“Employee First Means Customer First”
“Customer first” is a recurring concept in contemporary business parlance. It is the current business mantra. Virtually every board room strategy crafts an elaborate customer focus and blows this down the corporate funnel. Week in and out, you have myriad activities and projects aimed at solidifying this “Customer first” philosophy company-wide. Could an “employee-first” philosophy be the real deal after all? How can conventional wisdom be turned around?
Fred Reichheld from Net Promoter Score says that “You can’t have happily engaged customers without happy, engaged customer-facing employees”. I agree with this assertion because, in reality, employees are the main factor behind customer experience, whether we are talking about the experience of using a service such as a hotel room or the experience from driving a state of the art SUV.
Why is an “employee-first” philosophy better?
Many who think about the “employee first, customer second” management philosophy have Vineet Nayar in mind. Nayar, the famous HCL Technologies CEO, professes that an organization's asset base is its employees' talent and creativity (Nayar, 2010).
Employees give meaning and life to boardroom vision. Employees translate broad and complex strategies into an everyday smile or service to the customer. It is fair to say that the relationship between superb customer experience and employee engagement is almost inseparable.
Employee Engagement
Gallup statistics suggest that only about 30 percent of the American workers are engaged at work. This means lost productivity of over $500 billion yearly on absenteeism, workplace accidents, and increased health care costs. Employees provide the best service when they are engaged. In this case, employee engagement goes far beyond perks. Genuine employee engagement is a unique relationship that an employee shares with an employer, facilitated by company culture. Ultimately, employee engagement should make employees feel as entitled to the business as shareholders and C-suit managers.Nowadays, the employee is less a malleable resource for the company and more a mobile investor of his or her human capital.Nowadays, the employee is less a malleable resource for the company and more a mobile investor of his or her human capital.Nowadays, the employee is less a malleable resource for the company and more a mobile investor of his or her human capital.Nowadays, the employee is less a malleable resource for the company and more a mobile investor of his or her human capital.Nowadays, the employee is less a malleable resource for the company and more a mobile investor of his or her human capital.Nowadays, the employee is less a malleable resource for the company and more a mobile investor of his or her human capital.
What is the difference between treating employees as assets and as investors?
The decision on whether to treat employees as assets or investors lies within the company's talent philosophy and its market realities. The most popular view of employees in contemporary management theory is that of being an asset.
A glance at several company statements, management books, and articles is sufficient to solidify this view. However, nowadays, the employee is less a malleable resource for the company and more a mobile investor of his or her human capital (Gratton & Ghoshal, 2003).
Treating employees as investors is a way of recognizing their ability to critically affect the survival of a company wherein the focus is on establishing a mutually beneficial relationship between the employee and the company. Through this, the company recognizes the investment of the employee, such as time, talent, energy. and works to secure a proper return on that investment such as salaries, bonuses, retirement benefits, enabling a working environment for growth and development. (Phillips & Gully, 2015).
On the other hand, viewing employees as assets sets the tone for an environment where employees need to be “managed” like factors of production with a cost ticket. In such companies, talent is acquired and deployed as cheaply and as quickly as possible all in a bid to keep “costs” low (Phillips & Gully, 2015).
Treating employees as investors is a way of recognizing their ability to critically affect the survival of a company. Companies whose business activities do not require a high level of skill (such as many service firms like customer service, tourism, retail sales), or in which employee turnover will not be detrimental to the cost outlay of the company can pursue an asset-based low-cost strategy. On the contrary, companies requiring high levels of skill and new product development, such as technology firms, research firms, and automobile manufacturers, will need to do more than managing costs; thus, an investor-based talent philosophy will be more suitable (Phillips & Gully, 2015).
The Employee as a Critical Factor
Plans, structures, programs, and systems are not self-actuating; they can only be implemented, maintained, and realized through people. What is the difference between treating employees as assets and as investors?
The decision on whether to treat employees as assets or investors lies within the talent philosophy of the company and its market realities. The most popular view of employees in contemporary management theory is that of being an asset. A glance at several company statements, management books, and articles is sufficient to solidify this view. However, nowadays, the employee is less a malleable resource for the company and more a mobile investor of his or her human capital (Gratton & Ghoshal, 2003).
Treating employees as investors is a way of recognizing their ability to critically affect the survival of a company wherein the focus is on establishing a mutually beneficial relationship between the employee and the company. Through this, the company recognizes the investment of the employee, such as time, talent, energy. and works to secure a proper return on that investment such as salaries, bonuses, retirement benefits, enabling a working environment for growth and development. (Phillips & Gully, 2015).
On the other hand, viewing employees as assets sets the tone for an environment where employees need to be “managed” like factors of production with a cost ticket. In such companies, talent is acquired and deployed as cheaply and as quickly as possible all in a bid to keep “costs” low (Phillips & Gully, 2015).
The most carefully formulated plans, the most logical organization structure, the most sophisticated marketing programs, and the most advanced automated manufacturing systems will not, of themselves, ensure an institution’s success. Plans, structures, programs, and systems are not self-actuating; they can only be implemented, maintained, and realized through people (Caruth, Caruth, & Pane, 2009).
Those who make up for the most energizing force behind the development of an organization are no doubt the people. Lacking in qualified human resources, and in the right proportion, at the right place, and at the right time, would mean that organizational goals and objectives will not be reached. Even when systems are totally or partially computerized or coated with high technology, people are still needed to get these machines going, be it through maintenance, use, and making critical decisions (Caruth, Caruth, & Pane, 2009).
People are still needed to be there for customers through excellent customer service, engage in opportunity spotting by soliciting new accounts despite the high level of computerization nowadays. Increasingly today, the degree of success that any institution enjoys is directly dependent upon the competence of human resources provided through the staffing process. Only through effective staffing can an organization expect to fulfill its mission and achieve its goals (Caruth, Caruth, & Pane, 2009). It requires much work to be able to craft out an organization’s reputation in society. For an organization to be noted for good work, quality service, and professionalism, it surely has to be backed by a robust talent pool (Kalakeri, 2014).
Despite all this, many managers still undervalue or misunderstand the value of the individuals that work for the company and focus narrowly on costs. There are certainly direct costs involved in managing the staffing system, the most significant of which is an employee’s salary and benefits, but you also have indirect costs such as loss of productivity; the expense associated with other staffers’ recruitment, hiring, and recovery time; and the often considerable expenses of training a new employee for his assigned post (Lahey, 2015).
The Stakes
The stakes involved in managing staffing systems strategically are high and go to show how important it is for a balanced approach to be adopted. Such a balance weighs between making long-term investments and achieving short term goals (Phillips & Gully, 2015).
Numerous scientific studies prove that despite high costs, highly talented workers almost always outperform lower talent by a considerable margin of 85 percent to 127 percent in various industry sectors (Phillips & Gully, 2015). Making investments in the staffing process can lead to financial returns for the company in terms of higher performance and productivity for the company, a pool of talented future leaders, lower training costs, lower turnover and so on.
Conclusion
It is worth noting that investing in strategic staffing overall would be a good thing and would make good business sense. Talent management is a critical force for any organization. It makes a difference in the success or failure of most organizations. In the current economic climate, critical talent is in demand. The hunt for talent has never been more intense and complicated and organizations must find ways to acquire the best talent and develop essential skills internally as well (Phillips & Phillips, 2015).
By engaging in strategic staffing where the employee is the first asset, you are ultimately serving your customers through a superb experience with your product or service.
References
Caruth, D. L., Caruth, G. D., & Pane, S. S. (2009). Staffing the Contemporary Organization: A Guide to Planning, Recruiting and Selecting for Human Resource Professionals, Third Edition. Praeger. Retrieved 04 20, 2016, from http://common.books24x7.com.ezp-02.lirn.net/toc.aspx?bookid=37911.
Cernuda, M. A. (2016, May 24). Empowerment Marketing: The Link Between Employee Engagement and Customer Experience. Retrieved from http://www.marketingjournal.org: http://www.marketingjournal.org/empowerment-marketing-the-link-between-employee-engagement-and-customer-experience-miguel-a-gonzalez-cernuda/
Gratton, L., & Ghoshal, S. (2003). Managing Personal Human Capital:: New Ethos for the ‘Volunteer’ Employee. European Management Journal, 21(1), 1-10.
Kalakeri, T. (2014). Smart Talent Acquisition. EMC. Retrieved 04 20, 2016, from http://common.books24x7.com.ezp-01.lirn.net/toc.aspx?bookid=81651
Keegan, P. (2014). The 5 new rules of employee engagement. Retrieved from http://www.inc.com: http://www.inc.com/magazine/201412/paul-keegan/the-new-rules-of-engagement.html
Kruse, K. (2012, June 22). www.forbes.com. Retrieved from What Is employee engagement: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinkruse/2012/06/22/employee-engagement-what-and-why/#dd34e674629c
Lahey, D. (2015). Predicting Success: Evidence-Based Strategies to Hire the Right People and Build the Best Team. John Wiley & Sons. Retrieved 04 20, 2016, from http://common.books24x7.com.ezp-01.lirn.net/toc.aspx?bookid=72885.
Nayar, V. (2010). Employees First, Customers Second: Turning Conventional Management Upside Down. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.
Phillips, J. J., & Phillips, P. P. (2015). High-Impact Human Capital Strategy. AMACOM. Retrieved 04 20, 2016, from http://common.books24x7.com.ezp-01.lirn.net/toc.aspx?bookid=90892
Phillips, J. M., & Gully, S. M. (2015). Strategic Staffing (Third ed.). Hoboken NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
“Employee First Means Customer First”
“Customer first” is a recurring concept in contemporary business parlance. It is the current business mantra. Virtually every board room strategy crafts an elaborate customer focus and blows this down the corporate funnel. Week in and out, you have myriad activities and projects aimed at solidifying this “Customer first” philosophy company-wide. Could an “employee-first” philosophy be the real deal after all? How can conventional wisdom be turned around?
Fred Reichheld from Net Promoter Score says that “You can’t have happily engaged customers without happy, engaged customer-facing employees”. I tend to agree with this assertion because, in reality, employees are the main factor behind customer experience, whether we are talking about the experience of using a service such as a hotel room or the experience from driving a state of the art SUV.
Why is an “employee-first” philosophy better?
Many who think about the “employee first, customer second” management philosophy have Vineet Nayar in mind. Nayar, the famous HCL Technologies CEO, professes that the asset base of an organization is the talent and creativity of its employees (Nayar, 2010).
Employees give meaning and life to boardroom vision. Employees translate broad and complex strategies into an everyday smile or service to the customer. It is fair to say that the relationship between superb customer experience and employee engagement is almost inseparable.
Employee Engagement
Gallup statistics suggest that only about 30 percent of the American workers are engaged at work. This means lost productivity of over $500 billion yearly on absenteeism, workplace accidents, and increased health care costs. Employees provide the best service when they are engaged. In this case, employee engagement goes far beyond perks. Genuine employee engagement is a unique relationship that an employee shares with an employer, facilitated by company culture. Ultimately, employee engagement should make employees feel as entitled to the business as shareholders and C-suit managers.
Nowadays, the employee is less a malleable resource for the company and more a mobile investor of his or her human capital.
What is the difference between treating employees as assets and as investors?
The decision on whether to treat employees as assets or investors lies within the talent philosophy of the company and its market realities. The most popular view of employees in contemporary management theory is that of being an asset.
A glance at several company statements, management books, and articles is sufficient to solidify this view. However, nowadays, the employee is less a malleable resource for the company and more a mobile investor of his or her human capital (Gratton & Ghoshal, 2003).
Treating employees as investors is a way of recognizing their ability to critically affect the survival of a company wherein the focus is on establishing a mutually beneficial relationship between the employee and the company. Through this, the company recognizes the investment of the employee, such as time, talent, energy. and works to secure a proper return on that investment such as salaries, bonuses, retirement benefits, enabling a working environment for growth and development. (Phillips & Gully, 2015).
On the other hand, viewing employees as assets sets the tone for an environment where employees need to be “managed” like factors of production with a cost ticket. In such companies, talent is acquired and deployed as cheaply and as quickly as possible all in a bid to keep “costs” low (Phillips & Gully, 2015).
Treating employees as investors is a way of recognizing their ability to critically affect the survival of a company.
Companies whose business activities do not require a high level of skill (such as many service firms like customer service, tourism, retail sales), or in which employee turnover will not be detrimental to the cost outlay of the company can pursue an asset-based low-cost strategy. On the contrary, companies requiring high levels of skill and new product development, such as technology firms, research firms, and automobile manufacturers, will need to do more than managing costs; thus, an investor-based talent philosophy will be more suitable (Phillips & Gully, 2015).
The Employee as a Critical Factor
Plans, structures, programs, and systems are not self-actuating; they can only be implemented, maintained, and realized through people
What is the difference between treating employees as assets and as investors?
The decision on whether to treat employees as assets or investors lies within the talent philosophy of the company and its market realities. The most popular view of employees in contemporary management theory is that of being an asset.
A glance at several company statements, management books, and articles is sufficient to solidify this view. However, nowadays, the employee is less a malleable resource for the company and more a mobile investor of his or her human capital (Gratton & Ghoshal, 2003).
Treating employees as investors is a way of recognizing their ability to critically affect the survival of a company wherein the focus is on establishing a mutually beneficial relationship between the employee and the company. Through this, the company recognizes the investment of the employee, such as time, talent, energy. and works to secure a proper return on that investment such as salaries, bonuses, retirement benefits, enabling a working environment for growth and development. (Phillips & Gully, 2015).
On the other hand, viewing employees as assets sets the tone for an environment where employees need to be “managed” like factors of production with a cost ticket. In such companies, talent is acquired and deployed as cheaply and as quickly as possible all in a bid to keep “costs” low (Phillips & Gully, 2015).
The most carefully formulated plans, the most logical organization structure, the most sophisticated marketing programs, and the most advanced automated manufacturing systems will not, of themselves, ensure an institution’s success. Plans, structures, programs, and systems are not self-actuating; they can only be implemented, maintained, and realized through people (Caruth, Caruth, & Pane, 2009).
Those who make up for the most energizing force behind the development of an organization are no doubt the people. Lacking in qualified human resources, and in the right proportion, at the right place, and at the right time, would mean that organizational goals and objectives will not be reached. Even when systems are totally or partially computerized or coated with high technology, people are still needed to get these machines going, be it through maintenance, use, and making critical decisions (Caruth, Caruth, & Pane, 2009).
People are still needed to be there for customers through excellent customer service, engage in opportunity spotting by soliciting new accounts despite the high level of computerization nowadays. Increasingly today, the degree of success that any institution enjoys is directly dependent upon the competence of human resources provided through the staffing process. Only through effective staffing can an organization expect to fulfill its mission and achieve its goals (Caruth, Caruth, & Pane, 2009).
It requires much work to be able to craft out an organization’s reputation in society. For an organization to be noted for good work, quality service, and professionalism, it surely has to be backed by a robust talent pool (Kalakeri, 2014).
Despite all this, many managers still undervalue or misunderstand the value of the individuals that work for the company and focus narrowly on costs. There are certainly direct costs involved in managing the staffing system, the most significant of which is an employee’s salary and benefits, but you also have indirect costs such as loss of productivity; the expense associated with other staffers’ recruitment, hiring, and recovery time; and the often considerable expenses of training a new employee for his assigned post (Lahey, 2015).
The Stakes
The stakes involved in managing staffing systems strategically are high and go to show how important it is for a balanced approach to be adopted. Such a balance weighs between making long-term investments and achieving short term goals (Phillips & Gully, 2015).
Numerous scientific studies prove that despite high costs, highly talented workers almost always outperform lower talent by a considerable margin of 85 percent to 127 percent in various industry sectors (Phillips & Gully, 2015). Making investments in the staffing process can lead to financial returns for the company in terms of higher performance and productivity for the company, a pool of talented future leaders, lower training costs, lower turnover and so on.
Conclusion
It is worth noting that investing in strategic staffing overall would be a good thing and would make good business sense. Talent management is a critical force for any organization. It makes a difference in the success or failure of most organizations. In the current economic climate, critical talent is in demand. The hunt for talent has never been more intense and complicated and organizations must find ways to acquire the best talent and develop essential skills internally as well (Phillips & Phillips, 2015).
By engaging in strategic staffing where the employee is the first asset, you are ultimately serving your customers through a superb experience with your product or service.
References
Caruth, D. L., Caruth, G. D., & Pane, S. S. (2009). Staffing the Contemporary Organization: A Guide to Planning, Recruiting and Selecting for Human Resource Professionals, Third Edition. Praeger. Retrieved 04 20, 2016, from http://common.books24x7.com.ezp-02.lirn.net/toc.aspx?bookid=37911.
Cernuda, M. A. (2016, May 24). Empowerment Marketing: The Link Between Employee Engagement and Customer Experience. Retrieved from http://www.marketingjournal.org: http://www.marketingjournal.org/empowerment-marketing-the-link-between-employee-engagement-and-customer-experience-miguel-a-gonzalez-cernuda/
Gratton, L., & Ghoshal, S. (2003). Managing Personal Human Capital:: New Ethos for the ‘Volunteer’ Employee. European Management Journal, 21(1), 1-10.
Kalakeri, T. (2014). Smart Talent Acquisition. EMC. Retrieved 04 20, 2016, from http://common.books24x7.com.ezp-01.lirn.net/toc.aspx?bookid=81651
Keegan, P. (2014). The 5 new rules of employee engagement. Retrieved from http://www.inc.com: http://www.inc.com/magazine/201412/paul-keegan/the-new-rules-of-engagement.html
Kruse, K. (2012, June 22). www.forbes.com. Retrieved from What Is employee engagement: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinkruse/2012/06/22/employee-engagement-what-and-why/#dd34e674629c
Lahey, D. (2015). Predicting Success: Evidence-Based Strategies to Hire the Right People and Build the Best Team. John Wiley & Sons. Retrieved 04 20, 2016, from http://common.books24x7.com.ezp-01.lirn.net/toc.aspx?bookid=72885.
Nayar, V. (2010). Employees First, Customers Second: Turning Conventional Management Upside Down. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.
Phillips, J. J., & Phillips, P. P. (2015). High-Impact Human Capital Strategy. AMACOM. Retrieved 04 20, 2016, from http://common.books24x7.com.ezp-01.lirn.net/toc.aspx?bookid=90892
Phillips, J. M., & Gully, S. M. (2015). Strategic Staffing (Third ed.). Hoboken NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
