I’ll start this by saying I worked for a billion dollar company for 8 years. They are still quite successful. One thing I admired most about them was the way they conducted their business relationships.
In a nutshell, it was an equal partnership.
Deals were made, promises made, and if difficulties arose, the one thing the company would never do was lean on the employees to “make” an unmakeable deadline. They preferred that the product (in this case software) shipped was solidly tested, though maybe having 90% of promised capability, something they could stand by, rather than put out a so-called complete product that didn’t have the company’s complete confidence. They would quickly follow up with a revision that fulfilled the original requirements. It was always a relaxed atmosphere.
Never, never would a whip be cracked. It seemed unpressured employees produced better product.
This always seemed to me to be the correct, modern way to conduct business.
So now I find myself in a different company where it seems like the clock has been turned back 30 years (IMO). Only management gets bonuses and they seem to be derived from customers getting their products on the dates originally promised; no ifs ands or buts.
I find it no surpise that this is NOT a billion dollar company; though it easily could be.
I’d love to hear from those of you out there in the management side of things and
tell me how your place runs; if you think my 1st company has the right idea; if you feel trapped by your corporate culture.
Does your new company ship crap to customers to make deadlines? Do managers’ bonuese depend only on deadlines, not on trouble reports? Managers (and everyone) do what they get compensated to do.
What do you mean by “lean on?” Even very good companies go through times when people work extra in order to make deadlines. The telling factor is whether the schedules get set so this doesn’t happen the entire course of the project, and it is considered special, not normal - in other words, is project staffing set so that normal hours are required usually, or so that everyone works overtime all the time. (It seems that at least some video game companies work this way.)
You might be interested in reading Bob Colwell’s book about design the Pentium Pro The Pentium Chronicles. He discusses a lot of these issues. I have some inside knowledge of this area, and every word he speaks is the truth.
The OP seems to be suggesting that any company that bends over backward to please customers, abuses its employees to meet that goal. I don’t buy that correlation.
What is evident is that a firm that prioritizes employee satisfaction over customer satisfaction is less likely to stay in business than a company with those priorities reversed.
Jack, that’s not necessarily true. Companies that prioritize employee satisfaction, not necessarily over customer satisfaction, but as an important aspect of the firm, will be able to recruit and retain the best and most motivated employees, and should be able to meet or exceed client expectations. When one reaches a certain level (like, say, my level), a prospective employer’s corporate environment is part of the entire package I consider when deciding whether to accept an offer.
Certainly having employees who love the company is great, and important for success in some business models.
Right now though I am dealing with a company that sent me a defective unusable item and sent a replacement item in even worse shape. Another firm is denying me a promised refund. They could have a wonderfully relaxed environment for their employees (for all I know), but it matters little to me at this point. I’d rather try one of their many competitors.
My main point is that a company is more likely to succeed if customer satisfaction is its overriding goal, and that having such a goal needn’t signify that employees are abused to reach it.
The OP never mentioned customer satisfaction. He said that his current employer gets products to the customers on time - not that the products are good, work, or meet the customer’s requirements. Thus my questions.
In any case, I think satisfied employees make for satisfied customers. A stressed unhappy employee makes mistakes, or has a bad attitude when dealing with customers, or feels he or she is not empowered to solve problems.
My husband is in management. He works for the state, not a private comapny, and has problems with bosses who demand the impossible. He has to pass that on to his subordinates, though he hates it just as much as they do. I wouldn’t blame my bosses directly, if I were you, because they’re likely not the ones who came up with all of the stupidity-- they’re just forced to make you guys do it.
I think the problem arises from upper management who never worked in “the trenches” so they have no idea what really goes into daily operations. Adding “one little thing” seems simple to them because they’ve never had to deal with the kind of headaches it generates.
Well, that’s not true of the (small)Canadian airline industry. WestJet, known for treating it’s employees very well, having excellent compensation packages, corporate environment, etc consistantly records profitable years.
AirCanada, which is known for being a bunch of loonie assholes who treat their employees like crap have been bailed out by the federal govt about 10 times now, just to spiral the bowl 2 or 3 years later.
QuikTrip (yeah, nitpicky, sorry :)) is an excellent example of this. If you look closely at the menu on their homepage, you’ll see that they stress the working environment they provide over the products they sell. Their employees are happy which translates to happy customers. They are by far the busiest convenience stores I have ever come across, yet they also have by far the friendliest and fastest moving employees I have ever come across. For some companies, their most important product is their employees, and making them happy makes everyone happy.
You can’t judge a thread by its title. Say the OP’s employers consider customer satisfaction equivalent to shipping software on time. They may convince themselves the entire company is focused on customer satisfaction, but I contend they’re going to have unhappy customers and unhappy employees - and not last long. I’m interested in hearing what they really think.
Really? The first paragraph on that page talks about the products/services they offer. The paragraph below it mentions a positive job environment as an employee recruiting tool.
Nowhere does it say that employee satisfaction is QuikTrip’s #1 priority.
If I had a choice between buying stuff at convenience store A and store B, all other things being equal I’d prefer shopping at store A if the clerks were markedly friendlier and more helpful than the clerks at store B.* On the other hand, if store A didn’t have the things I wanted and prices were 20% higher, I could give a rat’s ass if they had happy happy employees.
*In real life, of course, I’d want to buy most of this stuff at the supermarket or big box store where I didn’t get ripped off by convenience store prices.
Did you look at the menu, as I noted? There is a single menu choice that is highlighted (actually it’s circled and has the word “Excellent” below it).
The examples show that you don’t have to have limited inventory and 20% higher prices to have happy employees. Hell, QuikTrip wouldn’t even give into Coke or Pepsi’s monopoly deals that most businesses do to save some tiny percent, and sells the products of both companies.
You earlier stated:
My main point is that a company that has a goal of employee satisfaction needn’t signify that the customers are abused to reach it. It’s quite possible to have both, and many of us are arguing that having happy customers is actually more likely with happy employees first. Your rebuttal with WalMart really doesn’t do the trick, as they don’t have a lot of happy folks on either side of the register. Plenty of people shop there and work there, but I wouldn’t say they do so happily.
This does not remotely support your contention that “they stress the working environment they provide over the products they sell.” If the website menu is all you want to focus on, check out the “About” section. The first four paragraphs are all about what the company has to offer customers.
I don’t own or run a company. If I did, I’d want satisfied customers and content, fairly treated employees. If I found that someone working for me was making snide comments about the obsolete business model of “kissing the customers’ ass”, I’d evaluate whether I really needed to have someone like that as an employee.
I’m not very familiar with the software industry, but I strongly suspect that in today’s business climate, a firm that commits to and succeeds in delivering 100% of what it promises at the expense of a moderately stressful working environment, will in general have an advantage over a similar firm that settles for delivering 90% of what it promises while having a happier workforce.
Actually, I don’t think they care more about the employee than the customer, I think they care equally about both. I said they care more about the employee than the products they sell. Their corporate philosophy is to keep both customers and employees extremely satisfied, and they leverage the hell out of it in both directions.
The initial rebuttal was to your statement that having happy customers but unhappy employees would be better than the other way around. I’ll be the first to admit that QuikTrip wants both happy, but they’re an example of why neither side has to be compromised.
I am in the software business, and that’s not how it works. Stressed out employees may very well deliver 100% of the features that marketing requires, and they might do it under an insane timeline. What they won’t do under those circumstances is deliver a solid product.
Not at all. WalMart is certainly a successful business model, but that doesn’t mean that it couldn’t change its model and still be just as successful or more so.
It really depends on the product or service you provide and the type of people and customers you have.
The first thing I would do is hire the type of people who do whatever it takes to get the job done. Not the type of people who clockwatch and bitch about working past 5.
Secondly, your customers are at least as important as your employees as they are the ones who pay you. You need to work with your customers to set realistic deadlines and manage your project teams to those deadlines. I prefer honest management to those who BS their way through with wishful thinking.
A general management axiom is you can delivery quality quickly and cheaply but not all three. If you want fast and quality it wont be cheap and if you want fast and cheap, it will be of poor quality.
Clients have needs and there are market realities that don’t necessarily allow you to deliver when you please. You need to build your company in such a way as to manage to those deadlines in a sustainable way. Sometimes your people will have to work long hours. But they can’t work them indefinitely or they will leave.
OP here, sorry I haven’t had a chance to chime in since yesterday.
This quote is dead on, and my old company understood it well. I’m not so sure about this one.
The old firm would never allow itself to be “bullied” by a customer. I can’t think of another term to describe the relationship other than as equals.
The current firm, if faced with a looming schedule crisis; instead of being trying a dialog with the customer, has sometimes shot itself in the foot by making further promises with shorter time frames.
But really my question (and some have answered it to some degree), was whether your “successful” company uses the “equality” relationship with customers more than the “bend-over” relationship.
I want to believe that the bend-overs are a dying breed as well thet should.
I’ve worked for more than the two firms I’ve mentioned, and some of the others definitely fell into the “bend-over” catagory and they seemed riddled with inefficiency.
