What are your thoughts about when a new employee should go through an organizational culture-type ‘customer service’ (aimed mostly at internal customers) training -- not technical support or call center? When does it come in your training program?

I have been requested to develop a CS session for First Day training—literally their first day here. In my view, it’s an inundation of faces and information, and adding to it a 3-hour CS session won’t have the lasting impact. Nor will they be able to associate our values and customs in their role playing (if there is). I don’t see the value in it on the first day, but I am open to how it could be.

No, it isn’t supported by analysis, business alignment, or needs assessment—just told to do it. Obviously you can see I have a hard time with this.

As I prepare my counter to this, and I must deliver on the first day, my thoughts are to relate our values to behaviors that espouse those values and how those values and behaviors create the culture we have and need. Don’t call it CS, rather treating others with respect and dignity.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

Customer service is part of everything. It should be incorporated throughout whatever is happening - whether it's specifically in a class or through coaching or in a meeting or informally by the water cooler. Customer service is internal and external and should be just part and parcel of everything the company does - not just a three hour dump. People will provide the type of service the company wants when the company - particulary leaders - eat, sleep, breath and above all else walk the walk they expect everyone else to demonstrate.

It's time for you to push back and show exactly how/when/where/why learning customer service comes into play. If you're not willing to stand up and do what you know is best/right, well... you get what you pay for.

I have a couple of thoughts on this:

1. It's smart of you to acknowledge that some issues aren't about knowledge or skills (which is what training addresses). If I'm not motivated to provide good service (maybe I don't CARE if you're happy with me or not), then training will fail.

That said, for new employees there is something to be said for "inculcating the culture." An intro training course/orientation can help with that. And that said, you do more damage than if you did nothing if they go through a training course that says "this is what we're all about, our culture is about a commitment to service" and then their immediate experience in the organization (long lines in the cafeteria, having to wait for the copier to be repaired, being put on hold when calling the IT help desk) is inconsistent with that. It creates a disconnect between the message in the orientation and their immediate experience. Effectively, what it says is "we lie. Yep, we do. We officially tell you one thing and do another. And to show you how much we lie, the first things we told you life here in this company (regarding commitment to service) were even lies--we didn't wait to expose you to our deceit, we hit you with it from day one! So whataya think about that?"

If the orientation/training is being set up to change an issue (internal service is bad or just spotty) than it's a terrible idea. If the organization truly has a commitment to service and internal quality is generally outstanding, than the training/orientation isn't necessarily a bad idea. But, you have to make it clear to the powers that be that the training alone won't correct any problems and will definitely make things worse absent any other corrective action. So the conversation needs to be: "okay, if we've got some internal service issues, what's the program to correct that? What process changes are we making? What incentives are we providing? What is the overall program in which my little training component is just one piece of a bigger puzzle?"

2. Take a look at a good performance model. Gilbert's Behavior Engineering Model (the Six Boxes) is a classic. I personally prefer the Sanders-Thiagi model as a more updated one. Both have 6 factors that explain what contributes to good or bad performance by people. Knowledge/skills is just one of the six boxes. You can explain it quickly. But it also quickly hits home to the uninformed that "hey, by doing training, we're ignoring these other 5 factors (like motivation, resources, information, structure/process, etc.)." It helps enable a conversation about how you don't dump this problem on training, how a solution (if there's an internal service problem) is going to require more than just a training class and throwing the training out there first will likely make things worse (b/c you'll be ****ing on your credibility which then makes all the other steps harder. Why should I believe senior management when they say internal service is our new "job one" when the training--which must have been approved by them--was so deceitful? Why should we believe there is any commitment to a real process remapping when the organization obviously doesn't have a clue as to what is going on--based upon what they told us in the training?")

Your instincts on this are in the right place. Good luck!

Joe,

I appreciate your detailed and thoughtful response. I looked at the Sanders-Thiagi model, and lo, your link (ASTD presentation) came up first. Great information. I also looked at the Gilbert model and see where we are slipping in our approach to development. I'm grateful for your input!

Your perception that there might be areas/issues that this would hopefully negate is spot on I feel. That was my concern as well, and part of my 'push back' response, as SSFN's post implored.

I presented my recommendation to put off the CS training and framed it with 21 questions that I needed answered before I could proceed to build a program that would serve our peoples' needs.

I didn't get all answered, but I will work with what I was given.

Thanks again,