Recently my wife and her girlfriend spent 2 days a very popular spa St. Anne’s Country Inn and Spa. It primarily caters to women, although men and couples are also welcome. This has been a yearly ritual for these 2 ladies — a chance for a little personal “me” time — to get away from kids and responsibilities with a good friend.

Overall the visit was very enjoyable — but one particular experience raised an interesting question.

When she went for one of the treatments, she discovered the person administering the treatment was a male. She was surprised to find herself in a state of near undress while a male administered the treatment — without being asked if that was okay with her. The session was professional in all regards and she reported the quality of his work was also excellent.

However, that nagging discomfort of not being asked if she was alright with the situation remained.

Upon reviewing the website she discovered the following prominently displayed under their FAQ section

SPECIAL REQUESTS FOR THERAPISTS
Ste. Anne’s Spa employs both male and female professionally trained therapists. We are committed to the principle of Employment Equity, which means we will provide equal treatment in employment and will not discriminate on the basis of race, colour, religion, or creed, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, physical handicap, age, ethnic origin, or political belief, or other grounds prohibited by Provincial or Federal Legislation. Therefore to protect the rights of our employees we are unable to accommodate any special requests for therapists.

While the spa may have the best intentions for their employees — which is a good thing — where exactly does this policy consider the customer?

My wife is not a prude in any way — but not having the opportunity to indicate whether she was comfortable with a male attendant seemed very odd. It certainly didn’t make her feel like a “valued” customer. This policy seems out of alignment with their own brand promise as taken from the front page of their own website.

Far too many of us neglect what our body and spirits need most: relaxation, revitalization and a chance to heal from the intensity of our daily routines. Ste. Anne’s philosophy focuses on creating an atmosphere to help rebuild your strength, recapture your energy, and reflect on what’s truly important in your life.

After all, it would be very hard to relax and enjoy a session if you were uncomfortable with the person administering the treatment — regardless of whether you or I agree with their reasons.

Yet the spa has taken the position that the customer has no choice. Shouldn’t a paying customer have some input. Shouldn’t they have the option to decline service from a male if they were uncomfortable.

What if she had been someone with strong religious beliefs, or possibly overweight, or potentially having had surgery — possibly a mastectomy. All of these might have caused significant embarrassment or discomfort to the patron to have their treatment performed by a male.

One the other hand — some women would love the idea .

The spa may not be prepared to have guests request certain employees — but surely deciding on a male versus female should not be out of order.

My Perspective: First it is a strange policy to place so prominently on the website. This suggested that it has been an issue in the past — possibly certain therapists were more “in demand” than others which led to scheduling difficulties or disappointment by returning customers that their favourite therapist wasn’t available.

But isn’t that the job of every great employee — to build loyalty by creating a service experience that causes customers to request them by name.

Wouldn’t it be better to “recognize” great employees that have encouraged customer loyalty and then train those who need support achieving the higher service level.

This policy seems to be going in another direction entirely and definitely isn’t “on-brand”. Maybe I am missing something — but this policy is focused on the organization and doesn’t inspire employee excellence or customer loyalty.

A bad policy to start — and it sets a tone for how customers are viewed by the organization across the entire experience. Is it “on-brand” or “off-brand”?

Do you have any policies that aren’t focused on the customer and aligned with your brand promise?

Last week I tried to get a replacement part for my stationary bike. One of the end caps from the handle bars had cracked and needed to be replaced…

First, I called the local store. They didn’t have any and instructed me to call their central service department number.

The service department indicated that because the bike was not a current model, I needed to get the part from the US manufacturer – Vision Fitness. They provided the hotline number.

I called the Hotline and sat on hold for 15-20 minutes before getting a live person. They were very helpful and indicated that the replacement part would cost $0.78 USD. They proceeded to get my mailing address for shipment.

They then indicated that it would be mailed at a cost of $10.00 USD.

When I asked why a $0.78 plastic part was going to cost $10.00 to ship I was told “that’s our minimum shipment cost”. The cost didn’t reflect the weight — it was a minimum charge for them to send out any part.

I had already invested thousands of dollars to purchase their machine. I guess the figured they already had my money and what was the likelyhood of me purchasing a second stationary bike.

Well the part wasn’t that critical and I had already spent too much time on the issue, so I decided to forget about it and just live with a cracked end cap.

What initially seemed like a minor issue was no longer worth the trouble.

My Perspective: A customer-focused organization anticipates situations like this and would simply offer to put a part like this in the mail. The fact that they have a minimum charge indicates that their first concern is their own profitability — not the customer. They will only make the customer happy if it first serves their profit motive.

We should ask ourselves whether our policies are addressing our employees and customers needs — or simply acting as barrier to providing exceptional customer service.

Recently I upgraded my cell phone. It seemed like a simple enough process — until it was time to have the phone delivered.

After a positive telephone experience with the representative who placed the order, I was told the new phone would be delivered usually within 3 – 5 business days.

On day 5 I decided to follow up and find out what was happening since I was going to out of town for a couple days. The adventures began.

When I called my service provider to find out the status , they indicated that the product had been back-ordered and was just now back in stock – but they did not know when it was to be delivered. They offered me a number where I could track the order.

So I called this number — where they informed me that; 1) the phone had not been shipped and, 2) there was a problem with the order so they couldn’t tell me when it was shipped.

When I inquired about the problem with the order, they indicated it was a technical issue on their end and they were working on it. Apparently a number of orders did not get process correctly and they were working to fix the “glitch”.

I indicated that while I was certainly sympathetic to their technical issues, I was more interested in when my order would be shipped now that they had identified that there was a problem. They indicated that they were working on the technical issue.

As you might guess I asked to speak to someone else — a Supervisor perhaps? This person confirmed the fact that there was a technical issue, but also indicated that they had identified which orders were affected and that they were hand packaging these orders and they should be out within a couple days. They suggested that I call back after 3 days if I had still not received my phone.

My Perspective: This lack of transparency left me feeling unloved and unappreciated as a customer.

This organization could have saved both money and customer goodwill by simply being proactive and sending a message to me informing me of the issue. After all, they certainly had my email address — I was one of their customers.

Instead they stuck their head in the sand and tried to hide the problem.

Even if only a small per cent of customers called with enquiries, an email to all affected customers would have avoided the phone calls and the resultant cost. They clearly anticipated the calls since the CSRs were given the update — but the CSRs were not given enough detail to actually provide a clear answer.

One of the key drivers of customer loyalty is transparency. The feeling that you understand what is going on and can trust the company to treat you fairly. When you hide the truth — you lose credibility and customer trust. An easy first step to losing the customer.

Possibly more important, it sends a clear signal to your employees about how you will treat them as employees. Neither situation bodes well for a high performing organization

By the way, my new phone arrived 2 days later as promised. I’m still trying figure out all the new features

I recently submitted an article to one of the online publishing sites. It was rejected for broaching their rule of using company names in the content.

I used the spelling “excelerate” versus the correct spelling — accelerate — since I have trademarked the term Performance Excelerator^TM. I always use this spelling. It is part of my brand.

But because the term Performance Excelerator is trademarked in my author signature they rejected this spelling.

The publisher wants to avoid self promotion within their articles and maintain the integrity of the article content and their site. All appropriate objectives that most authors are very happy to follow — including myself.

I wrote and explained it was the spelling I always used and not to do so would be inconsistent with my branding.

I was not promoting my company name (Bill Hogg & Associates), nor was I drawing attention to the specific word for promotional purposes through bolding. It was just spelled differently in line with my trademarked name The Performance Excelerator.

While I hoped they would see the reason why this guideline should be waived in my case, I recognized the reasoning behind their guideline and was willing to forego publishing the article rather than use the correct spelling.

Upon review, they published the article based on this special circumstance.

My Perspective: Even a rule that is in place for all the right reasons may need to be broken given certain circumstances. Having a guideline that is based on an outcome that is widely understood allowed someone in the organization to make a decision based on the specific circumstance.

Are your rules supported by clear guidelines that provide guidance if a unique circumstance arises that isn’t covered by the rules?

 Staples had a sale on computer remotes. Regular price $74.99, on sale for $19.99 — a $50.00 savings. I already had one, but at that price, it made sense to get a back-up.

I dropped by on the way home — unfortunately I arrived at 5 minutes past closing time. The doors were open, people were shopping and cash registers were open.

However, I was denied entrance. I asked if I could enter, explaining that I was there to pick up a specific item and that I knew exactly where it was located. No deal. The young man at the door had his orders. No one was allowed in after closing time.

I didn’t get my back-up remote. They lost the goodwill of a customer.

Which was worse?

My Perspective: This is a perfect example of the need for guidelines versus rules. It is difficult for rules to be flexible. But guidelines allow for real people to make decisions based on specific circumstances. Why was this employee not empowered to make a simple call on an issue?

Frequently I have discussions with clients that are based on a specific issue that has arisen. My advice is always to avoid creating a rule that will fix that issue — but to look for the guideline that would have prevented the issue.

Then you either need to create a guideline that will avoid numerous similar issues — or communicate the existing guideline better so people know how to work within it. We usually agree that communication and training is the issue versus creating a new guideline.

So the next time an issue arises and you are thinking about creating a rule — stop, and look for the root cause and focus your efforts there.

Do you need a new guideline — or do you just need to communicate the existing guidelines better?

By the way — I did get the remote — my wife was kind enough to drop by the next day and pick one up. But Staples never regained their goodwill.