Talk with Tom
Get the dispatches from the new world of work
Retread!
This is a replay of an ancient rant of mine—I can't hide that fact. But the point was recently underscored. I was out PowerWalking a while back while staying at Hotel X. (No obvious purpose served by naming the hotel.) Among other things, I "ran around back." I observed that the "Staff Entrance" was pretty shabby—well, truthfully, a little south of "pretty shabby."
And that, in turn, reminded me of my lack of impact over time. Well, at least I can repeat myself.
I am a longtime fan of travel services superstar Hal Rosenbluth's idea-philosophy, captured in a book he coauthored: The Customer Comes Second. That is, if you really want to "put the customer first," put the people who serve the customer "more first." Which leads me back to hotels in particular. As I see it, it's axiomatic that the "Employee Entrance" should match the "Guest Entrance" in all respects. Period.
(Why a separate entrance at all, you say. Good point, I say. Maybe the maintenance guys in overalls don't want to go through the front door? On the other hand, if the maintenance guys had only one entrance, maybe they'd wash the grease out of their overalls a bit more frequently. Whadda you think?) (Speaking of grease, a friend whose husband is a carpenter-contractor was commenting on the fact that he wears a freshly cleaned dress-business shirt "to work" every day. It's part of his "Brand You," to use my words. Love it. Comes pretty damn close to passing the "dramatic difference" test.)
ARCHIVES
Before blogging became all the rage, Tom was posting book reviews and Observations (essentially early blog posts) to this site. You can find the archives below.
What Tom's Reading Archives
OBSERVATIONS ARCHIVES
right now
What we're talking about
on the front page.
Comments
Yes - totally - the "My Fair Lady" "Pygmalion effect" - create new dramatically improved by treating people like princes and princesses.
Posted by Sean at March 23, 2006 11:28 AM
I wrote about formal versus informal dress - Here is an extract of what I wrote;
In 1970 I was expected to wear a collar and tie at work. A suit would be the preferred attire but if not able to afford that, then smart trousers, jacket, shirt and tie was acceptable. The 2006 dress code is different. Those areas away from the “public face†of the organisation are much more liberal about dress code. I do not see as many suits as I used to. Having said that …. there are still a high proportion of suits among middle and senior managers in the NHS. Some parts of the NHS allow “jeans day†– usually a Friday of course! I am not suggesting any of the two distinctly different approaches are right or wrong – that would be presumptuous and arrogant. I simply suggest things have changed dramatically and it now a very different culture. From memory I was probably comfortable with the old style - it was ….. after all …… “just how it is round here.†I am definitely comfortable with the new informality. The “old world†was perhaps one of knowing your place in the pecking order and respect being implicit in the position held by those in all parts of the hierarchy. The new world is more about informality. However ……..
*Would I be comfortable receiving financial advice from a Bank Manager dressed in jeans and t-shirt and a gold stud in his ….. or indeed her(!!!) …….eyebrow?
*Would my Doctor inspire confidence …. if dressed in sandals, shorts and baseball cap for my consultation?
Posted by Trevor at March 23, 2006 12:18 PM
It seems hard to believe that organizations that invest so much to make sure their customers have the best experience could possibly forget to give their most important audience (their own people) the best experience as well. From a reputation standpoint, I like to refer to the triangle of identity, image and personality. Identity being everything an organization says about itself to all its audiences; image being what the audiences listening to all the communications thinks about the organization; and, personality being how the organization actually acts. In your scenario, the hotel's personality is not living up to its identity and your image of them is now changed, perhaps forever. Their reputation is out of balance and needs help.
Posted by Mike Swenson at March 23, 2006 12:54 PM
Great customer service comes from great customer service providers. People who get second rate treatment give second rate service. What is the block that prevents leaders from learning this lesson?
Posted by walter white at March 23, 2006 1:22 PM
As a trainer in the hospitality industry, I used to say to my manager audiences "when you tell employees the customer is always right you, by default, are telling your employees they are always wrong." How do you build morale by telling your employees they are always wrong? When I had a room of front line employees in my classroom, I would tell them the customer isn't always right, but your job is to make them think they are.
Posted by Darci at March 23, 2006 7:19 PM
For a truly insightful understanding of why cleanliness prevents "waste" and actually saves a lot of , lot of money - one should study the Toyota Production System or Japanese Manufacturing in general. The same concepts of clutter resulting in confusion, rework, waste and inefficiencies apply to services as in hotels just as easily. Who knows what it costs the hotel in bad services, confusion, inefficiencies, dirty food, lost customers, etc?. Of course, all of that starts with "pride of work" first and that starts with how the hotel treats its employees that provide the services!!
Posted by Nari Kannan at March 23, 2006 7:19 PM
The common punch-line / phrase used in the hospitality industry is ‘Guest is God’. Now, inorder to treat your guest (GOD) in a manner that would electrify the “divine†him / her, it’s a requisite to know that ‘cleanliness begins @ home’. One has to look at oneself in the mirror (flat/wide/large) to understand the way he / she looks like (not jus the physical aspect of a person…it has a lot to do with the mental disposition / psychological nature).
I agree with Tom (and Hal Rosenbluth’s idea-philosophy) on the notion that you have to put yourself ahead of your customer if you want a satisfied customer (albeit there are always instances on unsatisfied ones…never mind…they don’t head to a gold-grave!). That being said, it is also important for the customer to know & appreciate the fact that you have gone the EXTRAAA mile for him / her and I believe it has to be subtly conveyed through one’s deeds & actions.
There cheers for all of you who echo “GUEST IS GOD†and “CUSTOMER IS KINGâ€â€¦I do have a ‘Customer Creed’ hanging on the walls of my office and wonder (sometimes ponder too!)…DO WE MEAN IT IN LETTER & SPIRIT…the answer I would say is YES (obviously?)
Posted by K.Sriram at March 24, 2006 12:47 AM
Hotels do marketing to people how not is living at the hotel. That is like buying flowers to some wane else than your partner (you live together). Why not work as ONE?
Posted by Stefan Engeseth at March 24, 2006 4:17 AM
Hotels do marketing to people how not is living at the hotel. That is like buying flowers to some wane else than your partner (you live together). Why not work as ONE?
Posted by Stefan Engeseth at March 24, 2006 4:18 AM
While I agree in principle, I'm not sure I agree in practice.
Sure, the employee entrance shouldn't be a mistreated piece of garbage, but one should consider how much value the employee could really get from a "gold-coated portal to heaven".
In the hotel business, one of the things you sell is the customer 'experience'. While the portal has no more 'physical value' than a common door, it does add to the experience.
The employee has to walk through the same door every day for years, while the customer only sees it for a week or so. The more times you pass under the portal, the more it will be 'reduced' to it's true 'physical value' - a simple door.
But that doesn't mean that you can't put your employees first. It just means that comparing them to the customers is a futile effort.
Make sure that the employees needs are covered, not that they are being treated similar to people with different needs.
Posted by Lars Olufsen at March 24, 2006 10:07 AM
Hello Tom,
Being on the side of Team Re-invention/Re-imagine, but still posing a question (maybe naïve curiosity) in regards to the following reflection you’ve mentioned a time or two on this blog: “And that, in turn, reminded me of my lack of impact over time. Well, at least I can repeat myselfâ€â€¦ what other impact generating vehicles could be developed, launched, and engaged that complement and encompass your (and others) revolutionary ideas?? Result: Re-imagine/Re-invention type love spreading and transitioning more “Dilbert-like†institutions to Wow!-land, better, stronger, faster (Steve Austin-like).
Basically, if the book writing gigs, speaking engagement gigs, short-term consulting gigs, and blog-sphere, still leave you with a sense that much work needs to be done, is there a bigger hammer that could be developed/discovered that will drive home the point and help construct the “house of Tom†and “house of Gary Hamel†and “house of Marcus Buckingham†(and others) more “impactfully†,in what is now neighborhood “Dilbert-ville� The links, regarding Gallup studies and the ‘state of people engagement’ , seem to indicate that Team “RE†is still confronting an awful lot of kryptonite.
Maybe an initiative of a “if you build it, they will come†vision is a hammer to consider. Just playing around with some ideas on a “napkinâ€, so I pre-acknowledge their limited practicality but imagine… Re-Imagine/Re-Invention University, or Tom Peters’ own research effort that might be nicknamed “EPCOT†(Experimental Prototype Corporation/Culture Of Tomorrow) bringing together the “gurusâ€, under one roof so to speak…to build the “hammerâ€.
Thank you,
JA Hanson
http://www.fastcompany.com/online/49/buckingham.html Marcus Buckingham link
http://gmj.gallup.com/content/default.asp?ci=466 Gallup disengaged economy link
Posted by JA Hanson at March 24, 2006 4:20 PM