In this brief series I will cover some of the metrics that have qualitatively and quantitatively been used by companies where I have worked. Let's start with the most basic one that many companies have used for many years, but never formally quantified.
Many companies have someone in the marketing department or have hired a service to provide the executives with daily or weekly clippings. Today many executives simply have a Google Alert set up with the name of their company and competitors. The goal of this activity was to get a sense of how often the company or its competitors were showing up in print. The executives rarely read these clippings, but evaluated the clippings based on heft (weight or volume). If the company was in the news then at least the name was in front of people.
The second generation of this exercise became more of an evaluation of the reason that the name was in the news. Some companies simply looked at whether the news was generally positive or negative. If Marketing was dinged for an abundance of negative articles then it was common for them to put a positive spin on almost every clipping. Some companies went so far as to create a scorecard that showed how many positive vs. neutral vs. negative hits belonged to the company and each competitor. However, in the end this really did not result in any action beyond a phone call or email to the head of Marketing.
Special services (news and mention aggregators like http://startpr.com) appeared on the scene a couple of years ago and started to provide even more detailed analytics. They take the process beyond passive receipt of Google Alerts and allow your company to start tracking every conversation that people all over the social web are having about your company. At Silver Hill Financial we became progressive enough to actually reach out to the people having these conversations and addressing service failures head-on. Our Customer Experience Management Team partnered with a couple of people from our PR Team to identify and act on the negative comments and threads. We also found it possible to track down blogs and postings that were using our company name to attract traffic, but who were not actually discussing our company or products. (Almost always those sites were filled with pay-per-click links to adult websites.) We were able to attract positive comments about our service recovery on nearly 70% of the pages where we had been drug through the mud and we were able to get every single bogus blog taken down that had our name posted somewhere in the text.
I am fortunate enough to be in a progressive company that wants to actively manage our online reputation. Whereas I had once been the recipient of the clippings (photocopies of articles about motor oil companies) that were never actioned or discussed, I am now able to leverage a very modern and robust metric that is actionable.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Thursday, January 15, 2009
The Least Worst Candidate
Full Disclosure: I have led strategic human capital management teams as a consultant and executive for 14 years...
The greatest threat to your company's customer experience is the least worst candidate during new employee selection. This is especially true in companies that are quick to hire and slow to fire.
Do you have an immediate opening that you simply must fill as soon as possible? Is it also a strategically critical role for your organization? Chances are, companies that find themselves in this situation also rely on very traditional HR practices and will put an ad on the popular job boards as well as the local newspaper. Hundreds of candidates will flood the desk of the person who is responsible for posting jobs. He or she will sift through them looking for key words on the resumes. Then a select few will be forwarded to the hiring manager for consideration. The final pool will be called and invited to interviews the following week. Then the candidate with the best interview will be chosen by the hiring manager and will start in two weeks. Sound familiar?
The new hire is given office supplies, gets a company email and intranet access after a few days, and spends much of the first week shadowing or meeting with other key employees. Then it is off to the races. The first few problems are attributed to the employee's newness and the training team is called upon to provide some solutions. However, the problems continue so it is clearly the ineffective trainers who are at fault now. None of the customer complaints have moved up the chain of command so the hiring manager is still comfortable that things can be turned around once the new hire gets some more experience. However, the new hire is now learning how to prevent angry customers from reporting their dissatisfaction instead of trying to mitigate or solve the customer's concerns. While the new hire is supposed to "deliver the wow", instead he or she is "delivering the ou(ch)". The new hire is starting to find ways to circumvent the company's policies and procedures, work the system to maximize personal income, and stay one step ahead of any reports or awareness of service failures. When the boss finally catches on to some of the games, instead of managing performance (which would involve uncomfortable conversations, possibly conflict, and annoying paperwork and HR involvement), the hiring manager simply reassigns the most upset accounts to another employee. After all, this new hire was the best of the entire crop of hundreds of applicants, right? Now that he or she has all of this experience and training the boss needs to find a way to make this work, a place where this new hire fits.
But what if you could avoid hiring the least worst candidate altogether? What if you already had a strong pool of external candidates waiting for openings in your organization? What if you already had a pool of internal candidates that were proven performers, high potentials, a great fit for the skills you need, and ready for the challenge? World-class leaders in talent management don't worry about sudden or unexpected losses. They already have a plan in place to back-fill every critical technical and leadership role in their organization. You will also find that these organizations have the happiest and most loyal customers.
First, and foremost, every employee should be recruiting for your company all the time. Your company should have a strategy in place that clearly states that your existing employees should be looking for like-minded individuals (passionate, brand-champion, hard-working, loyal, top performers). And that when they meet those potential candidates, that your employees have a great elevator pitch about the fabulous work environment and opportunities that exist at your company. The marketing of your employer brand is the most critical part of your attraction strategy. It is not always enough to have a lot of people wanting to work for your company, they need to be the best people and the right people. Ask your HR team about your company's sourcing and attracting strategies. If they don't drive a constant buzz on the street and hits on your jobboard, then you need to help HR fix this shortcoming.
Second, you should know the competencies that drive best practices that lead to meeting and exceeding your company and team's strategic objectives. HR should help you build a selection strategy that includes a process by which candidates for a position are screened multiple times, narrowing the choices down to the internal and external candidates that are the best fit and ready for the challenge. The typical tools that are used in world-class selection processes include an initial phone screen by HR that asks about a candidate's knowledge about the company, team, and position; a validated simulation that is scored by a trained incumbent; a competency-based behavioral interview by the hiring manager; and a written or online assessment of aptitude that is based on work behaviors. The "price of admission" competencies that you are using in this screening process should include knowledge, skills, experience, aptitude, physical and mental abilities, and personal traits that are difficult to teach (almost innate) or commodities (so many people have them that they are not taught by your company).
Third, your company should never be caught off guard. HR should have guided senior and mid-level leaders through a workforce planning exercise that resulted in a clear picture of the company's bench strength for all key positions. Evidence of effective workforce planning efforts would include career path maps or ladders, individual development plans that focus employees on the competencies required for their next role, and succession plans or maps for senior leadership positions. This is not the 1950's, no one should expect employees to devote their entire career to one company. In fact, that would not be healthy (no fresh ideas or diversity of thought and opinion). Turnover should be expected (and for some it should be encouraged) and planned for. Companies should clearly know how deep they are at each critical role and who the most likely successors are. When a position becomes available, the best candidates should be encouraged to apply (along with other interested internal and external applicants).
Don't get caught hurting your customers through bad hiring decisions. The techniques and best practices that lead to the right person with the right competencies doing the right work the right way at the right time have been researched and found to be applicable to companies of all sizes. You can rescue your customers from the least worst candidate.
The greatest threat to your company's customer experience is the least worst candidate during new employee selection. This is especially true in companies that are quick to hire and slow to fire.
Do you have an immediate opening that you simply must fill as soon as possible? Is it also a strategically critical role for your organization? Chances are, companies that find themselves in this situation also rely on very traditional HR practices and will put an ad on the popular job boards as well as the local newspaper. Hundreds of candidates will flood the desk of the person who is responsible for posting jobs. He or she will sift through them looking for key words on the resumes. Then a select few will be forwarded to the hiring manager for consideration. The final pool will be called and invited to interviews the following week. Then the candidate with the best interview will be chosen by the hiring manager and will start in two weeks. Sound familiar?
The new hire is given office supplies, gets a company email and intranet access after a few days, and spends much of the first week shadowing or meeting with other key employees. Then it is off to the races. The first few problems are attributed to the employee's newness and the training team is called upon to provide some solutions. However, the problems continue so it is clearly the ineffective trainers who are at fault now. None of the customer complaints have moved up the chain of command so the hiring manager is still comfortable that things can be turned around once the new hire gets some more experience. However, the new hire is now learning how to prevent angry customers from reporting their dissatisfaction instead of trying to mitigate or solve the customer's concerns. While the new hire is supposed to "deliver the wow", instead he or she is "delivering the ou(ch)". The new hire is starting to find ways to circumvent the company's policies and procedures, work the system to maximize personal income, and stay one step ahead of any reports or awareness of service failures. When the boss finally catches on to some of the games, instead of managing performance (which would involve uncomfortable conversations, possibly conflict, and annoying paperwork and HR involvement), the hiring manager simply reassigns the most upset accounts to another employee. After all, this new hire was the best of the entire crop of hundreds of applicants, right? Now that he or she has all of this experience and training the boss needs to find a way to make this work, a place where this new hire fits.
But what if you could avoid hiring the least worst candidate altogether? What if you already had a strong pool of external candidates waiting for openings in your organization? What if you already had a pool of internal candidates that were proven performers, high potentials, a great fit for the skills you need, and ready for the challenge? World-class leaders in talent management don't worry about sudden or unexpected losses. They already have a plan in place to back-fill every critical technical and leadership role in their organization. You will also find that these organizations have the happiest and most loyal customers.
First, and foremost, every employee should be recruiting for your company all the time. Your company should have a strategy in place that clearly states that your existing employees should be looking for like-minded individuals (passionate, brand-champion, hard-working, loyal, top performers). And that when they meet those potential candidates, that your employees have a great elevator pitch about the fabulous work environment and opportunities that exist at your company. The marketing of your employer brand is the most critical part of your attraction strategy. It is not always enough to have a lot of people wanting to work for your company, they need to be the best people and the right people. Ask your HR team about your company's sourcing and attracting strategies. If they don't drive a constant buzz on the street and hits on your jobboard, then you need to help HR fix this shortcoming.
Second, you should know the competencies that drive best practices that lead to meeting and exceeding your company and team's strategic objectives. HR should help you build a selection strategy that includes a process by which candidates for a position are screened multiple times, narrowing the choices down to the internal and external candidates that are the best fit and ready for the challenge. The typical tools that are used in world-class selection processes include an initial phone screen by HR that asks about a candidate's knowledge about the company, team, and position; a validated simulation that is scored by a trained incumbent; a competency-based behavioral interview by the hiring manager; and a written or online assessment of aptitude that is based on work behaviors. The "price of admission" competencies that you are using in this screening process should include knowledge, skills, experience, aptitude, physical and mental abilities, and personal traits that are difficult to teach (almost innate) or commodities (so many people have them that they are not taught by your company).
Third, your company should never be caught off guard. HR should have guided senior and mid-level leaders through a workforce planning exercise that resulted in a clear picture of the company's bench strength for all key positions. Evidence of effective workforce planning efforts would include career path maps or ladders, individual development plans that focus employees on the competencies required for their next role, and succession plans or maps for senior leadership positions. This is not the 1950's, no one should expect employees to devote their entire career to one company. In fact, that would not be healthy (no fresh ideas or diversity of thought and opinion). Turnover should be expected (and for some it should be encouraged) and planned for. Companies should clearly know how deep they are at each critical role and who the most likely successors are. When a position becomes available, the best candidates should be encouraged to apply (along with other interested internal and external applicants).
Don't get caught hurting your customers through bad hiring decisions. The techniques and best practices that lead to the right person with the right competencies doing the right work the right way at the right time have been researched and found to be applicable to companies of all sizes. You can rescue your customers from the least worst candidate.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Psychology is the 6th P
When Fast Company magazine first came on the scene in the 1990's it was lauded for its progressive view of the business world, including its insistence that we were entering the age of experience (leaving the information age). This year in an interview with Kevin Roberts, the worldwide CEO of Saatchi & Saatchi, they returned to that topic by highlighting his concept of "love marks". Kevin said, "A love-mark is the emotional connection you have with a product and it is that emotional connection that allows companies to conquer the world".
Since my undergraduate days in the mid-1980's at the University of Texas at Austin, it has been so clear to me that the same forces and relationships driving psychology were driving brand success. So why do we keep straying from the obvious? Why isn't one of Marketing's 5 P's "psychology"?
Only when someone with some serious common sense comes along every few years, like Lou Carbone (http://knowledge.emory.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1153), do people have a blinding flash of the obvious. People are hard-wired in some respects, have the influences of their family, friends, and community on top of that, and have life experiences that they interpret. Those factors create a series of filters through which people view their lives. These filters manifest themselves outwardly as behaviors. Thus, genes and experiences lead to attitudes, which are manifested as behaviors. Real brand experience work (not just call center monitoring software or user interface engineering alone) identifies the impact that every customer touchpoint has in this cycle. The cycle is significantly shortened, and you must compensate for unknown genetic and life experience filters, but Lou is spot-on in recognizing that the most important factor is understanding how your company makes your customers feel about themselves.
Since my undergraduate days in the mid-1980's at the University of Texas at Austin, it has been so clear to me that the same forces and relationships driving psychology were driving brand success. So why do we keep straying from the obvious? Why isn't one of Marketing's 5 P's "psychology"?
Only when someone with some serious common sense comes along every few years, like Lou Carbone (http://knowledge.emory.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1153), do people have a blinding flash of the obvious. People are hard-wired in some respects, have the influences of their family, friends, and community on top of that, and have life experiences that they interpret. Those factors create a series of filters through which people view their lives. These filters manifest themselves outwardly as behaviors. Thus, genes and experiences lead to attitudes, which are manifested as behaviors. Real brand experience work (not just call center monitoring software or user interface engineering alone) identifies the impact that every customer touchpoint has in this cycle. The cycle is significantly shortened, and you must compensate for unknown genetic and life experience filters, but Lou is spot-on in recognizing that the most important factor is understanding how your company makes your customers feel about themselves.
Customer Experience Management Blog Warehouse
My Customer Experience Management blog died with my website when I got into a tiff with my webhosting company. I am trying to dig up all of the old posts and warehouse them here for anyone who was leveraging these ideas and advice to either sell the value of CEM to their organizational leaders or actually practicing CEM in their organization.
Be well,
Darin Phillips
Be well,
Darin Phillips
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
