Category: Human Resources

Today mentors can and should provide expertise to protégés (males) or protégées (females)–essentially less experienced individuals to help them advance their careers, enhance their education, and build their networks. While mentoring is an important aspect to leadership training, it does not hold to a typical training environment or process; however, its tradition has existed even longer than traditional training.

Wikipedia always comes to the rescue when you need immediate clarification and not too much depth. It describes “mentoring” as a process that always involves communication and is relationship based, but its precise definition is elusive. There are two basic types of mentoring involving the training and development process that we are concerned with in this forum:

1. the new-hire mentor. In this case, a more experienced person, not necessarily one of the people high up in the company heirarchy but high enough “sponsors” a new employee, giving them a polite tour of the corporate culture and then there is
2. the high-potential mentorship. Usually, when we think of mentoring, we think of this kind–where especially selected employees are offered the opportunity to develop a relationship with a senior leader.

Both fit Wikipedia’s general definition: “Mentoring is a process for the informal transmission of knowledge, social capital, and the psychosocial support perceived by the recipient as relevant to work, career, or professional development; mentoring entails informal communication, usually face-to-face and during a sustained period of time, between a person who is perceived to have greater relevant knowledge, wisdom, or experience (the mentor) and a person who is perceived to have less (the protégé).”

Even so, can you train mentors and mentees to maximize the benefit and miss the formality imposed by training?

I think it’s possible, but there has to be some structure–points that focus and provide opportunities for mentees to learn important points of interpersonal and public communication, problem-solving/leadership techniques, company technical expertise and time management.

The only difference here and regular training is that the mentor is the trainer. Once the mentor is aware of the need for this focus, most leaders/senior management understand the need for training, and some would even welcome some structure to a system that is still sorting itself out.

Let’s face it: a mentor with a plan–that’s training. The new-hire mentor, as a mid-level employee, has nothing to lose and everything to gain if he treats his own mentee to real training, and guides him or her in the same way as the higher-level mentor; and his mentee would be a fool not to accept it. In the case of a high-potential mentorship, the bigger problem may actually be the trainee, the protégé or protégée–better known as the mentee who feels entitled to special treatment.

In this situation, we simply can’t train for the mentee position; someone has to be anointed–which, by the way, is not intended to be a negative sense. By virtue of being in that prime position, we may have someone who will only take direction from his or her mentor. That is why it is the mentor that must “do” the training.

To be one of the “anointed ones,” someone has to be noticed–having those qualities perceived by the the company or its leaders as “the right stuff” to be a leader of the future. That being said, it is important to note that Tom Wolfe’s novel, The Right Stuff, about the early space program is not about those men who do, in fact, have “the right stuff” defined by what is needed to fly a rocket into space, but rather what is perceived by the public as “the right stuff.” We know now that the Mercury astronauts were not selected for their ability to fly jets, but rather their reputation, and physical ability to take the rigors of space. Monkeys and dogs did sit in the same place and perform the same functions.

Unlike Wolfe’s message, which was not one of promise or fulfillment, the mentor program of today–just like the mentor program of days long past–still strive to select the very best and make it work. No one will argue the importance of such a program to the retention of key personnel and corporate knowledge.

A mentor will sometimes see himself or herself in an employee and decide this person with their guidance and wisdom can one day run the company. To make the mentoring process work, there has to be a deliberate effort to mold and shape an individual. Shadowing alone is not enough. Training mentors to train their mentees may be one way. Mentors who take the job seriously stand to do great things for a company’s future and much for their own legacy.

Mentoring in Europe has existed since at least Ancient Greek times. It’s really only since the 1970s that mentorism has spread in the United States, mainly in leadership training contexts. It has been described as “an innovation in American management.” If done well, the mentoring process will indeed serve the individual by providing the necessary exposure to the reality, the best training an employee can have, i.e., the experiential training needed to do the job.

—

For more resources about training, see the Training library.

For a look at the human side of training from my Cave Man perspective, please check out my book, The Cave Man Guide to Training and Development. Happy training.

One would think that of all the training needs facing an organization, selecting a trainer would be the simplest, a matter of hiring the right person for the job. While selecting the right trainer is not as simple as it seems, the task can be made easier if you think about what your company or organization needs in the way of training and explore the best delivery methods for your employees.

Jeff Turner begins his article, Choosing the Right Corporate Training, this way:

“According to a Gallup Poll, 80 percent of employees said the availability of company-sponsored training programs was a factor in deciding whether to accept a new job or stick with a current one. And yet the Bureau of Labor Statistics says that the average number of hours of formal training per employee per year is only 10.7.

More companies are starting to realize that it’s smart to invest in training, but faced with so many choices, how can an organization make sure it’s getting the most out of its educational investment?”

And, he’s right. Organizations have a lot of research to do in deciding how to spend their training dollars and getting the most for their investments. However, while his article focuses on the many options a company has regarding training, I’m going to focus more specifically on selecting the right trainer.

The right trainer can lead your entire effort if that is what your organizational training assessment tells you need, or that trainer can be a short-term solution for your training needs. Still you have to decide what your company needs. Help for hire is available from many companies specializing in working with companies on training solutions.

There are experts at evaluating what a company or organization needs in the way of training, and can recommend a training plan. They have specialized in those assessment aspects of training, but you should look at them for experience with similar companies before hiring, and check out their track record of success.

Does your company already have a training director or coordinator–someone tasked with monitoring the training needs of the organization? Or, do you want someone who can come in, and after a proper grounding on what your company or corporation does, analyze your situation and tell you what you need? Or, are you subject-matter specific? How to do a specific job better?

Trainers, like companies, come in all sizes and manner of expertise. From one-time training on specific or general skills to providing all the training in various formats your company needs.

Would your company benefit from hiring someone full-time rather than contract the work or position–the advantage being the full-time employee is vested in the company’s success? That is not to say, a training company or trainer for hire is not going to do a good job, but both hires will be specific to what is in the contract. A full-time employee may lack certain expertise (no one knows everything) and have to contract some training or analysis out, but can also be depended on to do whatever else is required without necessarily a change of contract.

Does the training have to be in-house or could you provide options for employees to take training at a local college and reimburse them for the cost? Is it a one-time training for every employee? Is it ongoing training that will change periodically? Does the training require subject-matter expertise specific to the company or a particular field, say engineering? These factors influence who you choose.

One option useful for companies that deal in specific or technical knowledge but do not have the in-house ability to pass on that knowledge effectively to new employees is to bring in an expert communicator or facilitator to work with a subject-matter expert in training employees. See my previous article, Training Sessions and Seminars: Who Should Do the Most Talking.

Other articles I have written in this series focus on the value of the trainer as a communicator in relation to subject-matter experts as well as aspects of communicating effectively and motivating employees, which is not necessarily the job of a subject-matter expert.

My article, What Would a Caveman DO – How We Know What We Do About Training, focuses on the value of bringing in a trainer from outside your organization that has new ideas or a different perspective. Everything a caveman learned came from outside sources and that was the traditional way to learn from others in prehistoric times, but today bringing in someone from outside or going outside for training is considered non-traditional. Both types have their advantages and disadvantages; the outsider has the advantage of a fresh perspective but the disadvantage of not knowing the corporate culture in your organization.

So, the question becomes is your organization looking for an infusion of new ideas, a strengthening of the company pulse, motivating or providing employees with more working knowledge. Maybe it’s all of the above and more.

My recommendation is look at your organization first and decide what you want, then widen your net–especially if you don’t have an established training group in your organization–to see what is offered outside in that area; if a single trainer or training group may work for you, look at several. Bring them in for a meeting to see how they would function for your organization and ask how they will measure results. Essentially, you want to know how you will be able to see for yourself if they have accomplished the job as promised. Most importantly look at their track record and ask for references.

Finally, while money is always a factor, here it must be weighed against potential results. An established firm may have a track record worth admiring; it will also cost more. A smaller firm, perhaps a break-away from a larger company may have the expertise but not the established record yet is anxious to do a good job and for less money in order to earn its place. As for individual trainers, the same goes. A celebrity trainer who has name recognition and will certainly be a proven communicator will cost more than an equally good trainer/communicator without the celebrity status.

Prestige costs, but efficiency, flexibility and desire to succeed don’t have to. Good hunting.

—

For more resources about training, see the Training library.

For more insight on training, communication topics, including effective presenting and public speaking, check out my website. For a look at the human side of training from my Cave Man perspective, please check out my book, The Cave Man Guide to Training and Development. Happy training.

We want to change people’s minds, influence their attitudes, and pass on some new ideas.

Is it even possible to train someone to be more creative? Are we talking about minds in general. Or, vision? We are all creative in our own way. Generally if you look at programs that seek to train leaders, they focus on creativity because that results in vision. A truly creative vision can be a moneymaker for profit or nonprofit organizations. That leadership vision we are always looking for to take our company far into the 21st century.

Most of us make creative decisions everyday and don’t realize it. Every time we are willing to risk the conflict by exposing our new ideas, willing to keep at developing these new ideas until we get a good feeling, and we indulge our hidden creative urges to experiment just for fun. We draw, we sing, we act. In business, when we take unrelated experiences and re-apply them in other ways or circumstances that make them unique, we are being creative.

How do you train to bring those creative results? That’s going to be our main focus, but we need to know first how to “spark” creativity before we figure out ways to train people to do it.

BNET’s Laura Vanderkam puts forth a good summary in her article, Four Ways to Spark Your Creativity, base on research on Julie Burstein’s book, Spark: How Creativity Works.

Vanderkam, quoting Burstein, says:

Embrace creativity’s “R&D” phase. “Creative people hold themselves open to the world around them,” Burstein says. “Many of the artists in Spark tell of an unexpected experience that had profound impact on their work.” Filmmaker Mira Nair decided to become an actress and later a director after seeing a performance of folk theater on a soccer field in her hometown in India. Star Wars sound designer Ben Burtt created the signature sound of the light saber from recordings he made of his television set in his living room. “Spending time observing and listening before getting to work is crucial to creativity in any field, not just in the arts,” Burstein says. “Being open to the new and the unexpected, as well as paying new attention to the familiar, is the R&D phase of creativity, and is something we all can do!”

Don’t shy from conflict. “As all of us know who work with teams, conflict can be painful and can sometimes threaten to derail our work,” says Burstein. “This is true in art, too.” In Spark, playwright Tony Kushner describes the struggles he and the team behind the musical Caroline or Change went through to finish one of the key songs in the show. This actually involved seventeen different versions and a huge group meltdown. But ultimately, Kushner told Studio 360 that the struggle to write it was as great a source of pride as the song itself. “In creative work, perhaps in all work, it’s essential to look at the conflicts as an opportunity for growth, a place where change must happen – which leads to new work,” says Burstein.

Get moving. “Too often, when faced with an intractable problem, we just keep hammering at it,” Burstein says. “But many of the artists in Spark emphasize the need to let go of the problem for a while and do something that refreshes their imagination, in order to approach a problem with new insights.” You can run, walk, go outdoors, take a shower. All increase the likelihood you’ll get unstuck.

Indulge your “amateur spirit.” Part of creativity is learning to approach problems with a fresh eye. You can replenish yourself by seeking out challenges in other aspects of life. “I feel tremendously fortunate to have found a profession where I’m expected to learn something new all the time,” Burstein says. “But I find if I focus entirely on words, my imagination can run dry, so I feed my creativity by doing something entirely different – I make pots. I’ve studied ceramics for many years, but took a long break while my kids were small. Last year, as I was writing Spark, I took a class again. It’s fantastic to have physical work which requires a very different kind of attention from writing. And such a pleasure to be able to sit down at my computer with a cup of tea in a mug that I’ve made!”

How do you put yourself in a creative state of mind?

It seems that place is important. As in state of mind, so place meaning, where I feel free to experiment, apply the old in a new way, take risks without possible ridicule. Sounds a bit like brainstorming but without others present. We can do that–a retreat with quiet time, quiet spaces, or a place we can play our favorite music, dance around the room if need be; whatever it takes to bring us to a state of pure freedom of thought.

Do we treat introverts or extroverts differently? Is any one going to be more receptive to feeling the urge to create. Maybe the introvert needs the time alone for energy, while the extrovert needs people and stimili to energize. It makes sense since these characteristics also, in part, define introversion and extroversion. Not so much inward and outward going, but rather the place where they find their best. And we want their best.

Most problem-solving courses use a variety of techniques to allow for the variety of individual differences that make up the pool of trainees. Problem-solving offers the chance to look at different ways we process information. I referred in my last article to a psychology professor who suggested problem-solving was a matter of letting information roll around in our mind one way or another through concentration, meditation, or even prayer, allowing the brain’s creative function move it around in a creative way.

Think of dreaming as information, situations, various stimili entering your mind at a time when you are not trying to control it–your unconscious and subconscious mind reconstructs the inputs from your life and turns it into something else, something perhaps even brand new. Maybe it’s a nightmare, maybe insight or maybe a solution. That’s why any training exercise, someone can take with them and repeat it, like meditation, works to let the ideas form unique juxtapositions that, in turn, may offer a creative solution or spark new ideas totally.

Vision building is a way of looking at the status quo and finding a unique way of building upon it. So, the retreats may have hit on something there. How about opening up the retreat environment to give and encourage the participants to be most comfortable and free. Provide training in relaxation and meditation techniques to help free their mind of other pervasive thoughts. Providing meetings and informal gatherings to spur on those who thrive and derive energy in that environment.

I like what Burstein says here about her friend,Tibor Kalman, the graphic designer and multifarious auteur, who seems to have a remarkable insight into creativity.

“You don’t want to do too many projects of a similar type,” he told me. “I did two of a number of things. The first one, you fuck it up in an interesting way. The second one, you get it right. And then you’re out of there. I have sought to move into as many other fields as possible, anything that could be a step away from ‘graphic design,’ just to keep from getting bored. As long as I don’t completely know how to do something, I can do it well. And as soon as I have [completely] learned how to do something, I will do it less well, because what I do will become more obvious.”

Less is more. Filling all the gaps with information leaves us full of where we are now with little room for questions. We hire leadership from outside the company because they have a fresh eye; maybe they just have gaps that allow them fill in them with new or even unique information.

This gave me an idea for training. What about exercises look at twisting a standard, modifying a rule to be less rigid or even more rigid. Rigid enough to become a company standard, a company tradition. “We only accept the best raw material no matter the cost.” It is rigid. Could it contribute to a vision? An exercise taking one statement like that and having a leader trainee turn that into a leadership vision, company mission statement, company slogan might make a good exercise.

Now it’s your turn to provide some samples of good creativity exercises. I need to meditate some more on the subject.

—

For more resources about training, see the Training library.

For a look at the human side of training from my Cave Man perspective, please check out my best-selling book, The Cave Man Guide to Training and Development. Happy training.

After the proper learner preparation has taken place and connections have been built with the learners, the facilitator(s)’ role is to deliver the information. It is important to remember in learner-centered training that delivery should be about the learner and their learning of the material. When preparing for this phase, many facilitators, trainers or presenters spend the majority of their time on delivery of content (the presentation of material) within their control ignoring that the leaner is the most important component of this preparation. In many cases, the training is occurring to provide knowledge, skills and abilities that will help the learner achieve the company objectives. The ultimate goal of the training is most likely is to initiate a change in behavior. Since the learner is the only who can control the behavior change, focusing the delivery on the learner is essential is achieving this goal.

Learner-Centered Delivery Using Creative Presentation

—

For more resources, See the Human Resources library.

—

Sheri Mazurek is a training and human resource professional with over 16 years of management experience, and is skilled in all areas of employee management and human resource functions, with a specialty in learning and development. She is available to help you with your Human Resources and Training needs on a contract basis. For more information send an email to smazurek0615@gmail.com or visit www.sherimazurek.com. Follow me on twitter @Sherimaz.

Resources

http://www.bowperson.com/ http://www.alcenter.com/

Based on a comment by Barbara Kite, an acting and public speaking coach (and a respected colleague), I am encouraged to write an article on the importance of practice. She has been very influential in how I look at acting, coaching, and, of course, training. Her views, like mine, come from a link between acting and life’s experiences. We have some different experiences, but I always listen to what she has to say.

It’s almost a no-brainer to anyone with sense that practice in anything we do is invaluable. Most of us would acknowledge that practice by itself is not as simple as it seems. Naturally, when it comes to training, it should not be overlooked or assumed it will happen on the job. Let’s give the subject of practice some perspective, and with that, something to think about.

Kite mentioned in her comment to my previous post, The Best Performance Enhancer…

“It’s not the training I’m currently concerned about, it’s how quickly we try to train people without following up with refreshers and reminders.”

I think we have to take individual differences into account when we give anyone career instruction. I stress motivation. Even the less talented can get work if they are persistent and work hard. Highly talented individuals can sit back after one good job and wonder why the offers aren’t coming their way. Those who practice their craft and are motivated to succeed will find a way. Practice doesn’t have to be exactly the same every time, but can incorporate new elements.

“I just worked with clients I had trained over six months ago. They had made progress by using some of what they had learned (or remembered) but also had let slip some of the basics they had learned, and were asking the same questions they had when first we met. Had they not been paying attention? Or did some things slip? Or was there too much information?”

I’m sure this sounds familiar. She goes on to say:

“I know my acting students need to hear the same phrase over and over and over again before it sinks in. We are in a hurry to learn and expect it to be easy and we’re not willing to put the time needed for those muscles to form to be really able to use them. I ask new clients (public speaking and actors) how long would you give yourself to be a concert pianist or a tennis champ? It’s the same thing. Practice, practice, practice.”

And, she is absolutely right, which is one reason I advocate continuous learning. Refreshers are good, too, but I would want them to build on the review of past information our people should know and be using. Often I find they aren’t. Because they don’t want to ask for the training, they try to do a “work-around.” In some things, there is no “work around.” Then we have to train all over again.

Continuous learning uses practice as its base. It is a necessary element of teaching or coaching Karate or most martial arts, for example, with the belt system. Each class is a review or refresher, practice, and includes something new. This is essential professional development from the ground up; it only makes sense to build on what we learn from the lowest to the highest employee.

All students and trainees, not just acting or Karate students, need to internalize what is they are learning to make that learning stick, and repetition helps that certainly. We, as trainers and coaches, need to find what methods learning works for them.

I know when I was developing as an actor on stage, I had stage fright. After “practice,” not so much stage fright. The first time I used a microphone, it was the same thing. After awhile, no problem. Then the video camera… It was uncomfortable at first but I was prepared; I had learned to know it would be there and it was easier to go from there. It was only because of repetition through practice that I internalized and learned the what I needed to in order to succeed at my job.

Managers/Leaders and Workers, like Directors and Actors, are comfortable with their work based on their respective backgrounds, training and education, and work experience. I just finished a series of Acting Smarts articles for STAGE Magazine on auditioning from both the perspective of the director and the actor. My acting training and experience affects my directing preferences just as my “other” work experiences in customer service and training directly affects how I manage and lead my people. I have to admit that all my experiences, directly or indirectly affect anything I do. “I Y’am What I Y’am,” remember. I would expect a manager who has personally worked the job sees the team based on his or her experiences and supervises them based on his preferences doing that same job now.

Individual preferences and learning differences do matter. And teaching philosophy, in this case.

I come from a social psychology background as well and my mentor, Dr. Willis H. McCann, the chairman of my university’s psychology department then, had a philosophy of doing what works (for attaining good mental health). He compared problem-solving to praying, meditating, cogitating, sleeping on it–all ways that work in solving problems. He was one of those great broadly-thinking men with a PhD in Psychology, a Doctor of Divinity, and a Juris Doctorate who never made you feel he had all the answers; however, he did see many connections.

How we process, how we think and how we learn is reinforced with “practice, practice, practice.” We even practice the ways we problem solve. In this case, the art of problem-solving was individualized but it did the same thing: what works. I think that applies to most things; there are always good ideas, but they are never the only ideas and people latch on to what makes them comfortable–and what works for them. Consider we all do that and apply it–with practice.

The art of problem-solving works well here to describe individual differences. Praying, meditation or just sleeping on a subject does the same thing; it allows an idea to roll around in your mind without expectations, without manipulation until a subconscious answer comes to mind. Think about any problem-solving course of training that uses on of these methods. They all allow for a concentration on a verbal or nonverbal, auditory or inaudible statement of thoughts. Doing what works and practicing it, so the experts say, will improve problem-solving. Practice, practice, practice.

So I still agree. Practice is important. I think that is why training directors and coaches need to always be thinking of new ways and next steps. They should be incorporating practice as a part of their training and coaching, and motivating employees and clients to use these skills on the job (practice again). I encourage development over training. Development is continuous learning and building on skills, and hopefully honing these skills and using the new knowledge in practical application on the job. Call it practice, if you will.

I think we have to take individual differences into account when we give anyone career instruction. I stress motivation as well. Even the less talented can get work if they are persistent and work hard. Highly talented individuals can sit back after one good job and wonder why the offers aren’t coming their way, while those who practice their craft, sometimes regardless of talent, and are motivated professionals who succeed.

In the simplest sense, Practice is what will make a training program work. We all know the simplest solutions are too good to be true. Practice works, but taking into account other variables, can maximize results. It solidifies the base for continuous learning, it builds confidence as it becomes a part of the learning that is internalized, and the more comfortable we become the more willing we are to add to that we have learned.

—

For more resources about training, see the Training library.

As always these are only my thoughts–and Barbara Kite’s, so be sure to check out her website for her thoughts and philosophy on training and coaching. Also, pondering the question of balancing theory with practice is Gary Pollice, Professor of Practice, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, in his article titled Training versus Education. For more of my views, questions, offers of employment, contracts…, contact me via email or phone, which is available on my homepage.

By all means, please feel free to add your comments and insight here on this page. That’s what we’re here for.

For a look at the human side of training from my Cave Man perspective, please check out my book, The Cave Man Guide to Training and Development. Happy training.

…and that’s the easy part.

Serving customers is what we all do. We know that. It’s just that sometimes our employees don’t seem to care about anything but their own little comfortable box they made for themselves. Now, the truth is that they may care; they just don’t know what to do to make it easy.

Providing high-quality customer service should be at the top of our business concerns. Money is important, but without the customers… Customers are fickle. There are more of them than us. We need them. What we don’t need are employees sabotaging our business because they don’t want to be bothered, can’t admit they or the company may have made a mistake, apologize, and get on with it. As hard as it is to admit, we have to admit selling the product or service is not always the aim at the moment; however, it is our priority–even if that moment is down the road. The best way to do that is not lose a potential customer.

There are some myths about customer service that need addressing. I’ve been doing this for years, and one thing that irritates me the most are those people who think customer service is providing only what the company can provide (product or service) and if we can’t provide it–oh well. If you “oh, well” anyone, you don’t work for me.

Our customers come to us for more than just our service or products; they come because they trust us. For some reason they felt comfortable in the beginning. If we start by telling them why we can’t do something or make excuses, they’ll find someone else to trust with their business. Tell them what we can do and help them find someone else who can do what we can’t. We call that go the extra mile. It may not help us directly, but it makes them like us and trust us even more.

We need high-quality customer service people who will go “the extra mile?” Where do we get them? Most are already in the job or in the house. We train them, of course, to trust us, then they can earn the customers trust.

Think of companies known for great customer service and think of your experience in dealing with them. Remember what a pleasure that was? How easy it was for you to say, “no problem,” once your received a direct response? Now think of the people you may have dealt with who made an excuse (you dismissed them); if they did whatever they could with a smile–or even called someone else to find out if they knew of another solution, or just gave you a very honest answer–the result would have been better, wouldn’t it? In the military, I received questions to which the only answer could be: “I can’t tell you that. It’s classified.” Sometimes that’s enough, but sometimes I had to tell them the reasons why it might be classified, and that satisfied them totally and even make them feel a little special knowing the truth. Even though I didn’t answer their original question, I was honest with them.

We all understand why we can’t do certain jobs, and usually it has to do with what it costs us. Nobody expects us to work for nothing, and most will accept that answer. We may lose a customer because they can’t afford us, but we have gained the goodwill he may pass on to someone else who can.

Too many companies automate too much of the people interface. Sure, it saves money, but it loses money in customers who want the personal touch. Good customer service isn’t always getting what you want. It’s getting an answer, an immediate response when you ask for it. Telling someone immediately you can deliver at another time is better than getting back with them only when you can deliver. Same delivery date, different frame of reference; the customer needed the information earlier and now it may be too late. That ever happen to you?

In order to look at training effective customer service reps, and I’m not talking sales people, we look the people who already assigned those customer service positions. Are they empathetic, good listeners, empowered to make some decisions regarding service, good communicators on many levels, a good friend (confidant), an educator, and are they thick-skinned?

Often we put people in customer service that we can’t place anywhere else. Not a good idea. In fact, your better people should be in customer service, keeping your customers happy.

“This job is only answering the phone. Sheila really knows the product, but she doesn’t close the sale.”

Although these are the people most in need of immediate training, everyone in the company needs to know the importance of customer service and how to deal with customers face-to-face and on the phone. Why? Because everyone represents the company to anyone who asks them what they do for a living. That’s a pretty common question sometimes asked by potential customers. Some members of the company will be natural customer service representatives (officially or unofficially) because of their personality and communication abilities; some members will reluctantly fall into place and try to do the job by script or rote unfortunately. Unless the latter batch is able to humanize what they do, they’ll hurt you more than help you. Having impressive people working customer service is critical to your company’s reputation and success.

Finally, the most important rule for good customer service: don’t force something on somebody he or she doesn’t want. Some customers measure information and feel a situation, and if it feels right they’re sold. Actually, they are rarely sold; the harder the sale, the less likely they are to buy. When they do though, they will be your biggest fan and let the world know about. This is opposed to the logical, number-working customer who walks away feeling he got the deal based on his merits, not your company’s. You’ll be lucky if he mentions you except to brag on his ability to take advantage of you.

1. Educate and train employees on the types of customers, including internal and external.
2. Make them see the importance of giving customers what they need (within your ability) and provide referrals if you can’t deliver what they need. There’s no shame–only gain.
3. Understand the barriers to effective customer service like some of those explained above. Don’t forget to include the internal barriers such as personality, thin-skinned, no interest in helping someone else, not willingness to leave the comfort zone.
4. Create standards and stick by them. Good idea to have the employees decide what the standards should be since they know how they want to be treated. They also know what kind of customer they are.
5. Refer when you can’t deliver but don’t pass the buck. Passing the buck is passing the customer to another person who is probably better at customer service than you are. Keep control if you can, always telling the customer to come back to you and you will continue to help if you can or find someone who can. Sounds a little repetitive, but you set yourself up as the one who can ultimately deliver.
6. Teach listening skills and dealing with difficult people. Listening first, then repeating what you think the customer wants to do. As for dealing with difficult people, that almost goes back to understanding the customer and the barriers to good customer service. Customers may not be good communicators or decide to take out frustration out on the employee. Handling that deftly can make a friend and customer out of an irate individual; most times they just want to be heard. Learning how to deal with difficult people is major lesson in itself because it may involve diffusing anger or dealing with certain personality types.

The last bullet is perhaps the most important of lessons to be learned in customer service training. Remember, customer service is for everyone. Although you may not want to mix managers and workers in the same class (because they will be dealing at different levels), it is a must-do training for employees at all levels–whether they have direct contact with others in their jobs. Colleagues are customers, too, and just as important as ones off the street.

—

For more resources about training, see the Training library.

For a look at the human side of training from my Cave Man perspective, please check out my book, The Cave Man Guide to Training and Development.