to be completed.
With the term ‘justice’, we mean the most objective possible judgement of the complaint. This requires the existence of norms, criteria and rules such as those stipulated in regulations, procedural statements, in declarations such as the one on the Rights of the Child or even judicial precedents. Every effort should be made to ensure that natural justice is both done and seen to be done.
Our research also shows that the satisfaction of the complainant is not as much determined by the result or the final decision as by the communication and the involvement of the complainant during the procedure. If the final decision is unsatisfactory to one of the parties this can lead to a formal appeal to a higher level of authority. In fact, the local settlement of complaints is very rarely disputed.
A judicial complaint is a dispute introduced within a formal judicial frame or court, resulting in a legally binding decision. It holds the danger of polarization. Once a complaint reaches this stage, the question arises as to the repercussions on the school future of the child.

Follow-up

Not every grievance is of the same nature. To maintain a clear view the use of a few manageable categories to classify complaints is recommended. From a vision on dealing with complaints as a tool to redress mistakes, categorising is of less importance since such an approach emphasises the individual nature of each complaint. When, however, a ‘quality-focused customer approach’ is being aimed at, this categorising will serve a purpose. Such categories can be linked to a setting of priorities within the follow up of complaints. Who will follow-up which kind of grievance? Complaints concerning school policy may be handled by the principal in consultation others as appropriate. Pedagogical complaints could be handled by teachers.
On the other hand, categorising is a useful quality tool for an analysis of all registered complaints. A school may be suddenly overwhelmed with one specific complaint. As a result of the dioxin crisis, Flemish schools were swamped with questions and complaints about the quality as well as the quantity of the meals offered, and the alternatives. This temporary boom of grievances, accelerated by the surrounding media hype, entails the danger that a school directs all its attention to this ‘hot-spot’ and in the process neglects complaints concerning its ‘core-service’.
In an analysis of several researches with British parents, McBeath and Weir (1991) distinguish nine types of complaints:

• standards of discipline
• buildings and facilities
• large classes
• lack of attention to basics
• attitudes of teachers
• lack of communication with parents
• lack of attention to homework
• high staff turnover
• teachers and heads not doing enough about racial bullying.

In an empirical Scottish study with parents, school boards and students, Moore distinguishes 17 common problems schools are confronted with. The first twelve types of complaints are ‘school-based’. The other five are regionally related problems or differences.

• School-based
• school policies (topics not specified)
• school standards e.g. on homework, outings etc.
• pupils/parent relationships with staff
• concern about cleanliness and repair
• dissatisfaction about communication and access
• dissatisfaction with discipline procedures
• religious/cultural issues in the school
• support services e.g. school nurse, speech therapist
• playground/lunch time supervision
• school meals: dietary concerns
• problems of parking and traffic outside school gates
• differing viewpoints of PTA members and School Board members.

• Regional issues
• regional policies, e.g. pre-five admissions, special education provision
• national testing
• school cleanliness and safety
• condition of school buildings and play areas
• supervision on school buses

Contrary to the above divisions we opt for a multi-dimensional division based on three categories: source, type and location of the complaint. The source of the grievance relates to the ‘complaining’ party and how the complaint is being brought to attention – directly, or indirectly by an intermediate. The type of complaint points to the content of the complaint, and the location points to the person responsible for the dissatisfaction or the problem situation.
Within each of these categories it is possible to make a simplified threefold division, one which leaves room for individual refinement. This is how the Urban Institute for Technical Education (SITO 5) of Antwerp split up the first category into 9 groups of external clients and their importance for the school. As far as the nature of the complaint goes, one can fall back on the divisions by McBeath and Weir (1991) or Moore (1994).

• Source of the complaint
• external complaints by external clients (parents, students, neighbours, official bodies) directly to the school
• internal complaints reported by internal clients school (teachers, support staff) directly to the school
• intermediate complaints or complaints which reach the school indirectly or through organisations who handle these complaints: (e.g. unions)

• Type of complaint
• service complaints relate to the pedagogical service of the school (e.g. teaching, evaluation, guidance)
• product-related complaints deal with the material goods which a school produces or uses (school busses, food, infrastructure etc.)
• relational complaints are complaints about the communication and interaction between the different partners (school, parents, pupils etc)

• Location of the complaint
• complaints about decisions or situations on which the school has limited influence. Because of the client’s contact with the school, the latter is faced with this type of complaint. (e.g. traffic-safety at the school gate, contacts with centres for student guidance)
• school-related complaints are about policy decisions at a school or school community level
• complaints about individuals relate to the personal conduct of one or several teachers or other staff members.

These three categories can form the axes of a three-dimensional cube of complaints. Complaints located within this cube are legitimate complaints, meaning the grounds or reasons for the complaint are situated within the school or the school is implicated. “If the complaint is legitimate we will have to focus on ourselves. If the complaint is not valid, this in turn gives us information about expectations of the other party. We shall have to ask ourselves how these expectations were aroused. Our attention will be focused on influencing and adjusting these expectations to these of the organisation.”
In public relations terms, valid complaints mainly tell us something about the identity of the organisation, invalid ones tell us about the ‘image’ and the transparency of the school and its complaint procedures. The follow-up of these invalid complaints is a meaningful expression of the involvement of the school with its clients, and the school’s ability to refer them to the appropriate organization or person. Does the school know how to redirect its clients with their complaints? Is the school supportive of its clients when redirecting them?
Based on the screening of discrimination-related complaints we find that more than half of these are related to services not offered (type of complaint) as a result of school related policy decisions (basis of the complaint). If we look at the types of complaints by McBeath, Weir and Moore, this is confirmed. We find that regarding the type of complaint, 17 out of 26 types of complaints can be categorised as service-problems. “Two thirds of the parents in the discussion groups had approached their school with a concern about their child’s education” (Welsh, 1995, p.17).
The cube can be used as a tool for the quality assurance design of a long-term school policy and for a costs-benefits analysis. Instead of giving exclusive attention to the complainer who cries the loudest or to the complaints about which the press makes most commotion, a complaint cube – or other variant of categorising – will focus permanently on the priority complaints. The two priority issues are the demand for a qualitative education of all parents and pupils and the equal relation between them and the school.

Conclusion

Complainants are always right, at least in their own eyes. But because they are also customers, their right is in the interest of the accused school as well. Are schools to be pitied? We do not think so. Only a fraction of grievances end in a formal complaint and most of the complaining parents mean well by the school. In that sense complaints are a ‘present from heaven’. From this point of view, complaints should be ‘cultivated’. Structuring a complaint management process could be for this purpose a starting-point. A rising number of complaints is in that case (paradoxically) rather a sign of a successful school policy than of a failure. This paradox is only acceptable if complaints are dealt with quickly and efficiently and if the school learns from its experiences of which complaints are a part.

References

Anon. (1994), “Klachten over de school” Klasse, nr. 41: 30-31.
Barlow, J and C Moller (1996), Een klacht … een geschenk uit de hemel en een effectief strategisch middel. Amsterdam: Contact.
Biegel, Cl. And K Tjoen-Tak-Sen (1986), Klachten over rassendiscriminatie. ’s Gravenhage: VUGA.
Brinks, H and L C Van Haaften (eds.) (1995), Klachten- en klachtenbehandeling. Alphen a/d Rijn: Samson Bedrijfsinformatie.
CEVORA (1997), Klachtenbehandeling. Leuven: Garant.
De Meester, K and P Mahieu (1999), De Antwerpse klaagmuur. Verkennend onderzoek naar de in Antwerpen gesloten non-discriminatie overeenkomsten met betrekking tot het lager en secundair onderwijs. Klachten en klachtenbehandeling. Antwerpen: UFSIA.
Jacobs, W (1994), Klagers en veelklagers bij de nationale Ombudsman. Arnhem: Gouda Quint.
Klaassen, A. (1995), “Klachtenbehandeling op school” in T K Damming, P Mahieu and A M De Regt (eds.), De communicatiemethode in de onderwijspraktijk. Katern 5, Alphen a/d Rijn: Samsom.
McBeath, I and D Weir (1991), Attitudes to school. Jordanhill College of Education.
Mahieu, P (1997) “Crisiscommunicatie voor scholen”, in Schoolleiding en -begeleiding. afl. 19: 57.
Mahieu, P and K De Meester (1999), “Zijn scholen te beklagen?” in Schoolleiding en -begeleiding. (in press).
Miller, R E and A Sarat (1980-1981), “Grievances, claims and disputes: assessing the adversary culture” Law and Society Review. vol. 15, no. 3-4: 525-566.
Moore, C (1994), Partners or pests? Experiences of grievance and redress procedures in education. Edinburgh: Scottish Council for Research in education.
Stedelijk Instituut Voor Technisch Onderwijs (SITO 5) Antwerpen (1995), “Omgaan met klachten van externen”, Schoolleiding en -begeleiding, Vol. 15.
Van Den Bergh, M E and M A Van Rees (1995), Reageren op klachten. Handleiding voor een klantvriendelijke klachtenbehandeling. Houten: Bohn Stafleu Van Loghum.
Van Nuland, Y (1999), Hoe klachten voorkomen? Van klachten-behandeling naar klachtenmanagement. Kontich.
Vervliet, E (29, 11, 1994), “Non-discriminatiebeleid in het onderwijs: dialoog is moeilijk in het begin”, De Standaard.
Vockell, E L (1996), “When parents complain about bad teachers” The School Community Journal. vol. 6, no. 1: 127-129.
Welsh, J (1994), Could do better? Complaints and redress in Scottish schools. Scottish Consumer Council.
Welsh, J (1995), “Complaining to schools”. Consumer Policy Review. Vol. 5, no. 1: 14-20.