The act's on, the smile's off

I am astounded by the methods chosen to modify behaviour. Its always the easiest route that's taken. Coercion backed by bureaucratic authority seems to be the pet method. Does it bear desired results? In the short run yes, but what's forgotten is that the act always ends up in a losing trade-off.

Let me explain. Can bureaucratic threats get employees to 'commit' to what's expected of them? Sure it can. But then when a 'volunteer needed' scenario arises, guess how many hands go up? My hospitality days taught me this well. I could as a manager get employees to serve a customer. After all, that's what's expected of them. But could I get them to serve with a smile via the coercive route? Nope. Its almost like the volunteering thing. In a bureaucratic environment, when employees get a chance to hold back, they will. Its their way of levelling out the coercion they've experienced.

The best places for consumers will be those where the provider hasn't taken the coercive route to service. Such places will sport warm smiles, and breed proactive employees. Which in turn is what will engineer consumer loyalty towards the provider. Sadly, such places are rarities.


Remember the easier route I talked about. That's why.


Popular Posts