The Common Man

Service Attitudes Must Align with Corporate Culture

You can’t turn on the news right now without hearing something more about the Toyota recall ordeal. A crises communications effort that at first appeared managed and responsible now has folks shaking their heads. How much did they know and when? Why is the fix process so nebulous for Toyota owners? Why wasn’t Prius included in the original recall?

All of these questions made me think about Toyota as a corporation. Headquartered in Japan, I assumed that Toyota’s corporate culture was guided by the country’s collectivistic culture—a culture in which authority figures look after the less powerful and the less powerful obey those in authority. Within this culture, taking responsibility largely means to be responsible for others and society, rather than yourself. Why, then, when Toyota’s advertising campaigns emphasize product quality and consumer loyalty and their country of origin demands taking responsibility for others, was the  recall process  so aversive for customers before the CEO decided to personally oversee all recall efforts?

Because their service attitudes weren’t initially in line with their corporate (or national) culture. Service standards shouldn’t change when circumstances do. If you are in the service industry, you should provide premium service all the time—and part of this premium service provision is taking full responsibility when mistakes have been made and fixing them as efficiently as possible. So, the question then becomes how can organizations hire employees whose thoughts on service align with their culture? At Optimal, part of our behavioral interview process involves asking pointed questions about service. We figure that if candidates can discuss service as an ideal then they have given it some thought; those that can share great, good, and bad service stories communicate the passion about service that our corporate culture requires.

I want to hear from you! Respond to one, all, or none of the questions below. I just want to hear your thoughts! And, if you post a response, be sure to check back for a reply!

·Do you agree? Do you think the Toyota recall has been handled poorly because service standards were not aligned with corporate culture?

·Do you have an example of a company in which service standards run in opposition to corporate culture? An example of a company in which the culture and service expectations are in sync?

·How do you think organizations can best assess employee candidates for their ability to provide premium service?

 Post your response!

1 Comments

Keep Your Eyes on Your Customers…

Their evolution, that is. I recently re-read an article from the August 18 issue of Business Week. In an article titled “Target vs. Wal-Mart: The Next Phase,” the economy’s impact on discount superstores is discussed. The gist is this: Wal-Mart has started to attract the more upscale (read: Target) consumer because of the economy. Even those with higher disposable incomes are tightening belts. And, because upscale consumers, on average, spend more time—and money—in stores, Wal-Mart is capitalizing on this trend. According to the article, “Consumers may have traded down to Wal-Mart for its low prices, but the chain hopes to hold onto these customers through improvements in their stores.” These improvements include enhanced store layouts and expanded electronics sections. They are keeping an eye on the changing profile of their consumer—and responding to better serve that person.

Here at Optimal, we are doing something similar. As we grow, we are attracting interest from companies with more than 100 employees. These organizations usually have an internal IT staff, but are lacking the strategic technological direction that a Chief Information Officer (CIO) can provide. In this economy, however, corporations don’t have the money to hire a full-time, in-house CIO. We noticed this trend in our evolving client base and responded with a service offering to meet this need.

The lesson? Great service is about being flexible. As your consumer base changes, so, too, must your service offerings and/or mechanisms.

I want to hear from you! Respond to one, all, or none of the questions below. I just want to hear your thoughts! And, if you post a response, be sure to check back for a reply!

• Do you agree? Do you think great service is about being flexible?
• How might a flexible service stance be misconstrued without proper consumer research? Example?
• Which companies do a very good job of monitoring their consumer base and responding to changes through service? Which do it poorly?

 Post your response!

0 Comments

Forgettable…in Every Way

There is a restaurant on my way home from work—very close to where I live. The service isn’t spectacular, the food isn’t fabulous, the staff isn’t special. It is forgettable...in every way. Still, it is the restaurant I eat at most often. Crazy, right? This got me thinking...if I, as the service guy, can accept middle-of-the-road service in exchange for convenience, how many other people are doing the same thing?

I think many of us are doing this. And I think price and convenience are the two factors that most often persuade us to compromise our service standards. So, are we doing ourselves a disservice? By tolerating this middle-of-the-road service, are we reinforcing bad business practices because we keep coming back to these establishments?  Yes and no. Yes, I’m reinforcing the restaurant management’s complacency because I keep returning, but I’m also hurting them. I would never recommend this restaurant to anybody. I never go there for special occasions. I would never take my girlfriend there. I am a repeat customer but not a referable customer. And this can be dangerous to a business. In me, they have a consistent customer; they do not have a customer who will bring others in the door.

I want to hear from you! Respond to one, all, or none of the questions below. I just want to hear your thoughts! And, if you post a response, be sure to check back for a reply!

·Do you think there is such a thing as middle-of-the-road service? Or should this type of service be classified as “bad” service?

·Can you share a situation in which you compromised service for price or convenience?

·Do you think compromising our service standards reinforces middle-of-the-road service?

Post your response!

2 Comments

Service: The Moving Target

You can’t please everyone all of the time. You offer to cook dinner for your partner, but you get caught up in a work project and unintentionally renege. Your boss is happy; your partner isn’t. It’s the same with service. The definition of great service isn’t universal. One client might be thrilled with a service process; another might feel differently. Which brings me to something that happened a few weeks ago at Optimal—and got me thinking about service as a moving target.

One of our super client service executives (CSE) created a document to use when responding to client requests for service explanations. When a client asks us for an explanation of what we did for them, a thorough analysis of the detailed project documentation takes place. In addition, a meeting with the engineers who performed the work, the CSE, the president of Optimal, and me occurs. Usually, the CSE would then take this information and respond to the client in whichever way they felt best. This specific CSE took this data and produced an easy-to-understand, one-page document responding to the client’s inquiry that addressed the question, the solution, and an explanation of why Optimal provided this particular solution. When she showed the document to me, I thought it was genius (and immediately started to think about it as a template we can now use to respond to client service inquiries because it was so straightforward, yet thorough).

So, the CSE sent the document to the client. And the client didn’t like it. The CSE came to me, frustrated and upset, afraid that she had not provided premium service. In fact, she had. In trying to better serve this client, she had now developed a novel way to deliver information to clients—a new Optimal service process had been created that the majority of our clients will appreciate.

The lesson? Service is a moving target and you can’t hit a bullseye every time. But often, when optimal service is your goal, you end up helping someone in some way (it just may not be the way you intended).

What do YOU think?

• Is the concept of service as a moving target challenging or frustrating? Do you have an example?
• Do you have an example of a situation in which you intended to help in one way but ended up helping in a completely different way?
• Can you think of an organization that adapts its service processes to hit as many bullseyes as they can?

Post your response!

0 Comments