Originally Posted by
ORD4R
Well I have seen the training materials and was involved in the training. A key element of the training is compliance with process and procedure. What is missing is empowerment for employees to satisfy customers. They want to limit what the customer facing staff do and create a standardized response in all situations.
The metrics are focused on operational items, not customer satisfaction and certainly not on making exceptions in unusual situations to achieve customer satisfaction.
Originally Posted by
fly18725
Isn't consistency important to people too? How do you find the right balance between creating a consistent experience and empowering employees?
Originally Posted by
fastair
/agree page 6 of the investor day pdf
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External...RJRD01MjYwODI=
lists "invetsing in tools and recurring training for our employees, creating customer service standards, measuring employee service against standards to increase accountability, empowering and listening to our employees, and reaching responsible joint collect bargaining agreements."
Most of the training is automated, not interactive, basicly clicking thru a pdf (not a good way to learn,) the "accountability" part is true, the number of employees called in for making empowerment decisions to solve a problem quickly has resulted in magnituteds of increases in employee discipline. I've seen no new empowerment or feedback channels where an employee can feed ideas up the chain of command, rather, I've seen less front line ideas being listened to. The collective bargaining agreements are very responsible. Take a cost neutral contract or we will outsource you to the least costly bidder.
That is the "working together culture"?
Interesting to see this, and I am not surprised. When people are called to task for not exactly following procedure, and doing what the computer tells them to so, you get 90 yo pearl harbor survivors bumped (PR fiasco) and find yourself listed as the third worst company in America for "customer loyalty" with TV presenters on CNBC talking about how they are trying to avoid flying United as its so horrible.
Basically Jeff has taken procedures that work in a company with low transaction costs and captive markets (e.g. an electric utility, the cable company) and tried to use them in a world where there is competition for 90% of sales, and heavy competition for the high value sales you really want. And the 10% where there is no competition are either hub captive or tied into the FF program, which by the way UAL is slashing allowing some of those folks to move on.
Expect a further drop in yield relative to AA/DL in Jan-March, and worse financial results.
Fly, since you think these type of policies (tying employee hands and punishing them for fixing issues outside of the set policies) are working, I would wonder what support you have for this view. Note that Anderson over a year ago set a goal of reducing complaints to DOT by half, and got there (and much better customer satisfaction scores) by expressly giving agents the ability to fix problems and make exceptions without fear of getting in trouble. Basically UAL is doing the opposite of what DAL did...