Are you just paying for service, or for attention too?

When you pay for a personal service, are you only buying the result? Or are you also buying attention from the provider while it’s happening?

A reader from California, whom I’m calling J.J., believes the answer is obvious. If someone is cutting your hair, treating an injury or doing your nails, they should focus on you, not chatting with coworkers.

Is it wrong, J.J. asked in an email, to feel that not focusing on the customer is rude and unprofessional?

J.J. does have a point. In such personal services where human physical contact is essential, you are paying for competent, safe and professional service. That should include enough attention to do the job well and respond to your needs. If distractions affect the provider’s work, that’s not acceptable.

We should not, however, expect that our providers will engage in lively conversation. Some clients want chatter while others crave silence. A good service provider often will try to gauge a client’s preference. They might even ask. But just because they don’t engage in conversation while doing good work doesn’t violate any rules.

Chatting nonstop with a coworker, however, rather than paying attention to a client may send a message to the client that you’re not paying attention to him or her or them, even if the provider does an OK job. When someone has a scissors or a straight razor working in the vicinity of your head, it’s fair to expect their undivided attention. A quick exchange with a co-worker is OK. Engaging in a heated discussion as if the client is invisible goes too far.

If J.J. wants more engagement, he should say so. If he prefers to be told about the work the provider is doing, it’s OK and good for him to indicate such. If he prefers quiet, it’s OK for him to tell the provider that. He should not, however, expect the provider to read his mind.

A provider should not be expected to entertain his or her clients, but they should be expected to acknowledge the person in their chair. Some eye contact, occasional check-ins, or a brief explanation of the work being done might show respect without slowing down the work.

In the end, you’re paying for a service. But you’re also paying to be treated like you matter—at least a little—while it’s happening. That doesn’t require constant conversation, but it does require some awareness.

Ultimately, clients such as J.J. have a right to choose service providers based on whether the service they receive is the type of service they want. If someone gets a great haircut but can’t stand how he’s treated while in the barber’s chair, he’s unlikely to return. Some clients stay loyal to a barber or a therapist for years based on the quality of service. Some move on after a single visit because of how off-putting they found it.

Finding someone who provides a comfortable level of attention can build loyalty and trust. Total absence of attention is unlikely to do either. It’s fair to judge a service, particularly a hands-on type of service, on more than just results.

The right thing is to tell your service provider what you want. If he or she can’t deliver, then find someone who can.

Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Simple Art of Business Etiquette: How to Rise to the Top by Playing Nice, is a senior lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at Harvard's Kennedy School. He is also the administrator of www.jeffreyseglin.com, a blog focused on ethical issues.

Do you have ethical questions that you need to have answered? Send them to jeffreyseglin@gmail.com.

Follow him on Twitter @jseglin.

(c) 2026 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.

How much nonprofit follow-up is too much?

Is it wrong for not-for-profit organizations to send volumes of follow-up mail and overwhelm inboxes with messages after a donor has given their first donation?

That question comes from a reader we’re calling Sheila who recently made a cash donation to a group she admired and soon found her mailbox and inbox flooded with follow-up solicitations.

My first response to Sheila’s question was: What did you expect?

Nonprofits want your money. That’s not a character flaw. It’s their operating model. If someone gives once, it’s not surprising for the organization to ask again.

At first glance, Sheila’s concern seemed a nonissue. A donor gives. A nonprofit asks for more. End of story.

Then I thought more about what happened to Sheila. Within minutes of her donation, her inbox alerted her with a thank you. Appropriate. Then came a message suggesting she could make even more of a difference with a second gift. By nightfall, she’d received a survey, a newsletter she hadn’t known she’d subscribed to, and an invitation to join a circle of larger, more consistent donors.

By week’s end, Sheila wasn’t feeling appreciated. She was feeling pestered.

The issue isn’t whether nonprofits should follow up. They should. Donors are their lifeblood, and building relationships is appropriate. A thank you, updates on how contributions are used, and occasional appeals all make sense.

But when does “follow-up” become “flood”?

Organizations rely on data that encourages more outreach, not less. If repeat donors are more valuable, and engagement increases retention, the temptation is to communicate frequently. It’s easy to send a stream of messages without asking how it feels on the receiving end.

That’s when the question of how much is too much arises.

A single donation is not the same as consent to ongoing, high-volume solicitation. Yet many organizations act as if it were. The line between stewardship and saturation gets blurred, and donors who intended to support a cause find themselves managing an unexpected relationship with their inbox.

Organizations might start by asking themselves if they would be up front with prospective donors about their communications practices, including their email habits. Would they really want to tell a donor that they will be in touch every day or so whether the donor likes it or not? If not, nonprofits may want to reexamine the frequency of their solicitations.

Beyond being thoughtful to donors, nonprofits should recognize that donors who feel overwhelmed may unsubscribe, disengage or decide their initial act of generosity has come with too many strings attached. In trying too aggressively to secure a second gift, organizations risk losing the donor altogether.

My initial instinct reaction may have been to shrug off Sheila’s question as the natural order of fundraising, but I’ve come to appreciate her concern The right thing isn’t for nonprofits to stop communicating, but they should do so by being clear with donors how they will communicate and then do so with moderation.

Tell donors what they can expect. Give them choices about how often they receive solicitations. Nonprofits may be wise to resist treating every act of generosity as an invitation to inundate a donor’s inbox.

Sheila still supports the organization. But she also has unsubscribed to their emails that simply took up too much of her inbox and her day.

Nonprofits depend on donors. Donors like Sheila depend on nonprofits to know when enough is enough.

Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Simple Art of Business Etiquette: How to Rise to the Top by Playing Nice, is a senior lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at Harvard's Kennedy School. He is also the administrator of www.jeffreyseglin.com, a blog focused on ethical issues.

Do you have ethical questions that you need to have answered? Send them to jeffreyseglin@gmail.com.

Follow him on Twitter @jseglin.

(c) 2026 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.

Is it ever OK to name a building after yourself?

 When does recognition become a reward, and when does a reward begin to compromise judgment? Based on a recent email from a reader we’re calling Naoise, it’s a question that highlights how public institutions can earn, and sometimes lose, the trust of the communities they serve.

Naoise, who monitors his local junior college district, emailed that the community had overwhelmingly approved a $400 million bond to repair and build campus facilities. The district, he explained, has had a policy since 1985 that buildings could be named for past directors who had provided exemplary service. By limiting naming rights after those who had already served, it sent a signal that the honor was earned rather than bought or self-awarded. The recognition for past contributions celebrated service already rendered.

But the current board did something different. It decided to name some buildings after current board members. Donors also could buy naming rights: $500,000 for a lobby, $1 million for a residence hall. These were not merely ceremonial gestures. They were public assets, tangible and valuable. The move struck Naoise as wrong not only because it went against a longstanding policy, but because now those charged with overseeing construction, approving budgets and evaluating the college president were publicly associated with specific buildings.

Naoise raised the issue at a bond oversight committee meeting. His concern was that the new naming policy raised a clear conflict of interest. In response to his comments, Naoise reported that the board chair berated him for questioning his motives.

Honoring service can be commendable, although naming buildings after people can often result in unintended consequences. We see plenty of examples of this in the current news, but it’s long been an issue. (I and others spoke about such challenges as it relates to naming college buildings in a segment on "CBS News Sunday Morning" 19 years ago.)

Even if board members genuinely believed they could separate pride from judgment, the optics were clear. By placing a current board member’s name on a building, civic engagement and personal recognition have been intertwined. Members of the public might assume that the board’s oversight responsibilities have been influenced by self-interest. The public’s response might result from its perception rather than the board’s intention, but if that perception eroded trust in the board’s motives that trust would be hard to rebuild.

The right thing is for the board to acknowledge that the longstanding naming policy shift raises the possibility of conflicts of interest. Engagement in public service should be driven by wanting to do good for the community, not to boost one’s ego with public recognition.

The board should also honor the naming policy that has been in place for the past 40 years and stick to limiting naming of buildings only to past board members, if they were deserving. If board members want to stray from that policy, they should review the policy and perhaps set up an independent committee to review future naming rights. Through the process, they should make their decisions and rationale clear to the public.

The board chair should also learn to appreciate the role of members of the community like Naoise. Naoise showed courage by insisting on accountability from the board.

Honoring oneself while in power is hardly commendable. Striving for personal prestige should not get in the way of commitment to doing good public service.

Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Simple Art of Business Etiquette: How to Rise to the Top by Playing Nice, is a senior lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at Harvard's Kennedy School. He is also the administrator of www.jeffreyseglin.com, a blog focused on ethical issues.

Do you have ethical questions that you need to have answered? Send them to jeffreyseglin@gmail.com.

Follow him on Twitter @jseglin.

(c) 2026 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.