This is a story about how good intentions can often bring unintended consequences.

I needed a large amount of cash transferred from one financial institution (Fidelity) to another (Charles Schwab). And the need behind the transaction was time-sensitive. Fidelity promptly sent the money via check to my Post Office Box. And although the check arrived as expected, it never made it to my P. O. Box because the postal worker who received it promptly returned it to Fidelity.

Now why would a postal worker do such a thing?

Easy. Fidelity had addressed the envelope with the correct address along with my name, but the first line they addressed contained the words “Charles Schwab” because the check was made out to Charles Schwab. The postal worker, unfamiliar with the world of finance and investing, looked at the way the envelope was addressed and thought to himself, “Who is Charles Schwab? We don’t have anybody by that name for that particular PO Box. That PO Box belongs to Ara Norwood, not Charles Schwab. It must be a mistake. I’ll mark it Return to Sender.”

I get on the phone with Fidelity and explain what happened. I instruct them to cancel the check and reissue a new one and this time, to not put the words “Charles Schwab” on the envelope.

Simple enough, right?

Wrong. Fidelity won’t do it. They will gladly cancel the original check, and they will gladly reissue a new check, but they will not address the envelope without the words “Charles Schwab.”

Why not?

Because they claim “they can’t.” They claim no one in their shipping department will be able to do that for reasons that are not articulated. They understand the risk that history may repeat itself, but it doesn’t matter to them. I ask if they can send the check to my home address instead. They say they can, but not after imposing a ten-day hold before they do so. No one at Fidelity appeared to be capable of solving the problem. (Now, because I went back to the Post Office that same day and got someone who was willing to oversee the incoming delivery and ensure it did get to my PO Box, the problem was solved, but not after a lot of wasted time and angst.)

Lesson? The people I dealt with at Fidelity were nice people. But they are rule-bound, not solution-bound. They think in terms of “that’s the way we do things around here,” rather than “what can we do to meet the needs of our client?”

Rules have their place. The enable order and consistency. But there are times that rules have to be bent, if not broken. And wisdom informs us when that is apropos and when it is not. The folks at Fidelity, at least the ones I dealt with, do not possess wisdom. They do not think in terms of satisfying customers. They are not adept at problem solving. They may all have Series 7 licenses and understand how to execute transactions, but they do not possess the skill of serving customers.

Please don’t make the same mistake in your business.