Roy, thank you for your thoughtful comment. It contains a lot of substance. I’ll respond in order: I don’t believe that employees willfully limit themselves to the necessary. Years ago, I read a book by the statistician (and Deming protégé), Brian Joiner. In the book, Dr. Joiner challenged management to “blame the process, not the person.” I wholeheartedly agree with this position. Even in cases where poor performance is exhibited by an employee, there are several processes to be examined before reacting to the poor performance (e.g., selection, onboarding, training, performance management, etc.). From my perspective, employees are oftentimes marginalized by the existing company culture – which is a by-product of the company’s standards (product/service quality), management, systems, and processes. In organizations where the culture is customer-focused (e.g., Zappos, Disney, Nordstrom, Ritz-Carlton, L.L.Bean, etc.), there is a tendency to find employees who go above and beyond, consistently demonstrate “the right service attitudes,” and “have that certain ‘something’.”
Poor managers do the opposite of Dr. Joiner’s counsel. In their haste to defend their managerial competence, they blame others. (And, yes, this is discouraging to employees.) These are the managers who say, “It’s tough to find good help.” It’s not tough to find good help. (Ask Zappos how many qualified applicants apply for an open position at its call center.) What is tough is forging a company culture that won’t tolerate reduced standards for product and service quality, poor management, and ineffective systems/processes. But it is possible. (See above list of companies.)
Roy, as always, thank you for engaging and advancing the conversation.
Steve

Bill, I completely agree that a discussion with employees to identify the benefits of providing exceptional customer service is a good use of a supervisor’s time.
A few years, I had a similar discussion with a criminal psychologist who works with ex-convicts who are in transition from prison to society. The success of his interventions with “clients” hinges on behavior change. During our conversation, one of the points he made was that, although it’s important to identify 1.) the pros of behavior change – that is, the benefits of not breaking laws (e.g., avoid jail time, spend time with loved ones, hold a job, provide for family, etc.) – it’s equally important to discuss: 2.) the pros of not changing, 3.) the cons of not changing, and 4.) the cons of changing. His rationale was that, most of the time, people talk in dichotomies (this or that): “Do this and stay out of jail or do that and return to jail.” As managers, we often do the same thing.
Here’s how the conversation might sound with a restaurant server whose customer service skills are lacking: 1.) the pros of behavior change (increased tips, better shifts, etc.), 2.) the pros of not changing (comfortable, familiar, etc.), 3.) the cons of not changing (lower tips, worse shifts, etc.), 4.) the cons of changing (unnatural, seems phony, etc.).
What I appreciate about his advice is that it considers the proposed change from perspectives other than the obvious ones (1. & 3.). When the employee is given the opportunity to articulate the pros of not changing and the cons of changing, it serves to further validate the benefits of change.
According to Dr. Crist, the act of simply engaging the person in a discussion of all four outcomes (with no other training or intervention) has led to significant behavioral changes in a variety of situations (e.g., exercise, smoking, using sunscreen, wearing seatbelts, etc.). He made me a believer.
Thanks for taking the time to read and comment.

John, thanks for addressing the question, “Where does management’s responsibility for customer service ‘end’ and employees’ responsibility begin?” so eloquently. Much appreciated.
Steve

Love the way you think!

Scott, I completely agree that one way to consistently provide exceptional customer service is to institutionalize it. (If it’s compulsory, then how can it be elective?) Ritz-Carlton comes to mind in the way it has scripted employee responses to guest questions/requests, with the goal eliminating responses that may be perceived by guests as unprofessional, overly-casual, or overly-familiar. The danger, of course, is to rely on these institutionalized standards to elevate customer service and lose the spontaneity that ordinarily accompanies job essence.
This is what happened at The Ritz-Carlton after guests remarked that nearly every employee they encountered responded to requests with, “My pleasure.” At first, it was fresh and unique, conveying professionalism while expressing genuine interest in serving the guest (job essence). Over time, however, it became a bit rehearsed and predictable—and it lost its uniqueness and charm.
Today, in order to convey more sincerity and spontaneity, Ritz-Carlton encourages “ways of being” as opposed to “ways of doing” by suggesting that employees vary their replies to guests’ requests (e.g., “My pleasure,” or “Absolutely, “ or “Right away,” or “Certainly”), recognizing that these responses are always preferable to “Got it” or “No problem.” (Maybe not at the Apple Store but certainly in a luxury hotel or a fine dining restaurant.)
Thank you for taking the time to read and comment.

David, thank you – although I owe “my” concept to a collection of conversations with colleagues/clients over the years and writings by Daniel Pink (Drive) and Seth Godin (Linchpin). That said, it makes a ton of sense, doesn’t it? Regarding names, I totally agree. If you’re interested, I wrote a related post earlier this year: http://www.stevecurtin.com/blog/2012/01/30/learning-names-is-worth-the-effort/
Thank you for taking time out to read and comment.
Steve

Your comment reinforces the truth that, regardless of a company’s service culture, a customer’s impressions will be based on the one-on-one interaction she has with a front line service provider. Most front line service providers take their cues from the established service culture (for better or worse) as modeled day-to-day by peers and leadership. It sounds like the rep you encountered was self-motivated to make a lasting positive impression – regardless of the established service culture at this particular telco.
Bravo!