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?

If you studied management anywhere along your journey, then you may recall the seminal Harvard Business Review article by Sterling Livingston titled Pygmalion in Management.

Essentially, the article dealt with the self-fulfilling prophecy (or Pygmalion effect from Greek mythology) in management—a supervisor’s expectation of a subordinate’s performance that directly or indirectly causes itself to become true, for better or for worse.

The same thing is true in customer service.

Pygmalion in service suggests that there is a very real self-fulfilling prophecy in the delivery of customer service when an employee’s expectation of company standards and service levels directly or indirectly influences his or her attitude and performance.

Why is customer service consistently better at a luxury or full service hotel than an economy or select service hotel? And why do many high-end retailers have reputations for providing exceptional customer service while discounters generally are known for good prices but mediocre customer service? Why do we tend to receive better customer service at a fine dining restaurant than at a quick service restaurant?

I’m sure some of you are thinking: “Well, Steve, the high-end brands that you’re referring to have chosen to invest more money in their delivery of customer service. It’s reflected in everything from the customer to employee ratio to the fresh-cut flowers in the restrooms.”

I get that reasoning but it only addresses half of the equation.

Every business is made up of processes (like staffing models and restroom accents) as well as the attitudes of its people. And, while there is a cost associated with upgraded processes, there’s no such cost associated with upgraded employee attitudes. They’re free.

Employees choose their attitudes. Positive attitudes towards customers and customer service (conveyed by smiling, eye contact, and adding enthusiasm to one’s voice) are optional—which explains why you and I seldom encounter positive attitudes from enthusiastic and engaged employees.

There’s no reason for a front desk clerk at a Super 8 motel not to smile and welcome a guest similar to a front desk clerk at a Four Seasons hotel. There’s nothing stopping a cashier at Walmart from making eye contact with a customer in the same way a salesperson does while ringing up purchases at Nordstrom. And there’s no excuse for a server at Anthony’s Pizza & Pasta to not add enthusiasm to her voice like a server at Christini’s Ristorante Italiano in Orlando, Florida.

As managers, you tend to get what you expect. Expect your employees to embrace your organizations’ high customer service standards. (They are high, right?) And expect your employees to choose attitudes daily that are positive, helpful, and engaging. (Just like the attitudes you model, right?)

Do this and you will create a Pygmalion effect in customer service that elevates the performance expectations of your employees—regardless of whether or not they work at Nordstrom or Four Seasons.

How many of you enjoy standing in line, waiting to be served?

Long before Disney mounted large flat screen televisions to keep its guests entertained while waiting in line to see the next attraction, supermarkets have positioned tabloid newspapers near the checkout aisles to ease the inevitable delays that accompany grocery shopping after work and on weekends.

Even though most high volume supermarkets offer a number of self-service checkout stations, it’s not uncommon to wait in line behind two or more people for a station to become available. So you can imagine my surprise when I saw this banner posted prominently above the checkout lanes at my local Albertsons supermarket:

“OUR PROMISE: Never 3 people in line at one time.”

With this bold promise, Albertsons demonstrates its commitment to customer service. And, while I don’t know the particulars of its process to ensure lines don’t extend three customers deep, I bet it involves cross-utilization of staff—enabling store employees whose primary job role is something other than ringing up groceries to fill in as cashiers when needed.

Contrast this with an experience I had last week at a major national toy retailer where the lines ran at least three customers deep while four employees stood behind the “Customer Service” counter within view of the congested checkout lanes.

I know from experience that this retailer wouldn’t dare post a similar banner for two reasons:

1.) It lacks the underlying commitment to customer service needed to display such a banner.
2.) It does not have a process in place to ensure the promise would be kept.

In fact, most businesses lack the underlying commitment to customer service and processes required to make bold promises in the area of customer service.

Don’t take my word for it. Judge for yourself the next time you’re standing in line, waiting to be served at one of them—which should be any day now.