Quality Myth

Is training the key to improving customer service or a waste of time in a futile attempt to train the Genghis Khans of the world to play nice and share with the other children? Each year, companies enlist their employees in motivational customer service boot camps led by caffeine-stimulated drill instructors bearing perpetual smiles and rebuttals for each venomous remark spewed by the recruits. Upon completion of the boot camp, employees return to work with a three-ring binder of motivational quotes, a button that reads “Customers are #1” and a certificate of achievement. With so much investment in customer service training, why are these same companies not reaping the benefits of higher customer satisfaction?

Companies aren’t successful in improving customer satisfaction because they focus on changing employee behaviors instead of selecting employees that possess the “customer service gene” as part of their DNA profile. Employee behaviors, attitudes and paradigms have been molded during adolescence and solidified like concrete by their life experiences. I seriously question the ability of any trainer to transform an employee over the course of a one-day class. The employees graduate customer service training with a smile and seemingly new attitude. However, they quickly default fault to their original DNA programming of in-genuine care and customer mistreatment. Improving customer satisfaction is more dependent upon the employee selection process than any training class.

Selecting employees that possess the “customer service gene” reminds me of my Marine Corps days when I requested special assignment to join the elite commando unit, 2nd Force Reconnaissance Company. Most transfers in the Marine Corps, similar to corporate hiring practices, involved some paperwork and at best, a couple of interviews. Second Force Reconnaissance Company didn’t recruit candidates, they selected them. The selection process began with a series of physical fitness tests, a swim qualification, and a battery of written tests to determine if the candidates possessed the right stuff. From the approximate 20 Marines that applied, only three of us made it to the next stage, which consisted of a six-month training program. The training was followed by a final selection process called the Indoc (short for Indoctrination Test.) The Indoc was designed to test for the “commando gene” and placement of the trainees within the unit. Only one other person and myself passed and were assigned to a 5th Platoon, a Direct Action Team. Second Force Reconnaissance Company learned early in its history that candidates can be taught technical skills, but they can’t learn behaviors such as self-confidence, adaptability and teamwork.

Most managers make a common mistake of hiring employees with technical skills but fail to assess the behaviors that are critical to the candidate’s role and responsibilities. I’m certain you’ve experienced a manager who was well educated, highly tenured and extremely ineffective. The manager’s ineffective behaviors stemmed from lack of key “leadership genes” in their DNA to make rapid decisions, cultivate healthy relationships or inspire employees to greatness. Without such “leadership genes,” their behaviors were seen as indecisive, cold and de-motivating. The manager probably attended a couple dozen leadership classes and built a repertoire of key phrases such as “Be all you can be.”

If the training classes didn’t change the manager’s behavior, then how can training possibly change your employee’s behaviors? (By the way, don’t waste your time sending this article to an ineffective leader because he or she probably won’t relate to it. Ineffective leaders usually are unaware of their dysfunctional condition and like Spot the Dog can’t recognize that biting and barking is a bad behavior.)

In selecting employees for customer service positions, first determine the desired behaviors for the function. For instance, if you’re selecting a receptionist, identify behaviors that are critical to interacting with customers, such as positivity. Then develop questions or situations that test the applicant’s natural ability in relation to maintaining a positive response to situations they encounter. For example, ask the applicants: “How do you feel when you plan an outside activity and it rains?” If they respond by saying, “I get upset or disappointed,” then they’re going to become negative when it begins to rain at the reception desk with the phones ringing off the hook and a line forming a mile long. Follow up the first question by asking them to provide a recent example of how they created a positive impression for a customer. If positivity is not part and parcel to their DNA, they’ll struggle with recalling a recent example.

In selecting housekeeping staff, I would place a large piece of paper on the floor. The candidate who picked up the paper possessed the “attention to detail gene” vital to achieving a defect-free level of quality. The candidate didn’t pick up the paper because I asked, but did it because of a compelling desire to pick it up. The paper on the floor bothered the candidate because “attention to detail” was part of the genetic code.

The secret key to improving customer service is to first select for talent and then provide training to enhance natural abilities. Employees, and the clients they serve, can only benefit from customer service training if it re-enforces their natural behaviors.

P.S. If you don’t consider yourself a pseudo-physiologist, companies such as Talent+, which you can visit at www.talentplus.com, can help your company develop specialized tools that test for the “customer service gene.”

John Timmerman is corporate director of performance management for The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Co.