No fear

April 30, 2012

I recently discovered that at least one employee at my local supermarket has no fear of consequences for his behavior at work.

The King Soopers employee who bagged my two gallons of milk and bottle of Mr. Bubble (don’t judge me…) said, “Damn! I’d need this whole bottle for my bath!”

After bagging the last item, he immediately began texting on his smart-phone (I’m being generous…). Bewildered by his behavior, I removed the gallons of milk from their respective plastic bags (I didn’t want them bagged—he didn’t know because he didn’t ask), grabbed the bag containing the bubble bath, and left the store.

There was no acknowledgment of any kind (“Sorry, I didn’t know you didn’t want your milk bagged” or “Can I give you a hand with that?”), no appreciation (“Thank you”), no farewell (“Goodnight”), no respect (I felt disrespected and devalued as a customer), and, worse, no fear of consequences from management (as his “Damn!” was quite audible and he was texting in plain sight).

Long ago, I bought into the management principle: Blame the process, not the person.

So it’s appropriate at this juncture to ask, “What processes are to blame for this employee’s boorish conduct?”

I can think of several:

  • Employee selection
  • Onboarding
  • Employee training
  • Development/communication of performance standards
  • Behavior modeling by management
  • Ongoing performance management (including feedback and recognition)

Certainly, King Soopers is not the only culprit. Until employers address these processes in meaningful ways, employees will continue to offend customers by their indifference—with no fear of consequences.

Illustration: Aaron McKissen

Print Friendly

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

  • Jared

    You would think that employers would be only keeping the best employees with all the job applicants at the time.  Thanks sSteve.

    Jared

  • http://stevecurtin.com Steve Curtin

    The surrounding labor pool is more than adequate to staff open entry-level positions with qualified candidates. Chick-fil-A draws from the same labor pool for entry-level jobs at similar wage rates. The difference in workforces (between King Soopers and Chick-fil-A) has more to do with company culture, standards, and processes (that reflect culture/standards) than the availability of qualified labor. Even our King Soopers friend with the boorish behavior has the potential to flourish – in a work environment that establishes guidelines for acceptable behavior and reinforces those standards through consistent communication, modeling, and appraisal that is more frequent and less formal.

  • http://twitter.com/HospLeader Nick Meiers

    Reminds me of a Marriott GM who was up for a promotion. On the day of his interview the VP said, “You don’t need to tell us anything, we’ve been in your hotel the last two days. We know what kind of a manager you are.”

    This all reflects upon the manager more than anyone.

  • The Appraiser

    Reminds me of my last hotel stay. Keep up the great work Steve. You are a customer service champion!

  • http://stevecurtin.com Steve Curtin

    True. Also reminds me of the Bob Farrell quote: “What they (employees) see is what you’ll (management) get.” Nick, thanks for taking the time to comment.

  • http://stevecurtin.com Steve Curtin

    Thank you. Takes one to know one. ; )

  • http://www.toistersolutions.com/blog Jeff Toister

    I appreciate your post because it focuses on the real culprit in this situation – management.

  • http://stevecurtin.com Steve Curtin

    Thanks Jeff. Agreed.

Connect with Steve

Begin generating enthusiasm for your customers today!

Phone
303.325.1375

Email
info@stevecurtin.com