Maximise Service Orientation (Part III)
This blog -the last one in a series of three- continues the exploration of “customer service orientation”. It looks into how organisations can help their employees become more customer-focused.
In the June blog I explored what “service orientation” is and how it evolved from satisfying customers’ expectations to exceeding them by individualising customer experience.
In the July blog I looked into how business and organisational offerings were influenced by the shift in customers’ expectations.
Today, I will explicate how employees can maximise their customer service performance.
Specifically, I will answer the following two questions:
How can organisations make sure that employees are able to service at their best?
How can organisations help their employees to develop the qualities they need to exceed their customers’ expectations?
HOW CAN ORGANISATIONS MAKE SURE THAT EMPLOYEES ARE ABLE TO SERVICE AT THEIR BEST?
Organisations have to shift their focus from company-centric (business is considered an organisation’s journey) to customer-centric (business is becoming a customer’s journey).
Leaders have to engage employees at every level of the organisation, working directly with them in retail settings, taking calls, and getting out into the field.
A well-known company that follows this approach is Amazon. In their early years they staged “all hands on deck” sessions during the year-end holidays, a tradition that lives on in the employee-onboarding experience (1). Companies also need to motivate and empower their employees who embody the customer and brand promise in their interactions with consumers. In Zappos, for example, the CustomerServiceRepresentatives are part of the CustomerLoyaltyTeams and are trained to make sound decisions on their own. They are accountable for every call’s experience, and decide on the solution of any adverse issues the customer expresses. They have the authority to accept special-case returns, offer partial or full refunds in cases of loss of service, pay for damages, and “WOW” customers by providing solutions in any other manner they deem appropriate.
HOW CAN ORGANISATIONS HELP THEIR EMPLOYEES TO DEVELOP THE QUALITIES THEY NEED TO EXCEED THEIR CUSTOMERS’ EXPECTATIONS?
Academic research has come up with some answers. It seems that qualities cover personality traits (e.g. agreeableness) but also the capacity to interact with customers at a humane level (e.g. empathy). Some examples: Brown et. al. (2002) identified a number of personality traits that are believed to make some employees more pre-disposed to satisfy their customers’ needs. These qualities are: emotional stability, agreeability, the need for activity and conscientiousness. Parasuraman et. al. (1988) came up with five independent dimensions of service quality which relate directly to the human interaction element of service delivery: tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy. Hau et al.(2013) found out that conscientiousness, extraversion and agreeableness are positively associated with customer service.
Organisations try to improve personal qualities and individual performance through training focusing on knowledge enhancement, learning development and skills’ improvement.
For example, Singapore Airlines, one of the leading flight service providers, have one of the longest training programmes for cabin crew. They train new recruits for four months, which is twice as long as the industry average of eight weeks. Whereas a lot of the emphasis is obviously around the safety requirements and various responsibilities, training also includes everything from serving food and understanding the onboard wines to etiquette and cultural sensitivity for travellers from different countries, from the UK to China. Another example: In Starbucks, employees learn how to recognise and respond to a customer’s needs and wants in 5 steps (LATTE): Listen to the customer-Acknowledge their complaint -Take action by solving the problem- Thank them and- Explain why the problem occurred.
However, as I explained in my July blog in order to achieve internal consistency and deliver the outstanding customer experience, teams and technology need to work together. Customer service orientation does not rely any more only on the qualities of individual employees but it is the outcome of the successful coordination and cooperation of a number of employees at different posts. Each one of them is an inextricable part of the final customer service delivery. If one of them fails to perform, the customer service will not be outstanding. This interconnectedness also implies that all employees involved share the same vision of excellency in service.
The question now becomes:
HOW CAN ORGANISATIONS MAKE SURE THAT COORDINATION AND COOPERATION FUNCTION AND PROVIDE EXCEPTIONAL CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE?
Organisations need to explore the quality of the relationship among employees involved in customer service delivery.
Organisations need to improve the interaction of employees
Social capital theory can be a useful tool for this process. Social capital reflects quality social relations. Its substance is “goodwill” and Its effects flow from the information, influence and solidarity such goodwill makes available (2).
Goodwill is the willingness of employees to exceed their formal job requirements in order to help each other, to subordinate their individual interests for the good of the organisation, and to take a genuine interest in the organisation’s activities and overall mission.
Specifically, social capital can improve the capacity of people to come together (e.g. create networks), collectively resolve common problems (e.g. coordination) and achieve mutually beneficial outcomes (e.g.reduce transaction costs, facilitate the flow of information) (3).
The concept of social capital comprises three dimensions:
The structural capital (the overall pattern of relationships found in organisations). It involves the extent to which people in an organisation are connected (i.e. do employees know each other?)
The relational capital (the nature of the employee relationships). It concerns affective relationships between employees ( i.e. do coworkers like one another?)
The cognitive capital (shared representation, interpretations, and systems of meaning among members) (4). It is about the degree to which employees within a social network share a common perspective or understanding (i.e. do employees truly understand one another?) (5)
High levels of structural capital ( network ties, configuration and appropriability ) can have a significant influence on information transfer, organisation learning and the execution of organisational activities (6). For example, the transfer of information or knowledge within an organisation is more likely to occur when employees are interconnected; when they know each other(network ties)(7). The overall configuration of ties within an organisation is important as well, as it allows understanding of the patterns of connections among employee ; whether it is absence, density of connections or selective concentration among few employees. Finally, network appropriability relates to the ease with which different types of relationships can be transferred within a network and the usefulness of such connections across contexts (8). For example, connections established between individuals in social contexts also may be relevant in work contexts.
High levels of relational capital (strong ties) are characterised by trust, shared norms & perceived obligations, and a sense of mutual identification (9). Employees’ connections are based on trust, reciprocity and emotional intensity (10). Coworkers like one another, trust one another, and identify with one another. Interpersonal attraction, trust and group identification are positively associated with group cohesion, social & resource exchange, enhancement of teamwork, better communication and collaboration (11). Research also suggests that individuals in a workgroup that like each other are more comfortable with uncertainty and less resistant to change.
High levels of cognitive social capital (mutual understanding) is achieved through the existence of a shared language and from the exchange of shared narratives. The cognitive aspect gives employees a common perspective that enables them to perceive and interpret events in similar ways, transfer ideas, to share knowledge more effectively, and to offer assistance to one another(12). With time, as this shared understanding becomes increasingly solidified, efficiencies are often gained through mutual awareness and a reduction in the number of unexpected behaviors exhibited by organisation members (13).
It is obvious how complex it can be to satisfy all three aspects of the social capital in customer service in a large organisation.
Componentisation may be a way to cope better with this challenge. Componentisation advocates suggest that service-oriented businesses should view themselves as a federation of capabilities(components) whose role is determined by the service consumers. Each business component corresponds to a distinct business function and has the potential to operate independently. At the same time, each component can interact with other components efficiently and seamlessly within a business “ecosystem”(14). In such an environment a company has greater chances to form high-quality relationships between employees (social capital) and draw the sustainable advantage the goodwill creates. As a matter of fact, it is easier to create higher levels of all three dimensions of social capital as it becomes:
less intricate to understand and improve the patterns of the relationships timely(structural);
less challenging and time consuming to strengthen ties through team building(relational); and
less complicated to enhance mutual understanding founded on the common language and narrative that the organisational vision, mission and values provide(cognitive).
Selective Bibliography
(1) - McKinsey Quartery ( August 2016) The CEO Guide to Customer Experience
(2) - Lochner, K., Kawachi, I., & Kennedy, B. P. (1999). Social capital: a guide to its measurement. Health & place, 5(4), 259-270.
(3) - Lazega, E., & Pattison, P. E. (2001). Social capital as social mechanisms and collective assets: The example of status auctions among colleagues. Social capital: Theory and research, 185, 208.
(3.1)-Lin, N., Cook, K. S., & Burt, R. S. (Eds.). (2001). Social capital: Theory and research. Transaction Publishers.
(4) ,(9) -Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of management review, 23(2), 242-266.
(5), (8) -Bolino, M. C., Turnley, W. H., & Bloodgood, J. M. (2002). Citizenship behavior and the creation of social capital in organizations. Academy of management review, 27(4), 505-522.
(6) -Brown, P., Hesketh, A., & Wiliams, S. (2003). Employability in a knowledge-driven economy. Journal of education and work, 16(2), 107-126.
(6.1)-Fisher, S. R., & White, M. A. (2000). Downsizing in a learning organization: are there hidden costs?. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 244-251.
(6.2)-Scheufele, D. A., & Shah, D. V. (2000). Personality strength and social capital: The role of dispositional and informational variables in the production of civic participation. Communication research, 27(2), 107-131.
(7) -Leana III, C. R., & Van Buren, H. J. (1999). Organizational social capital and employment practices. Academy of management review, 24(3), 538-555.
(8) -Brown, T. J., Mowen, J. C., Donavan, D. T., & Licata, J. W. (2002). The customer orientation of service workers: Personality trait effects on self-and supervisor performance ratings. Journal of marketing research, 39(1), 110-119.
(10) - Granovetter, M. (1983). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited.
(11) - Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value creation: The role of intra firm networks. Academy of management Journal, 41(4), 464-476.
(12) -Boland Jr, R. J., & Tenkasi, R. V. (1995). Perspective making and perspective taking in communities of knowing. Organization science, 6(4), 350-372.
(12.1)-Nohria, N., & Eccles, R. (1992). Is a network perspective a useful way of studying organizations. Leading Organizations: Perspectives for A New Era; Robinson, HG, Ed, 287-301.
(13) - Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations (Vol. 3). Sage.
(14) -Cherbakov, L., Galambos, G., Harishankar, R., Kalyana, S., & Rackham, G. (2005). Impact of service orientation at the business level. IBM Systems Journal, 44(4), 653-668