The concept of King is one of the most diverse and consequently perceived differently by race, culture or ethnicity. In the Acholi culture there is no space for kings; them being content with the Chief of each clan. These chiefs none the less are held in exaltation and one may not loosely regard them.
In fact one may not refer to them with derogatory remarks and even questions on their body parts need to be couched in symbolism and question. Like, ” I daresay I hope by asking a question am not committing any sacrilege; but that guy with humongous teeth is he the chief?” Such cavalier attitude coupled with the manly assertion that, the chief ”s grandeur exceeds mine only because of his royal drum, ensure that while the chief is exalted he is not at extraordinary par with men.
He cannot be therefore said to be in the same league as the Kabaka of Buganda. He who commits no errors, owner of all land in Buganda, the one with all seeing eyes, the one who you do not retort to, him of Hammer feet, the father of twins and other such grand achievements; to list which would require a separate article in its own right. Indeed he is greater than the emperor whose cloth it would be a sin not to see.
So coming to organizations we need to be able to distinguish the kind of King our customer is. How do we treat them? Like the Acholi chief”s or the emperor of Buganda. Are we duty bound to jump to the whims of the client even if it’s plain dumb? How do you edge an indecisive client sucking himself or herself into the deluge of analysis paralysis.
In my mind treatment of a customer should be removed from the nebulous king or queen debate. The client king or knave bows to the superior knowledge of the doctor who must administer the surgical knife lest the life is lost. To sugar coat this or desist from steering the client on the correct line is not only unhelpful but also bordeline unethical.