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?

Based on peer conversations I’ve had over the past week, I’ve been considering the potential to script/institutionalize job essence so that it can become a function of one’s job role—and not left to chance.

To clarify, the essence of an employee’s job is his overarching purpose—his highest priority. Job essence for employees at most companies is to create promoters—enthusiastic customers who will recommend their products and services, are less price-sensitive, and have higher repurchase rates.

Job function refers to the duties associated with one’s job role. For example, a job function of a restaurant server may be to provide ice water to guests who have been seated by the hostess. This may be restaurant protocol—a mandatory step in the process of providing table service.

But providing restaurant guests with ice water in and of itself does not reflect job essence—to create a promoters of the restaurant. The reason being that guests, at least in the U.S., expect ice water to be served. So providing ice water is not a differentiator—there’s no competitive advantage. In fact, if it’s not offered and diners have to ask for it, that may be seen as a displeaser.

On my flight home from Boston last night I thought of two examples of businesses that had, from my perspective, captured job essence within an employee’s job function (though I’m sure we could produce many more):

1.) There’s a restaurant in Denver called The Broker Restaurant that provides a complimentary shrimp bowl (with the purchase of two or more entrees) in the same way many fine dining restaurants provide a basket of bread. While a basket of bread is typical, ordinary, routine, and expected, the shrimp bowl (for first time guests) is unique, extraordinary, fresh, and unexpected. Placing the shrimp bowl on the diners’ table is a job function, just like providing glasses of ice water—or a basket of bread, that reflects job essence: providing a pleasant surprise. (Unless, of course, you’re allergic to shell fish…)

2.) I recently visited a delicatessen at the Atlantis hotel on Paradise Island in The Bahamas to purchase a roast beef sandwich for lunch the following day. When I placed the order, I mentioned this to the server. She then confirmed the bread type and some other specifications and then disappeared in the direction of the kitchen. When she returned, she handed me my order pointing out that she had taken the time to group and individually wrap the sandwich’s ingredients in wax paper to keep them fresh and separated until I was ready to build my sandwich at lunchtime the following day.

If this was the restaurant’s policy (a job function) on to-go orders intended to be consumed the following day, then it illustrates how the essence of the server’s job (express genuine interest, provide a pleasant surprise) could be captured in a job function. Now, I doubt this is standard policy at the delicatessen. More likely, I was fortunate to encounter an engaged server who made the choice to express genuine interest in me, anticipated my needs, and provided me with a pleasant surprise.

Both examples illustrate how job essence can be institutionalized (via standard operating procedure) as a job function. The danger, of course, is to rely on these standardized practices to “wow” guests and deemphasize 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.

Now, 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 “No problem.” (Which is like nails on a chalkboard to me—not at the Apple Retail Store but certainly in a luxury hotel or a fine dining restaurant.)

Can you think of any other businesses that have managed to effectively capture job essence within a function of the employee’s job role?

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.

Over the years, I’ve had conversations with hundreds of frontline employees in the service industry. All of these employees were passionate about something but, more often than not, their passion had little to do with their job roles.

Many described their jobs as boring, routine, and monotonous.

These conversations have inspired me to explore the question, “Why is it that frontline employees in the service industry oftentimes appear apathetic about customer service and indifferent toward their customers?”

While there are many variables including: company hiring, training, and retention practices; the existing customer service culture; the effectiveness of the employee’s immediate supervisor, etc., one key contributor that most companies miss is to clearly distinguish between an employee’s job functions and job essence.

Job functions are the duties associated with one’s job role. Performance of these functions is mandatory. It’s what the employee was hired to do. It’s what the employee is paid to do. It’s the criteria upon which his performance is judged.

Job essence is the employee’s highest priority—which, for most employees, is to create a delighted customer: one who will repurchase, is less price-sensitive, and will recommend the company/brand to others.

In contrast to job functions, job essence is frequently ignored by both employers and employees. Here’s why: Employers tend to focus on that which can be documented and measured—things like job descriptions, policies, procedures, and checklists. All of these pertain to job function. And employees tend to focus on whatever their managers focus on.

For instance, suppose a restaurant manager tells a newly-hired hostess that customer service is his top priority. (Most do.) But when the hostess’s side work (e.g., folding napkins, filling salt and pepper shakers, etc.) suffers due to her consistent presence out front greeting guests as they arrive, he questions her priorities by asking, “Why aren’t there more napkins folded?”

She will quickly learn the manager’s true priority is folded napkins (job function), not delighted customers (job essence).

You see, whereas performing job functions is mandatory, demonstrating job essence is optional—employees don’t have to do it. And most don’t. And unlike job functions for which employees are paid, there’s no additional cost to the employer for employees to demonstrate job essence. Companies don’t pay their employees extra to care, take initiative, or accept responsibility.

Both job function (competency) and job essence (passion to serve) are required to create delighted customers. Customers won’t appreciate passionate, service-oriented employees who are incompetent. Nor will they respond to capable employees whose customer service they would describe as apathetic or indifferent. In other words, restaurant guests appreciate being greeted warmly and having a clean, folded napkin.

The opportunity to create delighted customers lies at the intersection of job function and job essence.

I have identified seven customer service behaviors that are available to frontline customer service providers at this intersection. These behaviors will enable them to elevate their personal customer service from typical, routine, and expected, to unique, refreshing, and unexpected.

In so doing, they will create delighted customers—loyal customers who will brag about the company/brand to others.

Here are three of the behaviors:

1. Express genuine interest: To express genuine interest in a customer is to go beyond that which a customer typically expects during a customer service interaction. For example, most customers might expect a supermarket cashier to smile, make eye contact, and add a bit of enthusiasm to her voice. These qualities may not always occur but they are the basics of a face-to-face customer service interaction.

To go beyond the basics might mean posing a question or two to the customer.

For example, I once observed the transaction ahead of me while in line at an Albertsons supermarket. As the cashier scanned a bag of dog food, she simply asked, “What kind of dog do you have?”

With that, the cashier and the customer had an enthusiastic exchange about their mutual love of Labrador Retrievers. It wasn’t long—maybe all of 20 seconds while the customer swiped his bank card and signed for his purchases. But an impression was made. A connection was established.

2. Share unique knowledge: To share unique knowledge with a customer means to go beyond the job knowledge that is ordinarily expected of one’s job role. For example, most restaurant guests expect for servers to possess basic job knowledge such as the evening’s specials, the soupe du jour, information about food preparation, ingredients/allergens, availability, pricing, etc.

Unique knowledge goes beyond job knowledge. It is interesting, memorable, and unexpected. It has character and substance.

It’s the difference between: “Tonight, our featured appetizer is the Pâté de Foie Gras” and  “Our chef trained at the prestigious Restaurant School in Philadelphia and apprenticed at Le Bec Fin. She also traveled to France to refine her knowledge of French delicacies such as truffles, escargot, and foie gras. In fact, our Pâté de Foie Gras is our featured appetizer. May I tempt you with an order?”

Seriously, which of these two approaches would make an impression on you? Which might motivate you to order the appetizer?

3. Deliver service heroics: To deliver service heroics means to go beyond the customer’s expectations in providing him with an exceptional customer service experience. Sometimes, this will require an employee to go above and beyond the call of duty. He may be challenged to perform beyond the scope of his job description.

I won’t provide my own example here. Instead, I’ll ask you to reflect back on your own experience as a customer. Everyone reading this post has a vivid example of a time when a frontline hourly employee went above and beyond the call of duty to provide exceptional customer service.

Perhaps you wrote a letter to the employee’s boss or maybe you gave him or her a substantial gratuity? If not, I’m confident that you have at least shared the story with many others. An impression was made—one that you won’t soon forget.

Each of these behaviors shares the same set of characteristics: they demonstrate the essence of an employee’s job—his or her highest priority—to create a delighted customer; they’re optional—which is why, as customers, we don’t often experience them; and they’re free—companies don’t pay their employees extra to express genuine interest, share unique knowledge, or deliver service heroics.

By recognizing and communicating the difference between job function and job essence, then guiding employee performance by sharing and rewarding customer service behaviors that go beyond that which customers typically expect, companies will differentiate themselves on the basis of customer service quality.

While most of their competitors will be providing the customer service status quo, these companies will be providing Service Elevated!

Many companies do an effective job of training their employees and holding them accountable to certain job functions.

For instance, in the checkout line at my local supermarket I’m routinely asked, “Did you find everything you were looking for?” And, when picking up my order at my favorite take-and-bake pizza restaurant, I’m frequently asked, “Have you baked our pizzas before?” And the cashiers at several area retailers regularly ask, “Would you like to enroll in our loyalty program to receive future discounts?”

Job functions are those tasks or duties associated with a job role. They are mandatory and, in most cases, are observable and measurable. Job functions receive a great deal of attention from supervisors and employees are held accountable to consistently perform them.

The irony is that, while employees are usually very good about asking routine questions pertaining to job functions, they oftentimes lose sight of the essence of their jobs.

Job essence refers to an employee’s highest priority—which, for most businesses, is to create delighted, loyal customers. Demonstrating job essence through one’s style, attitude, and personality is optional and, oftentimes, difficult to measure. For these reasons, supervisors and employees at many companies fail to consistently demonstrate job essence, devoting more of their energy and attention to the performance of job functions.

So, even as an employee asks, “Would you like to enroll in our loyalty program to receive future discounts?” (a mandatory job function), if she doesn’t smile, add a bit of enthusiasm to her voice, or in some other way appear to be engaged or interested (demonstrating optional job essence), then she’s missed an opportunity to “connect” and make a lasting positive impression.

Energy flows where attention goes. If a company pays attention to job functions, it will increase the number of people enrolled in its loyalty program. If it pays attention to job essence, it will increase the number of delighted customers who are loyal to its company/brand.

It’s better to earn 100 delighted customers who are loyal to your brand, than to capture 1,000 passive customers in a loyalty program who are indifferent toward your brand.

Where is your attention going?

Most of us acknowledge that when we’re performing our jobs, we are working.

But what many employees don’t often consider is that their jobs are made up of both mandatory actions that fulfill job functions (i.e., the bullet points on a job description) as well as optional behaviors that fulfill job essence—their highest priority (which, for most service-based businesses, is creating delighted customers).

Most work environments reinforce mandatory job functions through job descriptions, standard operating procedures (SOPs), checklists, etc., and pay little attention to the optional behaviors that, in the end, are the difference between an ordinary transaction and a memorable experience.

Here’s a quick example from the retail industry:

A couple of weeks ago, while in the checkout line at the supermarket, I had a chance to observe the cashier’s interaction with the customer ahead of me.

Typically these interactions are transactional: a screen displays the total, the customer swipes a bank card and signs for her purchases, the cashier presents a receipt, and the customer (9 times out of 10) thanks the cashier—presumably for accepting her money.

The cashier has completed a set of mandatory actions that fulfill her job function. But nothing stood out. No impression was made. An opportunity to make a connection was lost—forever…

But on this particular day, as she scanned a bag of dog food, the cashier asked, “What kind of a dog do you have?”

With that, the cashier and the customer had an enthusiastic exchange about their mutual love of Labrador Retrievers. It wasn’t long—maybe all of 20 seconds—while the customer swiped his bank card and signed for his purchases.

The cashier, by simply posing a question, expressed genuine interest in the customer and transformed a bland and uneventful transaction into a unique and memorable experience. An impression was made. A connection was established.

The cashier’s question was optional and fulfilled the essence of her job: to create a delighted customer. And because questions like these are optional, as customers we don’t always receive them. But when we do, they tend to leave a lasting positive impression.

Perhaps when the customer returns to the store, he will quickly scan the checkout lanes to see whether or not his “friend” is working and, if so, may go out of his way to queue in her line. The cashier may even recognize him and, recalling their previous conversation, ask about his dog.

This is how relationships form. This is how customer loyalty is earned. Customers don’t establish relationships with stores, they establish relationships with the people inside the stores.

Good customer service is rarely the result of perfectly executed mandatory job functions. Rather, it is most often the result of optional behaviors such as expressing genuine interest (e.g., “What kind of a dog do you have?”) and offering sincere and specific compliments (e.g., “You couldn’t have picked a breed with a better disposition.”) that fulfill job essence.

Good customer service is always optional. That’s why we rarely experience it.

Earlier this week, a friend of mine passed along a copy of Daniel Pink’s latest book, Drive. It was a pleasant surprise because, having read his bestseller, A Whole New Mind, it was on my buy list. One of the reasons I enjoy reading authors like Daniel Pink, Malcolm Gladwell, Thomas Friedman, and others, is that they consistently challenge deeply held assumptions that I’ve guarded for years.

And while Drive opened in this way—causing me to rethink what I’d previously accepted as truth—I soon read a sentence that reaffirmed what I’ve known to be true for years: “Work consists of whatever a body is OBLIGED to do, and Play consists of whatever a body is not obliged to do.”

The implication of this truth, as it applies to my work in the field of customer service, is that to the extent employees see their jobs as a series of algorithmic tasks (the bullet points that make up so many job descriptions) as opposed to heuristic tasks (opportunities to “perform” outside of one’s job description), they will most likely focus on job function (the algorithmic tasks associated with their job role) at the expense of job essence (the heuristic tasks that contribute to their highest priority).

What’s their highest priority? For most customer service employees it’s to create delighted customers—those who will repurchase, be less price-sensitive, and recommend the company or brand to others.

The disconnect I most often experience as a customer of an airline, hotel, restaurant, or department store, is that employees tend to execute their jobs as a series of algorithmic tasks (e.g., issuing a boarding pass, obtaining a valid method of payment, taking an order, or ringing up a purchase) that they would define as work. In some cases, they might even define these tasks as routine or monotonous. And whenever customers detect monotony from employees, it contributes to perceptions of bland, uneventful, and indifferent customer service.

The opportunity then lies in reframing employees’ views of their job roles. That is, expanding job descriptions from a myopic set of required algorithmic tasks that focus on job function to include optional heuristic tasks that support job essence.

Here is what it might look like in a hotel:

Among other job tasks, a front desk agent’s job description presumably includes obtaining a valid method of payment from each guest prior to issuing a room key. That’s an example of an algorithmic job task (i.e., following a set of established instructions) that fulfills the employee’s job function of checking-in guests. In many hotels, employees and guests alike would characterize this procedure as transactional, process-focused, and predictable—each one like the last one.

Now imagine the above algorithmic job task being completed in a way that fulfills the employee’s job function while, at the same time, supports the essence of her job role: to create a delighted customer.

Perhaps the desk agent smiles, makes eye contact with the guest, and says, “That’s a lovely tie. It matches your suit nicely. Who is the designer?” The guest, flattered by the remark, may then proudly answer, “Louis Vuitton” or “Robert Talbott.” Either way, he will be complimented that she noticed and will likely characterize the experience as exceptional, guest-focused, and unexpected. And while he probably won’t recall the transaction at all, he’ll remember the compliment for a long, long time.

All the desk agent did was expand her job description from a defined set of required algorithmic tasks (i.e., obtaining a valid method of payment from the guest) focused on job function (i.e., checking-in a guest) to include an optional heuristic task (i.e., providing a sincere and specific compliment) that supports job essence (i.e., to create a delighted customer). In doing so, she expressed her own uniqueness and creativity by doing something that was entirely optional and beyond the confines of her job description.

The late J.W. Marriott, Sr. said it well when he reflected on his own view of work: “There weren’t these two opposites, work and play, one bad and the other good. It was having a vision of the way things ought to be and then making them that way.”

That quote really encapsulates the message of this post. To the extent that employees view their jobs as a series of others-directed obligations, their jobs will seem more like work—with all the limitations and monotony associated with it. And to the extent that employees exercise their freedom to self-direct their performance using a variety of optional techniques, their jobs will seem more like play—with all the freedom and satisfaction associated with it.

Comments? (Please don’t feel obligated…they’re optional.)