Delaware Employment Law Blog

All employers know that consistently stellar customer service is the holy grail of business.  At times,  it seems to be just within reach and, without so much as a minute's notice, it appears completely unattainable.

I had the opportunity to travel to Chicago this week.  Yes, I had a great steak dinner. And, yes, I had some deep dish pizza. I also shopped for a belt. A simple black dress belt.  But this post is not about the belt.  It's about the place where I bought it--Nordstrom's. How is it that Nordstrom's consistently can offer good customer service when other companies cannot?

Three articles in today's New York Times focus on the issue of customer service and are worth the read.  The first article, titled Far From Always Being Right, the Customer Is on Hold, deals with the maddening devolution of telephone customer service. 

The second article Shoe Seller's Secret of Success focuses on Zappos.com almost fanatical emphasis on serving the customer. In fact, Zappos offers its newly trained employee $1,000 to quit as a way of testing their commitment to the company.

The third article focuses on the annual meeting of Southwest Airlines, a company whose customer service is legendary, and it's beloved co-founder, Herbert D. Kelleher.

The series of articles reinforces the idea that customer service remains an unrequited desire for consumers across the country.

[Editor's Note: Laurie Ruettimann, at Team Building Is for Suckers, posted yesterday about abandoning interviews in lieu of a "practice" day on the job.  In the post, she discusses Zappos' hiring strategy and concludes that it is an ideal model in many respects.  The New York Times featured the fun-loving corporate culture of Southwest Airlines earlier this year in an article titled, "Southwest.  Way Southwest." The headline was followed by a picture of the airline's chief executive, Gary Kelly, dressed as Edna Turnblad, the mom in Broadway musical, "Hairspray."  In the photo, Mr. Kelly is wearing a pink sequined dress and a bee-hive styled wig.]

Leaders and those who are charged with leadership development can consider this informative comparison.  Harvard Business contributor and coach, Marshall Goldsmith posted a compelling article titled, Management Advice from Buddha.  The premise of his article is that the fundamental principles of good leadership are largely parallel to the Buddhist principle of non-attachment. 

Non-attachment, at its heart, is the practice of letting go.  People who have a permanent hunger for personal learning are people who welcome change; in fact, they embrace change.  And those who look forward to seeing a new practice or idea have an easier time letting go. 

Leaders must be comfortable with the idea of change.  Those who are threatened by it cannot successfully manage.

According to Goldsmith:

Buddha suggested that his followers only do what he taught if it worked in the context of their own lives. He encouraged people to listen to his ideas, think about his suggestions, try out what made sense – keep doing what worked – and to just "let go" of what did not work.

Similarly, I teach my clients to ask their key stakeholders for suggestions on they can become more effective leaders then listen to these ideas, think about the suggestions, try out what makes sense – keep doing what works – and let go of what does not.

When our stakeholders give us suggestions on how we can become more effective, we can look at these suggestions as gifts – and treat our stakeholders as gift-givers. When someone gives you a gift you wouldn’t say, “Stinky gift!” “Bad gift!” or “I already have this stupid gift!” You would say, “Thank you.”

If you can use the gift – use it. If you don’t want to use the gift, put it in the closet and "let it go."

You would not insult the person who is trying to be nice by giving you a gift. In the same way, when our stakeholders give us ideas, we don’t want to insult them or their ideas. We can just learn to say, “Thank you.”

We cannot promise to do everything that people suggest we should do. We can promise to listen to our key stakeholders, think about their ideas, and do what we can. This is all that we can promise – and this is all that they expect.

Dr.Goldsmith is the author of the New York Times best seller, What Got You Here Won't Get You There. He has worked with more than 80 CEOs and their management teams and been recognized as one of the world's leading executive educators and coaches in Forbes, Business Week, and The Economist, among others.

Dr. Goldsmith has a fabulous website, which he calls a "Library" filled with videos, lots of free resources, and other articles.

This year’s hot democratic primary has plunged politics into the workplace more than ever. Today’s News Journal ran an article on the subject, “Talking politics at the office: Employers, managers must walk fine line on what to allow”

Our own Sheldon Sandler was quoted on the issue of whether it is advisable to prohibit political discussion in the workplace altogether. Although these discussions poses some risks, Sheldon suggested that banning such discussion outright is not a good idea.

From Obama’s stirring speech on race, to whether or not he wore a flag pin, this year’s election has raised some hot topics for watercooler debate – not likely to slow anytime soon at Delaware workplaces.

A downward economy is the perfect time to motivate employees and reward worker bees.

With the slowed financial landscape, not all companies can raise salaries and offer big bonuses this year. In a recent report by msn.com, employees stated that their biggest concerns included the price of fuel, and they’ve sacrificed going out to dinner and the movies in order to make ends meet.

Employers, this is your big opening. Instead of waiting until the end of your fiscal year to boost morale, why not get a jump on it now? Although a gift card cannot replace cold, hard, cash, keep in mind that one of a company’s most important resources are its people. If you can keep your talented employees happy during less-than-steller economic times, you can certainly keep them during an economic boon.

Here are some suggestions to reward your best performers:

(1) Time. Employees increasingly complain that they cannot balance life and work. Here’s your opportunity to improve the balance. When an employee has just finished an overtime project (perhaps without the overtime pay?) give them flex-time off. This gesture accomplishes several goals: your employee feels like their hard work has been acknowledged, they realize that “the man” remembers employees have lives outside of work, and you can promote how your company favors a work-life balance.

(2) Cake. Yes, Marie, let them eat cake. This one is simple. Each month, purchase cake to recognize employment anniversaries, birthdays, whatever. Just let your employees take a break for a piece of cake. Trust me, if you get a good baker, everyone will look forward to this month’s “cake day.”

(3) Gift cards. Who said there was no free lunch? An easy way to recognize an employee’s performance is with an inexpensive gift card to the movies, dinner, or your local gas station. Remember, these were on the list of things employees were most concerned about- the cost of fuel and giving up entertainment to make ends meet.

Now, not everyone will appreciate your efforts. National Public Radio recently reported on the growing number of “happiness committees” cropping up at large companies. The committee’s purpose was to surprise employees (a.k.a. worker bees) with unexpected milkshakes and cookies to entice employees to work late that day, or to reward them for working late the day before. Not all of the bees appreciated the effort, and some said they would rather the company take the Happiness Committee’s budget, divide it among the bees, and send a check appropriate for people. In any event, working towards keeping employees happy is never bad for business.

Women

Yale psychologist Victoria Brescoll and Eric Uhlmann at Northwestern University recently completed three separate studies to explore a phenomenon that is all-too-familiar to many women in leadership positions: Anger is not a pretty thing. The studies conclude that men who get angry are accepted and even rewarded but women who lose their temper are perceived to be less competent.

The studies, published in the March issue of Psychological Science, provide women with recommendations for navigating emotional hazards of the workplace. Brescoll says it pays to stay emotionally neutral and, if you can't, at least explain what ticked you off in the first place.

One method employed by the studies was to show both men and women scenes of men and women (actually actors) who were ostensibly applying for a job. The study participants were then asked to rate the applicants on (1) how much responsibility they should be given; (2) their perceived competence; (3) whether they should be hired; and (4) how much they should get paid.

Male and female participants reached the same conclusions:

Angry men deserved more status, a higher salary, and were expected to be better at the job than angry women.

The study participants provided the same responses regardless of the type of job for which the candidate was applying. Executive- and entry-level candidates were ranked equally.

Emotions, however, had a much greater impact. When the actor-applicants expressed anger, the men were selected as the preferred candidates. And when the actors expressed sadness, the bias seemed to lessen, and women applicants were ranked equally to men in status and competence. Emotions did not have any impact on the participant's opinions about salary--in both scenarios, the viewers awarded male applicants a higher salary.

A final study showed another way bias against female anger could be mitigated. When women actors explained why they were angry, observers tended to cut them more slack. Men, on the other hand, could actually be hurt when they explained why they were angry - perhaps, says the Yale psychologist, because observers tend to see this as a sign of weakness.

The study seems to lend some credence to the saying, "Kill 'em with kindness."

Women don't win by playing the anger card, according to a new study from Yale University psychologist Victoria Brescoll.

Brescoll and Eric Uhlmann at Northwestern University recently completed three separate studies to explore a phenomenon that is all-too-familiar to many women in leadership positions: Anger is not a pretty thing. The studies conclude that men who get angry are accepted and even rewarded but women who lose their temper are perceived to be less competent.

The studies, published in the March issue of Psychological Science, provide women with recommendations for navigating emotional hazards of the workplace. Brescoll says it pays to stay emotionally neutral and, if you can't, at least explain what ticked you off in the first place.

One method employed by the studies was to show both men and women scenes of men and women (actually actors) who were ostensibly applying for a job. The study participants were then asked to rate the applicants on (1) how much responsibility they should be given; (2) their perceived competence; (3) whether they should be hired; and (4) how much they should get paid.

Male and female participants reached the same conclusions:

Angry men deserved more status, a higher salary, and were expected to be better at the job than angry women.

The study participants provided the same responses regardless of the type of job for which the candidate was applying. Executive- and entry-level candidates were ranked equally.

Emotions, however, had a much greater impact. When the actor-applicants expressed anger, the men were selected as the preferred candidates. And when the actors expressed sadness, the bias seemed to lessen, and women applicants were ranked equally to men in status and competence. Emotions did not have any impact on the participant's opinions about salary--in both scenarios, the viewers awarded male applicants a higher salary.

A final study showed another way bias against female anger could be mitigated. When women actors explained why they were angry, observers tended to cut them more slack. Men, on the other hand, could actually be hurt when they explained why they were angry - perhaps, says the Yale psychologist, because observers tend to see this as a sign of weakness.

The study seems to lend some credence to the saying, "Kill 'em with kindness."