The Problem Isn’t the Problem
Why fixing complaints rarely fixes anything
Here’s your quick access to everything we share:
The property manager sits at his desk on the 63rd floor staring at another stack of complaint letters. Twenty-three this week. All saying the same thing.
The elevators are too slow.
He can picture it. Someone rushing to a meeting on the 45th floor, pressing the call button, watching the floor indicator inch upward at a pace that makes glaciers look fast. Standing there getting progressively more furious as minutes tick by and their 2 PM meeting starts without them.
One letter threatens to break a five-year lease. Another is from a law firm that’s already started looking at other buildings. This isn’t theoretical anymore. This is losing tenants.
He calls the engineering firm. They send three guys in suits who spend two weeks measuring everything. Traffic patterns at different hours. Cable tension. Motor capacity. How many people jam into cars during lunch rush.
They come back with a proposal in a leather binder. New motors. Faster cables. Additional cars on the south bank. Reconfigured stopping algorithms that would reduce wait times by routing smartly.
Cost: $4.2 million. Timeline: eight months of construction. Disruption to every tenant in the building. And at the end of it all, elevators that are maybe 15% faster.
He looks at the number again. Four point two million. They don’t have it. Even if they did, 15% wouldn’t stop the complaints. People would still be angry, just marginally less angry.
He’s stuck. The problem is real. The solution is impossible. He goes home that night feeling like he’s watching the building empty out in slow motion and there’s nothing he can do about it.
The next morning, his assistant mentions something she overheard at a party. Some building in Chicago put mirrors in their elevator lobbies and people stopped complaining about wait times.
It sounds like a joke. Like something someone made up after too many martinis.
But he’s desperate. So he calls a contractor. Asks how much it would cost to install full-length mirrors near every elevator bank. The kind you see in department stores where women check their stockings.
The guy quotes him $340. For the whole building. Two days of work.
He authorizes it without telling anyone because if it doesn’t work he doesn’t want people knowing he tried something this stupid.
That weekend, workers install mirrors. Not everywhere. Just on the walls facing the elevators on every floor. Simple rectangular mirrors in brass frames.
Monday morning, he waits for the complaints.
They don’t come.
Tuesday. Wednesday. Thursday. Nothing.
He starts asking people. Casually. How are the elevators? Everyone says fine. Normal. No issues.
The elevators haven’t changed. Not by a single second. The motors are the same. The cables are the same. The wait times are mathematically identical to what they were when people were furious.
But nobody’s furious anymore.
He takes the elevator down one afternoon and watches. A woman is waiting, and instead of staring at the floor indicator getting progressively more irritated, she’s checking her lipstick in the mirror. Adjusting her collar. A man straightens his tie, smooths his hair, shifts his briefcase to his other hand.
They’re not waiting. They’re getting ready. Their brains are occupied with something other than the passing of time.
The problem was never the elevators. The problem was having nothing to do while the elevators were slow.
Stanford, 1991
Forty years later, a researcher named David Maister is teaching a class on service operations at Harvard Business School. He keeps hearing versions of the same question from students: why do some waits feel longer than others even when they’re not?
He decides to actually measure it.
He sets up experiments in restaurants, doctor’s offices, bank lines, anywhere people wait. Same basic test: give people something to do or give them nothing, measure how long they think they waited.
The restaurant experiment is the cleanest.
He works with a place in Boston. Two groups. Both waiting fifteen minutes for a table. Timed precisely.
Group one sits in a sparse waiting area. Uncomfortable wooden benches. A clock on the wall with a loud tick. Nothing to look at. Nothing to do. Pure waiting in its most concentrated form.
Group two gets a different experience. Hostess hands them menus to browse. Brings out small plates of their signature appetizer to sample. They can see into the kitchen through a window, watch chefs working. The hostess chats with them about the specials, asks if anyone has dietary restrictions.
Same fifteen minutes by the clock.
Group one, afterward, estimates they waited twenty-three minutes. When asked to rate their experience, most say “frustrating” or “longer than expected.” Several considered leaving.
Group two estimates nine minutes. Nine. When asked how the wait was, they use words like “fine” and “went by quickly.” Some say they barely noticed.
Maister publishes the paper with a finding that sounds obvious once you hear it but nobody had quantified: reducing perceived wait time is four times more effective at satisfaction than reducing actual wait time.
Four times.
Your brain doesn’t have a stopwatch. It doesn’t count seconds objectively. It measures the quality of experience, and empty time expands while engaged time compresses.
This explained everything he’d been wondering about. Why Disney lines feel shorter despite being longer than Six Flags. Why phone holds feel eternal even when they’re brief. Why a boring meeting feels twice as long as an interesting one.
Disney fills every inch of queue with entertainment. Videos. Music. Characters walking around. Games painted on the ground. Your brain stops measuring “how long am I standing here” and starts experiencing “what’s happening right now,” which is a completely different calculation.
Phone holds are the opposite. Nothing but silence and hold music. Your brain has nothing to process except the passing of time itself, which makes every second feel like ten.
The gap between reality and experience. And the brutal finding: most organizations optimize reality while completely ignoring experience.
San Francisco, 2018
A SaaS company’s CEO is in his weekly executive meeting looking at customer satisfaction scores. They’ve been declining for three quarters straight. Not crashing, but bleeding. Slow downward trend that’s starting to hurt revenue.
He asks the VP of Customer Success what’s driving it.
She pulls up exit interview data. The top reason people cite for leaving: “Support is too slow. They take forever to respond.”
Current average response time: four hours. Not great. Definitely not great. But it’s industry standard for their tier. Lots of companies are slower.
He makes a decision. They’re going to fix this. Going to make support genuinely fast.
He approves hiring three more support agents. Extends coverage to evenings and weekends. Buys new routing software that’s supposed to be smarter about prioritizing urgent issues. Changes policies so agents can spend less time on documentation and more time responding.
It’s expensive. But if it stops the churn, it’s worth it.
Two months later, the metrics look great. Average response time is down to ninety minutes. They’ve cut it by more than half. Genuinely impressive operational improvement.
He waits for the satisfaction scores to climb.
They don’t. They’re basically flat. Maybe up one point, well within margin of error.
Exit interviews still cite the same thing. “Support takes forever.”
He’s baffled. They made support nearly three times faster. How are customers still experiencing it as slow?
His VP of Customer Success is equally confused. She’s looking at the same data he is. Response times have genuinely improved. Why isn’t anyone noticing?
She decides to stop looking at dashboards and start experiencing what customers experience.
She creates a test account. Goes to the support page. Fills out a ticket like a customer would. A simple question about billing. Hits submit.
Then she just sits there. Does nothing. Waits like a customer waits.
The first minute is fine. She’s patient.
By minute three, she’s refreshing her email. Checking spam. Did it go through?
By minute five, she’s back on the support page. Is there a confirmation number? A status page? Anything?
Nothing. Just silence.
She realizes what’s happening to her brain. The uncertainty is worse than the wait. She doesn’t know if the ticket was received. Doesn’t know if she’s in a queue or if the system ate her request. Doesn’t know if she should submit another ticket or wait or try calling.
The not knowing is excruciating.
She pulls up customer behavior data. Finds that 34% of customers submit a second ticket within thirty minutes of the first. Another 18% submit a third within an hour.
Not because they’re impatient. Because they genuinely don’t know if the first ticket worked.
She brings this to the CEO. “The problem isn’t the ninety-minute response time. The problem is the ninety minutes of silence before the response.”
They make one change.
Instant auto-reply the second a ticket is submitted. Not the usual corporate garbage: “Thank you for contacting support. A representative will respond shortly.”
Instead: “Got it. Your question about [the specific thing they asked] is in our queue. You’re currently #3 in line. Based on current volume, expect to hear from Sarah or Marcus in about 90 minutes. Your ticket number is #47234 if you need to reference it.”
Specific. Transparent. Human.
The actual response time doesn’t change. Still ninety minutes on average.
Over the next two months, satisfaction scores climb twelve points. Complaints about slow support drop 85%. Customer churn attributed to support issues gets cut in half.
The CEO is staring at the data trying to understand it. They spent months hiring and restructuring to cut response time from four hours to ninety minutes. Barely moved the needle.
Then they added one automated email. Zero impact on actual speed. Transformed the experience completely.
The complaint was about speed. The actual problem was about certainty.
The Disguise
The building manager almost spent $4.2 million making elevators 15% faster. The CEO almost kept expanding support trying to hit sixty-minute response times.
Both would have worked, technically. Elevators would have been faster. Support would have been quicker.
Both would have missed what was actually broken.
Here’s the thing. The complaint is always real. The elevators were genuinely slow. Support tickets genuinely took hours. People aren’t lying about their experience.
But the complaint is almost never about what people think it’s about.
It’s the symptom dressed up as a diagnosis. It’s the experience filtered through someone’s best guess at what would fix it.
When customers say “your product needs more features,” what they often mean is “I can’t find the features you already built.”
When your team says “we need more people,” what they often mean is “I don’t know what’s actually important so I’m trying to do everything.”
When users say “this is too slow,” what they sometimes mean is “I don’t know if this is working at all.”
The surface complaint is never the actual problem. And if you solve what people say without understanding what they feel, you’ll burn resources making marginal improvements while the real issue sits there untouched.
Next time someone complains, stop. Before you start fixing, ask one question: what does this actually feel like to them?
Not what are they saying. What are they experiencing?
Because sometimes “this takes too long” means “I have no control and no information about what’s happening.”
Sometimes “we need more resources” means “I don’t understand what we’re trying to accomplish.”
Sometimes “this system is broken” means “I don’t understand how to use this and I’m embarrassed to ask.”
Those are completely different problems. One needs information. One needs clarity. One needs training. Solve the wrong one and you’ve just wasted months on something that didn’t matter.
The building manager could have spent millions on new elevators. Or three hundred dollars on mirrors.
The difference isn’t budget or intelligence. It’s asking: what’s the actual problem hiding under the complaint?
Most of the time, you’re fixing the wrong thing. Not because you’re incompetent. Because complaints come wearing disguises. And you’re solving for the mask instead of the face underneath.
This was a long read but very well worth it. Sometimes, we need to patiently ask the right questions and see complaints beyond the surface. It saves a lot, truly. Thank you for this.