SFWIW:
Have just received the following from a Home Depot employee.
-------------------------------------------------------------
"I was told that write ups were going to start on people when
customers don't
reply to survey."
"Home Depot is sure going in the toilet".
"How can we be held accountable for what customers don't want to do".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sounds like a reasonable question to me.
Lew
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> SFWIW:
>
> Have just received the following from a Home Depot employee.
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> "I was told that write ups were going to start on people when
> customers don't
> reply to survey."
>
> "Home Depot is sure going in the toilet".
>
> "How can we be held accountable for what customers don't want to do".
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Sounds like a reasonable question to me.
>
Sounds like an employee on his/her last legs. I have never heard a company
holding employees responsible for customers not filling in surveys
--
PV
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside a dog, it's too
dark to read. - Groucho Marx
Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> SFWIW:
>>
>> Have just received the following from a Home Depot employee.
>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>> "I was told that write ups were going to start on people when
>> customers don't
>> reply to survey."
>>
>> "Home Depot is sure going in the toilet".
>>
>> "How can we be held accountable for what customers don't want to
>> do".
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Sounds like a reasonable question to me.
>>
------------------------------------------
"Mike Marlow" wrote:
> Sounds like a reasonable question, but it also sounds like somebody
> is pulling his leg.
---------------------------------------------------
This is coming from a long time employee who has nothing to either win
or lose,
so doubt it.
Lew
Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> SFWIW:
>>
>> Have just received the following from a Home Depot employee.
>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>> "I was told that write ups were going to start on people when
>> customers don't
>> reply to survey."
>>
>> "Home Depot is sure going in the toilet".
>>
>> "How can we be held accountable for what customers don't want to
>> do".
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Sounds like a reasonable question to me.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"PV" wrote:
> Sounds like an employee on his/her last legs. I have never heard a
> company holding employees responsible for customers not filling in
> surveys
----------------------------------------------------------------
On first read, I might agree with you; however, this is coming from a
long time
employee who has nothing to win or lose.
Have also recently heard some interesting happenings at UPS.
The move is on to have 80% part time employees within 2 years at
Home Depot.
May already be in place at UPS.
This may be phase one of that plan.
Lew
Somebody wrote:
> That's a bit different though. This fellow reports that associates
> will be held accountable if a customer does not complete a survey.
> That's about impossible to enforce.
-------------------------------------------------
Drew Lawson wrote:
> It is blindingly easy to enforce. Modern cash registers have the
> employee sign in. The surveys have a unique code on each receipt.
> When a survey gets filled out, they know who the cashier was. They
> know what store he was in. They may well know what the weather was
> like that day. Data is cheap.
-------------------------------------------------------------
"Mike Marlow" wrote:
> Correct, but it is about impossible to enforce a policy which
> punishes an employee for something they have no control over - such
> as whether a customer completes a survey that is optional for them
> to complete. It has nothing to do with data or logins.
--------------------------------------------------------
According to my sources, that is exactly what is happening.
If you are a cash register clerk; however, there is a solution.
Assemble a quantity of your day's register receipts,
pass them out to your friends and have them take the survey for you.
A few days later, you get an "ATTA BOY" from management for having
soooo--- many surveys submitted; however, data is skewed.
So now you wait for the "AH SHIT" to happen.
This is getting interesting.
Lew
On 9/3/2013 9:35 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>
>>> SFWIW:
>>>
>>> Have just received the following from a Home Depot employee.
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>>> "I was told that write ups were going to start on people when
>>> customers don't
>>> reply to survey."
>>>
>>> "Home Depot is sure going in the toilet".
>>>
>>> "How can we be held accountable for what customers don't want to
>>> do".
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Sounds like a reasonable question to me.
>>>
> ------------------------------------------
> "Mike Marlow" wrote:
>
>> Sounds like a reasonable question, but it also sounds like somebody
>> is pulling his leg.
> ---------------------------------------------------
> This is coming from a long time employee who has nothing to either win
> or lose,
> so doubt it.
"Detroit", AKA progressive politics puts pay to prosperity.
--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
Last year a Taco Bell cashier was telling people to complete the survey
on the back of the receipts. She said she had 5 Ipads left and was
wanting to get rid of them. It is either a misunderstanding on her part
or plain ignorance. Maybe she got reviewed on the time frame or something.
On 9/3/2013 9:58 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> SFWIW:
>
> Have just received the following from a Home Depot employee.
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> "I was told that write ups were going to start on people when
> customers don't
> reply to survey."
>
> "Home Depot is sure going in the toilet".
>
> "How can we be held accountable for what customers don't want to do".
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Sounds like a reasonable question to me.
>
>
> Lew
>
>
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> SFWIW:
>
> Have just received the following from a Home Depot employee.
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> "I was told that write ups were going to start on people when
> customers don't
> reply to survey."
>
> "Home Depot is sure going in the toilet".
>
> "How can we be held accountable for what customers don't want to do".
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Sounds like a reasonable question to me.
>
Sounds like a reasonable question, but it also sounds like somebody is
pulling his leg.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> On first read, I might agree with you; however, this is coming from a
> long time
> employee who has nothing to win or lose.
That just not sound like a Home Depot policy. Who knows though... things do
change. I'll check with people I know who still work there.
>
> The move is on to have 80% part time employees within 2 years at
> Home Depot.
>
The move is most definitely on to part time employees. Severely reduced
hours also. It's all part of Obama Care and an economy that makes it an
employer's market. When I was there, I could get 40 hours and even overtime
if I wanted it. Now it is hard for a part timer to get 20 hours. Hourly
wages are dramatically reduced from what I was making. I know people who
left while I was there, and have recently come back and are getting a lot
less than they previously made, and can't get scheduled for 20 hours on a
regular basis. More part timers in the store, fewer hours for each, lower
wages. Makes for a completely different work experience than what I knew.
I was offered a department head position there recently but declined it.
Retail is not really my gig - my time at HD was more for entertainment
(mine), and stupid money, and not for need. This position would have
required full time status, which means open availability (shitty hours...
all shifts, weekends, holidays, etc.), but the pay is only 2/3 of what I was
making as a Sales Specialist. Crazy.
They really only want Store Managers, Asst Store Managers, and department
heads to be full time - all the rest, part time.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
[email protected] wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 20:15:10 -0600, "PV" <edrnouser@ spam telus.net>
>> Sounds like an employee on his/her last legs. I have never heard a
>> company holding employees responsible for customers not filling in
>> surveys
>
> Sure, it happens all the time. When I worked technical warranty
> support for IBM Thinkpad a few years back, we were continually and
> strongly encouraged to sell solutions to out of warranty customers.
> $35.00 a pop.
>
> If for example a customer wanted to know how to have their laptop boot
> up without having to input a password, that two minute instruction
> cost $35.00
>
> Surveys, just like charging for some online phone support, all
> contribute to the bottom end.
That's a bit different though. This fellow reports that associates will be
held accountable if a customer does not complete a survey. That's about
impossible to enforce.
I suspect it is more likely that HD is telling associates to encourage every
customer to complete a survey, and offering to write the employee up if they
are caught not doing so.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
[email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Sep 2013 06:22:08 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> That's a bit different though. This fellow reports that associates will be
>> held accountable if a customer does not complete a survey. That's about
>> impossible to enforce.
> I guess being 'held accountable' depends on happens when you're held
> accountable. I can see employees being told to encourage a customer to
> fill out the survey. If they don't at least make the attempt then
> they're not doing their jobs in my view.
Half the time when I'm asked to fill out a survey, I'm even told how to
fill it out ("9 or 10 means I'm doing my job"). At least that's what the
man said at Sears. And I had to wait 5 minutes for him to show up to
take my money. I don't fill out surveys as volunteer work.
On 9/4/2013 8:58 AM, Bill wrote:
...
> Half the time when I'm asked to fill out a survey, I'm even told how to
> fill it out ("9 or 10 means I'm doing my job"). At least that's what the
> man said at Sears. And I had to wait 5 minutes for him to show up to
> take my money. I don't fill out surveys as volunteer work.
That's the way I feel when I hand over the CC and then cashier expects
me to do all the entry stuff--I'm the customer, not the clerk... :(
One advantage in small town to make up for the disadvantage of not
having the box stores is that the penchant for the insatiable demand for
the surveys and stuff like it hasn't hit local merchants and still just
do 90% of what do on local open accounts....only the places like the
chain groceries, etc., are pita to deal with.
--
[email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Sep 2013 06:22:08 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> That's a bit different though. This fellow reports that associates
>> will be held accountable if a customer does not complete a survey.
>> That's about impossible to enforce.
>
> I guess being 'held accountable' depends on happens when you're held
> accountable. I can see employees being told to encourage a customer to
> fill out the survey. If they don't at least make the attempt then
> they're not doing their jobs in my view.
Agreed.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
In article <[email protected]>
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>That's a bit different though. This fellow reports that associates will be
>held accountable if a customer does not complete a survey. That's about
>impossible to enforce.
It is blindingly easy to enforce. Modern cash registers have the
employee sign in. The surveys have a unique code on each receipt.
When a survey gets filled out, they know who the cashier was. They
know what store he was in. They may well know what the weather was
like that day. Data is cheap.
Generate reports on survey percentages and ding those who rate low.
No one will rate 100%, of course. 5% would probably be a gold star.
I don't think it is a good idea, but it is a very easy thing to do.
>I suspect it is more likely that HD is telling associates to encourage every
>customer to complete a survey, and offering to write the employee up if they
>are caught not doing so.
If the employee doesn't point out the survey, he will have a 0% rating.
No one searches all their receipts for a chance to take a survey.
It is similar to rating counter workers on how many extras they get
the customer to buy (do you want fries with that?).
--
Drew Lawson | It's not enough to be alive
| when your future's been deferred
On 9/4/13 8:58 AM, Bill wrote:
> Half the time when I'm asked to fill out a survey, I'm even told how to
> fill it out ("9 or 10 means I'm doing my job").
I've been party to that BS before and i generally will not go back.
Any company that puts its employees in a situation where they feel their
only option is to manipulative customers' emotions like that is a
company that deserves to be out of business.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
Drew Lawson wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> That's a bit different though. This fellow reports that associates
>> will be held accountable if a customer does not complete a survey.
>> That's about impossible to enforce.
>
> It is blindingly easy to enforce. Modern cash registers have the
> employee sign in. The surveys have a unique code on each receipt.
> When a survey gets filled out, they know who the cashier was. They
> know what store he was in. They may well know what the weather was
> like that day. Data is cheap.
Correct, but it is about impossible to enforce a policy which punishes an
employee for something they have no control over - such as whether a
customer completes a survey that is optional for them to complete. It has
nothing to do with data or logins.
>
> Generate reports on survey percentages and ding those who rate low.
See how far something like that gets with HR.
>
> No one will rate 100%, of course. 5% would probably be a gold star.
>
> I don't think it is a good idea, but it is a very easy thing to do.
>
Only from a programatic perspective. Not at all easy to do from an HR
perspective.
>
>> I suspect it is more likely that HD is telling associates to
>> encourage every customer to complete a survey, and offering to write
>> the employee up if they are caught not doing so.
>
> If the employee doesn't point out the survey, he will have a 0%
> rating. No one searches all their receipts for a chance to take a
> survey.
>
> It is similar to rating counter workers on how many extras they get
> the customer to buy (do you want fries with that?).
Again - that is completely different from the point that was originally
raised.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 9/4/2013 11:59 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Drew Lawson wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>
>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>> That's a bit different though. This fellow reports that associates
>>> will be held accountable if a customer does not complete a survey.
>>> That's about impossible to enforce.
>>
>> It is blindingly easy to enforce. Modern cash registers have the
>> employee sign in. The surveys have a unique code on each receipt.
>> When a survey gets filled out, they know who the cashier was. They
>> know what store he was in. They may well know what the weather was
>> like that day. Data is cheap.
>
> Correct, but it is about impossible to enforce a policy which punishes an
> employee for something they have no control over - such as whether a
> customer completes a survey that is optional for them to complete. It has
> nothing to do with data or logins.
it's just semantics, but it's really easy to enforce the policy since
the employer has control over the pay of the employee. it's impossible
to make it meaningful to their data collection; either the employee will
do it for the customer, or the customer will ignore it. either way, the
data produced is meaningless.
In article <[email protected]>,
Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
<...snipped...>
>Have also recently heard some interesting happenings at UPS.
>
>The move is on to have 80% part time employees within 2 years at
>Home Depot.
>
>May already be in place at UPS.
>
>This may be phase one of that plan.
>
many industries and businesses, and some government agencies as well, have
been moving in that direction for years. They are able to avoid paying
benefits and other compensation required by various laws for full time
workders.
--
There are no stupid questions, but there are lots of stupid answers.
Larry W. - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org
I've noticed that many of those surveys ask about things that don't really
matter much to me, like "were the lights brighti?", "aisles clean?" (not
really an issue at HD, but maybe in a food market) etc. Very few ask the
hard questions, like "how are our prices?" or (for banks) "Are our fees too
high?"
--
There are no stupid questions, but there are lots of stupid answers.
Larry W. - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org
On 9/4/2013 6:51 PM, Larry W wrote:
> I've noticed that many of those surveys ask about things that don't really
> matter much to me, like "were the lights brighti?", "aisles clean?" (not
> really an issue at HD, but maybe in a food market) etc. Very few ask the
> hard questions, like "how are our prices?" or (for banks) "Are our fees too
> high?"
>
>
I think they are trying to "sell you" (on their strengths) with the
surveys, at least in part. I remember getting that feeling when I
filled out Rockler's (or Woodcraft's) and DeWalts survey--that they were
trying too hard to "convince me" of their "value".
In article <[email protected]>
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> writes:
>Drew Lawson wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>
>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>> That's a bit different though. This fellow reports that associates
>>> will be held accountable if a customer does not complete a survey.
>>> That's about impossible to enforce.
>>
>> It is blindingly easy to enforce. Modern cash registers have the
>> employee sign in. The surveys have a unique code on each receipt.
>> When a survey gets filled out, they know who the cashier was. They
>> know what store he was in. They may well know what the weather was
>> like that day. Data is cheap.
>
>Correct, but it is about impossible to enforce a policy which punishes an
>employee for something they have no control over - such as whether a
>customer completes a survey that is optional for them to complete. It has
>nothing to do with data or logins.
I believe you mean that it is ineffective or unfair, not impossible.
And I would agree.
>> Generate reports on survey percentages and ding those who rate low.
>
>See how far something like that gets with HR.
I used to work on the warehouse control system for a major US grocery
chain. One of the important aspects of several of the components
was collecting and deriving data used as "performance indicators"
-- stuff that decides how much the workers get paid. They'd track
anything they could think of that gave them an excuse to save a
buck.
A major lawn-care company down the road will fire you if you smoke
at home. And they test you to see if you are lying.
HR will go for a lot, especially in a company that is hostile to labor.
I have no idea whether Home Depot is such a company.
>
>>
>> No one will rate 100%, of course. 5% would probably be a gold star.
>>
>> I don't think it is a good idea, but it is a very easy thing to do.
>>
>
>Only from a programatic perspective. Not at all easy to do from an HR
>perspective.
>
>
>>
>>> I suspect it is more likely that HD is telling associates to
>>> encourage every customer to complete a survey, and offering to write
>>> the employee up if they are caught not doing so.
>>
>> If the employee doesn't point out the survey, he will have a 0%
>> rating. No one searches all their receipts for a chance to take a
>> survey.
>>
>> It is similar to rating counter workers on how many extras they get
>> the customer to buy (do you want fries with that?).
>
>Again - that is completely different from the point that was originally
>raised.
No, both are evaluating the employee based on what the customer
decides to do.
>--
>
>-Mike-
>[email protected]
>
>
--
|Drew Lawson | Mrs. Tweedy! |
| | The chickens are revolting! |
Drew Lawson wrote:
>
> I used to work on the warehouse control system for a major US grocery
> chain. One of the important aspects of several of the components
> was collecting and deriving data used as "performance indicators"
> -- stuff that decides how much the workers get paid. They'd track
> anything they could think of that gave them an excuse to save a
> buck.
Sure - that's what they do, but they have to stay within the confines of
fair labor practices - which admitedly has no real definition. Because
these things do end up in court and when they do the company almost always
loses, most HR departments will not condone practices that will ultimately
cost the company money. It is after all, their job to protect the company
from lawsuits, etc. and not to represent the employee. Performance
indicators would fall into the realm of acceptable, but punative practices
against an employee for the actions of a customer completely unrelated to a
customer encounter would be something completely different.
>
> A major lawn-care company down the road will fire you if you smoke
> at home. And they test you to see if you are lying.
Someone is pulling your leg. If they really are doing this, they will end
up in court and will lose. Who is the major lawn care company? They could
fire you for smoking if you attested to being a non-smoker on your company
insurance application and received favorable rates for being a non-smoker,
but that is a completely different matter. In that case you would not be
fired for smoking at home, but for lying on your application.
>
> No, both are evaluating the employee based on what the customer
> decides to do.
>
Incorrect Drew. The original assertion was that a Home Depot employee
reported that if a customer did not complete a survey, the employee was
subject to disciplinary action. That is completely different from anything
you've suggested.
For what it's worth, I did check and this is not a Home Depot policy. There
may be some local derivative of what was originally posted here, but what
was posted here is not HD policy.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
In article <[email protected]>
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> writes:
>Drew Lawson wrote:
>
>> A major lawn-care company down the road will fire you if you smoke
>> at home. And they test you to see if you are lying.
>
>Someone is pulling your leg. If they really are doing this, they will end
>up in court and will lose. Who is the major lawn care company?
Scotts Miracle-Gro.
The policy is well known, and they aren't the only ones.
>They could
>fire you for smoking if you attested to being a non-smoker on your company
>insurance application and received favorable rates for being a non-smoker,
>but that is a completely different matter. In that case you would not be
>fired for smoking at home, but for lying on your application.
The company requires all employees to be non-smokers.
An article from last year:
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/business/2012/11/25/more-employers-demand-applicants-quit-smoking.html
includes:
At Scotts Miracle-Gro, the number of employees who smoke has
dropped from 30 percent to 10 percent since the ban was enacted.
The percentage hasn't dropped to zero because Scotts has operations
in several states that have smoker-protection laws, said spokesman
Lance Latham.
The company was sued over the policy in 2006 by Scott Rodrigues,
who was fired for smoking. His case was dismissed three years
later by a federal judge.
That is the only lawsuit brought against the company, Latham said.
>
>>
>> No, both are evaluating the employee based on what the customer
>> decides to do.
>>
>
>Incorrect Drew. The original assertion was that a Home Depot employee
>reported that if a customer did not complete a survey, the employee was
>subject to disciplinary action. That is completely different from anything
>you've suggested.
How is "customer did not complete a survey" completely different
from "what the customer decides to do"?
I'm not certain what you think I've suggested. I've only said that
evaluating employees based on success at pushing the survey is no
different from evaluating the employee for success at suggesting
meal add-ons.
>For what it's worth, I did check and this is not a Home Depot policy. There
>may be some local derivative of what was originally posted here, but what
>was posted here is not HD policy.
That's good to hear. The company has its flaws, but I would hope
they aren't that stupid.
--
In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the
last resort of the scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened
but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first.
-- Ambrose Bierce
Drew Lawson wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> writes:
>> Drew Lawson wrote:
>>
>>> A major lawn-care company down the road will fire you if you smoke
>>> at home. And they test you to see if you are lying.
>>
>> Someone is pulling your leg. If they really are doing this, they
>> will end up in court and will lose. Who is the major lawn care
>> company?
>
> Scotts Miracle-Gro.
> The policy is well known, and they aren't the only ones.
So it seems, after a quick google search. I stand corrected on that point.
How the world changes...
>>
>> Incorrect Drew. The original assertion was that a Home Depot
>> employee reported that if a customer did not complete a survey, the
>> employee was subject to disciplinary action. That is completely
>> different from anything you've suggested.
>
> How is "customer did not complete a survey" completely different
> from "what the customer decides to do"?
>
> I'm not certain what you think I've suggested. I've only said that
> evaluating employees based on success at pushing the survey is no
> different from evaluating the employee for success at suggesting
> meal add-ons.
Correct - but that is evaluation of a task assigned which is within the
control of the employee. A reasonable expectation. What had been reported
here is that Home Depot was threatening to write up employees if customers
did not complete some survey. That is an entirely different thing. Pushing
a survey is one thing but it is something entirely different to hold an
employee responsible for a survey that a customer completes in the privacy
of their own home, after visiting a Home Depot, on-line. Or even in the
store for that matter.
If a company rewards employees for achieving levels of customer surveys,
that is one thing. It is something completely different if they punish
employees when customers do not complete the survey.
>
>> For what it's worth, I did check and this is not a Home Depot
>> policy. There may be some local derivative of what was originally
>> posted here, but what was posted here is not HD policy.
>
> That's good to hear. The company has its flaws, but I would hope
> they aren't that stupid.
Amen.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
In article <[email protected]>
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> writes:
>Drew Lawson wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>
>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>> Incorrect Drew. The original assertion was that a Home Depot
>>> employee reported that if a customer did not complete a survey, the
>>> employee was subject to disciplinary action. That is completely
>>> different from anything you've suggested.
>>
>> How is "customer did not complete a survey" completely different
>> from "what the customer decides to do"?
>>
>> I'm not certain what you think I've suggested. I've only said that
>> evaluating employees based on success at pushing the survey is no
>> different from evaluating the employee for success at suggesting
>> meal add-ons.
>
>Correct - but that is evaluation of a task assigned which is within the
>control of the employee. A reasonable expectation. What had been reported
>here is that Home Depot was threatening to write up employees if customers
>did not complete some survey. That is an entirely different thing.
How would you evaluate "success at pushing the survey," which you
agreed with above, if not based on whether the customer participates
in the survey?
>Pushing
>a survey is one thing but it is something entirely different to hold an
>employee responsible for a survey that a customer completes in the privacy
>of their own home, after visiting a Home Depot, on-line. Or even in the
>store for that matter.
>
>If a company rewards employees for achieving levels of customer surveys,
>that is one thing. It is something completely different if they punish
>employees when customers do not complete the survey.
They are different ends of the same stick. You reward the employee
by assigning hours, while the non-rewarded employee has few or none.
You reward the employee with a pay increase, while the non-rewarded
employee keeps a pay rate that falls behind inflation.
Anyway, I entered this because you were claiming that using survey
metrics in employee evaluations was impossible. I believe all that
can be said on that claim has been said.
--
Drew Lawson I had planned to be dead by now, but
the schedule slipped, they do that.
-- Casady
Drew Lawson wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> writes:
>> Drew Lawson wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>
>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>
>>>> Incorrect Drew. The original assertion was that a Home Depot
>>>> employee reported that if a customer did not complete a survey, the
>>>> employee was subject to disciplinary action. That is completely
>>>> different from anything you've suggested.
>>>
>>> How is "customer did not complete a survey" completely different
>>> from "what the customer decides to do"?
>>>
>>> I'm not certain what you think I've suggested. I've only said that
>>> evaluating employees based on success at pushing the survey is no
>>> different from evaluating the employee for success at suggesting
>>> meal add-ons.
>>
>> Correct - but that is evaluation of a task assigned which is within
>> the control of the employee. A reasonable expectation. What had
>> been reported here is that Home Depot was threatening to write up
>> employees if customers did not complete some survey. That is an
>> entirely different thing.
>
> How would you evaluate "success at pushing the survey," which you
> agreed with above, if not based on whether the customer participates
> in the survey?
Direct observation. That is the only reasonable way to measure this. To
rely upon the response rate of the customer is at best, very inaccurate.
>
>> Pushing
>> a survey is one thing but it is something entirely different to hold
>> an employee responsible for a survey that a customer completes in
>> the privacy of their own home, after visiting a Home Depot, on-line.
>> Or even in the store for that matter.
>>
>> If a company rewards employees for achieving levels of customer
>> surveys, that is one thing. It is something completely different if
>> they punish employees when customers do not complete the survey.
>
> They are different ends of the same stick. You reward the employee
> by assigning hours, while the non-rewarded employee has few or none.
> You reward the employee with a pay increase, while the non-rewarded
> employee keeps a pay rate that falls behind inflation.
>
You are missing the point. Neither of those is a direct punative action.
Those are both quite different from writing an employee up. They may result
in the same thing in terms of pay raise, but the write up has the added
weight of counting towards termination actions, for cause.
>
> Anyway, I entered this because you were claiming that using survey
> metrics in employee evaluations was impossible. I believe all that
> can be said on that claim has been said.
I believe I said something more like nearly impossible, or the likes. I
didn't think I was as absolute as you are stating - but I haven't gone back
to look at my own words so I'm not even sure myself. In reality, they are
impossible to use in any meaningful way since the employee has no control
over the outcome. Even if he/she pushes the survey, there is no control
over the customer's decision. Furthermore, there is no way to understand
why the customer failed to complete a survey - it could have been over some
issues the customer has with the store, despite their wishes to otherwise
help out an employee. Saying that it is impossible to use in any meaningful
way is not the same as saying it can't be done - of course it can be done,
the store simply decides to do it. It's still impossible to measure what
that response rate indicates, simply by the rate itself.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
In article <[email protected]>,
PV <edrnouser@ spam telus.net> wrote:
>
>Sounds like an employee on his/her last legs. I have never heard a company
>holding employees responsible for customers not filling in surveys
I find it completely plausible, but probably localized.
Corporate decides it needs survey data to decide where to
allocate resources next year. Some stores aren't returning
enough completed surveys. Corporate nags the managers of
those stores to get the surveys in. Managers chew out the
supervisors. Supervisors threaten employees.
I expect stuff like that happens all the time. At one store
once, I had an employee tell me he faced disciplinary action
if I didn't give all 5's on my customer satisfaction card.
--
-Ed Falk, [email protected]
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/
On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 20:15:10 -0600, "PV" <edrnouser@ spam telus.net>
>Sounds like an employee on his/her last legs. I have never heard a company
>holding employees responsible for customers not filling in surveys
Sure, it happens all the time. When I worked technical warranty
support for IBM Thinkpad a few years back, we were continually and
strongly encouraged to sell solutions to out of warranty customers.
$35.00 a pop.
If for example a customer wanted to know how to have their laptop boot
up without having to input a password, that two minute instruction
cost $35.00
Surveys, just like charging for some online phone support, all
contribute to the bottom end.
On Wed, 4 Sep 2013 06:22:08 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>That's a bit different though. This fellow reports that associates will be
>held accountable if a customer does not complete a survey. That's about
>impossible to enforce.
I guess being 'held accountable' depends on happens when you're held
accountable. I can see employees being told to encourage a customer to
fill out the survey. If they don't at least make the attempt then
they're not doing their jobs in my view.