The other day, I trailed a King Soopers employee as she returned about a half-dozen shopping carts from the parking lot to the store.

She pushed the row of carts into another row of carts inside the store and then, with a dreary facial expression and a heavy sigh, returned to the parking lot to collect more shopping carts.

Besides her enervated body language, I noticed two things that telegraphed a lack of concern for her customers:

1.) By not bothering to evenly distribute the carts, she created an inconveniently long row of carts that left a very narrow space between the last cart and the wall. This created a bottleneck that forced shoppers attempting to exit the store to form a single file line.

2.) Although it was quite obvious in a short row of six or seven carts, she neglected to notice the used drink cup lodged in one of the carts (pictured). Or, worse, noticed the cup and chose to do nothing about it.

To me, this employee conveyed disinterest in her work and indifference towards serving customers.

So, what went wrong?

On the surface, it’s easy to blame the employee for being careless or lazy. But there may be other forces at work…

I’m reminded of the adage, “Blame the process, not the people.” In that spirit, King Soopers should examine every process that may have contributed to this young woman performing as she did during my visit.

Several come to mind: recruiting, selection, onboarding, training, managerial modeling, performance management (e.g., feedback/recognition), standards, etc.

In most cases where I have observed apathetic employee behavior, I have also observed ad hoc recruiting efforts, inadequate selection criteria, unstructured onboarding, insufficient training, inconsistent supervisory modeling, non-existent performance management, and low (or undisclosed) standards. In such environments, employees are set up to fail.

If I were advising King Soopers, the first thing I would do is revisit the performance standards. In the absence of high standards, good is good enough. Can you imagine King Soopers, or any company, embracing “Good is good enough” as its credo or slogan?

Once the standards (and expectations) have been set and communicated, every single process—from recruiting to performance appraisals—must reflect and uphold these high standards.

Next, I would remind its staff that their jobs consist of both job functions—the duties and tasks associated with their job roles (e.g., returning carts from the lot to the store) and job essence—their purpose/highest priority (e.g., anticipating customers’ needs and paying attention to details).

Most employees define their entire jobs solely in terms of job functions. And why shouldn’t they? Oftentimes, the feedback they receive from management—assuming they receive feedback at all—pertains strictly to the duties and tasks associated with their job roles.

When employees focus exclusively on job function, their jobs may become routine, monotonous, and transactional. In work environments like this, employees tend to become disinterested in their work and indifferent towards serving customers.

But when employees recognize the totality of their roles, which includes both job function and job essence, they are predisposed to provide exceptional customer service—by anticipating customers needs, paying attention to details, and expressing genuine interest in serving customers in other ways.

And this is not just wishful thinking. It is possible.

You wouldn’t expect to encounter a surly employee at Chick-fil-A, an unresponsive phone rep at Zappos, an apathetic salesperson at Nordstrom, or a used drink cup lying along Main Street, U.S.A. at Disneyland. Would you?

These companies have set exceedingly high performance standards and their employees are acutely aware of them. Employees also recognize both their job responsibilities as well as their higher purpose: to create delighted customers.

So, while employees are responsible for their personal conduct and performance in the workplace, their employers are responsible for setting high standards, for establishing processes that position employees to delight customers, and for defining an employee’s entire job role.

What do you think?

Though business has its own set of complexities, customer service isn’t one of them. Exceptional customer service is simply a choice.

Employees develop their own definitions of customer service and decide for themselves how they view customers: as honored guests who contribute to the success of the enterprise or as fickle adversaries who are just looking for the best deal.

And, as the lyrics from Rush’s Freewill advise, “If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.”

This describes most customer service employees. They have not made a conscious choice to provide exceptional customer service. As a result, they are indifferent toward customer service and customers.

Why haven’t they made a conscious choice? No one’s asked them to. In most cases, no one’s even brought it up.

As a result, employees go about their shifts tending to the mandatory job functions (i.e., the duties associated with an employee’s job role) for which they are accountable (you can bet these conversations have occurred) but give little or no thought to the essence of their jobs, their highest priority—to create delighted customers.

Ignorance may be bliss but it’s bad for business.

68 percent of customers surveyed quit doing business with a company because of perceived indifference toward them as customers.

Oftentimes, employees don’t even recognize when they treat customers indifferently. If you were to poll them, most would rate the quality of their personal customer service as excellent.

Why the discrepancy? There are many factors. Here are three:

1.  leadership apathy

2.  managerial myopia

3.  systems/processes that undermine service quality

If company leaders don’t emphasize the jugular importance of customer service to their employees, where else do they expect them to get the message? The framed mission statement hanging in the reception area? The employee handbook? Please…

Managers are largely tasked with running a profitable operation within a given budget. In order to accomplish this, managers oversee the execution of a set of defined job functions associated with one or more job roles. This is not the problem.

The problem is when managers focus solely on job functions and neglect job essence—an employee’s highest priority—which is always to create delighted customers. (Unless, of course, you work for the US Postal Service or some other entity that can lose $8.5B a year and continue to exist. Then, I suppose you can focus exclusively on job function and get away with it.)

Many organizations create systems or processes that undermine service quality. Perhaps the most common are call centers where employees are evaluated based on the quantity of phone calls processed and how quickly they can end those calls. In these environments, employees are conditioned to treat calls as timed transactions rather than opportunities to serve customers.

In the end, it requires a choice. Employees choose whether or not to express genuine interest, convey authentic enthusiasm, provide pleasant surprises or, in some other way, delight their customers.

Company leaders can influence this choice when they communicate their passion for serving customers in words and deeds. Managers can guide this choice by emphasizing the importance of both job function and job essence. And systems will reinforce this choice when they are designed to serve customers rather than frustrate them.

I welcome all comments, questions, bouquets, and brickbats.

Earlier today I received this note from a friend, Evan Crist, and just had to share:

We were traveling from Denver to Phoenix for some fun in the sun when Southwest Airlines lived up to their reputation for spontaneous entertainment and pleasing service. (I love the line, “If you are not pleased with our service, we have six emergency exit rows throughout the plane. Please locate the one nearest to you!”)

Approximately halfway through the flight, Nancy, the flight attendant, came on the intercom and announced, “We have a very special guest today. Spencer is five years old today. Spencer could you please join us at the front of the cabin?”

As Spencer made his way to the front, a bashful little girl who appeared to be eight years old or so emerged from behind Nancy toting a flute.

Nancy explained, “Spencer’s sister, Elisa, would like to play ‘Happy Birthday’ for her brother on the flute.”

Elisa sporadically blew her best ‘Happy Birthday’ song and the cabin clapped. Then the whole cabin, led by Nancy, sang the birthday song to Spencer—again to his delight.

Next, without any fanfare, Nancy placed a crown on Spencer’s head. The crown was made of clear Scotch tape, Southwest Airlines peanut packets, and red plastic olive skewers.

As King Spencer pranced down the aisle proudly, I noticed the crown—an unnecessary, spontaneous, free, yet brilliant example of customer enthusiasm that cannot be mandated but cannot be overvalued.

No doubt, Spencer ate his crown before his parents retrieved their bags but he won’t soon forget that flight. Neither will I.

I bolded Evan’s observation above because it illustrates the theme of the previous post, That little extra…

It’s true. When you break it down to its fundamental components, exceptional customer service really is optional and free! (Or, at least no more than the cost of some peanuts, olive skewers, and Scotch tape.)

If employees choose to perform like Nancy, the flight attendant, (and it’s supported by the corporate culture), their company may also be crowned the industry’s best customer service provider—just like Southwest Airlines.