In China, businesses still do not quite get the change necessary to bring about high quality customer experiences. Employees’ behavior remains inadequate despite the rising customer expectations. Weak organizational cultures are responsible for this poor understanding of customer care amongst employees.
To overcome employees’ poor service orientation, leaders should define the desired culture along with specifications of how people should behave. While the former will dictate how customers perceive the company’s culture, the latter will drive employees’ behavior.
As an example, visitors to a Disney theme park experience the friendly Disney culture. This means that Disney employees smile, make eye contact, answer questions cheerfully and accurately, offer to help anyone who looks lost, or try to bring laughter to tired or irritable children.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Complexity of Customer Service
What makes for great service at a restaurant? Which type of service would you prefer and ascribe to under the following scenario?
Scenario: Hotel Restaurant in Bali
You and your friend sit down at a restaurant and then the waiter serves both of you. He comes to your table several times in order to take an order, deliver the drinks and dishes, and present the bill. During this entry time, you are engaged in a heavy conversation with your friend. So, should the waiter do his job:
1. Without really calling for too much attention from you and your friend or
2. Gain your attention every time by interrupting your conversation with a friendly “excuse me Sir/Madam” followed by the name of the item ordered as he places it in front of you.
Do you:
1. Fully appreciate the politeness and continuous attentiveness or
2. Think the waiter is a bit annoying or
3. Feel that his sincerity is not genuine because of this constant and robotic-like politeness.
Balinese staff’s frequent interaction with either an “excuse me” or “hello” accompanied by a smile and eye contact may be part of the local culture or behaviors that were taught and reinforced through a behavioral training to offer a high level of customer service. As for the latter, L&D managers were quite successful at promoting a pre-defined level of hospitality.
An important point to realize is that when substantial resources are exerted for teaching, improving, and “reinforcing” customer service, the L&D team should strive to understand the company’s customers and their expectations first. Then, the most important question remains; what kind of service is warranted, appreciated, needed, and wanted by the customer group? Customer service is only excellent in the eyes of the beholders.
Scenario: Hotel Restaurant in Bali
You and your friend sit down at a restaurant and then the waiter serves both of you. He comes to your table several times in order to take an order, deliver the drinks and dishes, and present the bill. During this entry time, you are engaged in a heavy conversation with your friend. So, should the waiter do his job:
1. Without really calling for too much attention from you and your friend or
2. Gain your attention every time by interrupting your conversation with a friendly “excuse me Sir/Madam” followed by the name of the item ordered as he places it in front of you.
Do you:
1. Fully appreciate the politeness and continuous attentiveness or
2. Think the waiter is a bit annoying or
3. Feel that his sincerity is not genuine because of this constant and robotic-like politeness.
Balinese staff’s frequent interaction with either an “excuse me” or “hello” accompanied by a smile and eye contact may be part of the local culture or behaviors that were taught and reinforced through a behavioral training to offer a high level of customer service. As for the latter, L&D managers were quite successful at promoting a pre-defined level of hospitality.
An important point to realize is that when substantial resources are exerted for teaching, improving, and “reinforcing” customer service, the L&D team should strive to understand the company’s customers and their expectations first. Then, the most important question remains; what kind of service is warranted, appreciated, needed, and wanted by the customer group? Customer service is only excellent in the eyes of the beholders.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
New Words to avoid Old Connotations
Semantics and the need for connotation free terms cause us to increasingly relate to workforce as talent. Words direct our actions, help us to persevere, and can even cause a shift in thinking.
In the 90’s, management’s policy-arm “Personnel” evolved into what is now commonly referred to as “HR”. At the same time, the department was expected to go beyond the administrative role and instead provide human resources management with essential functions of recruitment, training, performance appraisal, C&B, etc. However, HR did not deliver what the “new name” pledged while the need to create value through people intensified and skill shortages escalated during the first decade of 21st century.
As a result, to breakaway from the traditional role of support and administration, many organizations crafted novel offices as the one of Chief People Officer, People Performance Process Owner or a Talent Director, etc. Some went even further to separate L&D units from HR altogether while leaving HR responsible for the numerous routine tasks connected with talent management as completing forms, collecting documents from staff on-time, and organizing Christmas parties and staff breakfasts.
If these new functions (regardless of the name they may operate under) do not deliver results, then we will be brainstorming new names once again. Hopefully, next time it won’t just be old wine in a new bottle.
In the 90’s, management’s policy-arm “Personnel” evolved into what is now commonly referred to as “HR”. At the same time, the department was expected to go beyond the administrative role and instead provide human resources management with essential functions of recruitment, training, performance appraisal, C&B, etc. However, HR did not deliver what the “new name” pledged while the need to create value through people intensified and skill shortages escalated during the first decade of 21st century.
As a result, to breakaway from the traditional role of support and administration, many organizations crafted novel offices as the one of Chief People Officer, People Performance Process Owner or a Talent Director, etc. Some went even further to separate L&D units from HR altogether while leaving HR responsible for the numerous routine tasks connected with talent management as completing forms, collecting documents from staff on-time, and organizing Christmas parties and staff breakfasts.
If these new functions (regardless of the name they may operate under) do not deliver results, then we will be brainstorming new names once again. Hopefully, next time it won’t just be old wine in a new bottle.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Presenteeism
One thing that can kill an employee’s enthusiasm toward a new position is the need for presenteeism.
Presenteeism corresponds to absenteeism and refers to employees’ extra presence at work despite workload.
Drawbacks from the culture of presenteeism include encouragement for face-time instead of performance and results. In addition, presenteeism does not acknowledge and entrust employees to adopt the “new” way of working: anytime from anywhere. Furthermore, presenteeism:
• Supports style over substance,
• Hinders productivity and effectiveness,
• Diminishes work-life balance,
• Encourages mobbing and bullying,
• May breed insecurity, fear, and even intimidation among employees,
• May deter empowerment among employees, and
• Reinforces hierarchy and differences between management and employees.
Presenteeism corresponds to absenteeism and refers to employees’ extra presence at work despite workload.
Drawbacks from the culture of presenteeism include encouragement for face-time instead of performance and results. In addition, presenteeism does not acknowledge and entrust employees to adopt the “new” way of working: anytime from anywhere. Furthermore, presenteeism:
• Supports style over substance,
• Hinders productivity and effectiveness,
• Diminishes work-life balance,
• Encourages mobbing and bullying,
• May breed insecurity, fear, and even intimidation among employees,
• May deter empowerment among employees, and
• Reinforces hierarchy and differences between management and employees.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Employment Security
In China, many MNCs have been spoiled by the abundance of labor and view people, particularly in non-managerial positions, as a commodity. Until recently, those companies were not troubled by high attrition rates and poor work design leading to burnout, stress, work-life-imbalance.
Nevertheless, as the salary levels rise, companies are increasingly concerned with the effectiveness of their workforce. More and more companies have embraced the concept of employee retention and strive to increase the productivity, accountability and responsibility among their workforce. Employee engagement programs are frequently utilized solution to achieve such objectives.
Employers however remain not very effective at defining what is it that they want the workers engage in. They also remain unable to effectively operationalize organizational objectives and link them to performance expectations, essential for increasing efficiency and effectiveness. Corporate missions in such companies are reduced to creating a “fun” place to work, participating in CSR initiatives, and postulating empowerment. At the same time, profit targets and business objectives are tabooed, not shared with employees with overall financial literacy remaining low.
What do the companies try to hide, that they do not make money at all or have solid profit margins and are simply afraid to share it with the workforce.
I believe however, that demand for improved productivity requires that employees understand how the company, as a for-profit entity, is doing toward achieving their essential objective (profitability) and how everyone is contributing to this end. How else can one instill ownership?
Profits should not be hidden. Only profits can guarantee long-term employment security. If the company does not make profits, it goes bankrupt and lay-offs all employees.
In turn, employment security is one of the most valued elements of Employee Value Proposition and a critical piece of high performance work arrangement. Then, innovations in work practices and productivity improvements can be only sustainable when employee to do not fear that that by increasing productivity they will work themselves out of their jobs.
Nevertheless, as the salary levels rise, companies are increasingly concerned with the effectiveness of their workforce. More and more companies have embraced the concept of employee retention and strive to increase the productivity, accountability and responsibility among their workforce. Employee engagement programs are frequently utilized solution to achieve such objectives.
Employers however remain not very effective at defining what is it that they want the workers engage in. They also remain unable to effectively operationalize organizational objectives and link them to performance expectations, essential for increasing efficiency and effectiveness. Corporate missions in such companies are reduced to creating a “fun” place to work, participating in CSR initiatives, and postulating empowerment. At the same time, profit targets and business objectives are tabooed, not shared with employees with overall financial literacy remaining low.
What do the companies try to hide, that they do not make money at all or have solid profit margins and are simply afraid to share it with the workforce.
I believe however, that demand for improved productivity requires that employees understand how the company, as a for-profit entity, is doing toward achieving their essential objective (profitability) and how everyone is contributing to this end. How else can one instill ownership?
Profits should not be hidden. Only profits can guarantee long-term employment security. If the company does not make profits, it goes bankrupt and lay-offs all employees.
In turn, employment security is one of the most valued elements of Employee Value Proposition and a critical piece of high performance work arrangement. Then, innovations in work practices and productivity improvements can be only sustainable when employee to do not fear that that by increasing productivity they will work themselves out of their jobs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)