Welcome, Guest Login Register
loading...
Net Promoter Community > Richard's and Laura's Blog > 2008 > June
 

Increasingly, I am asked whether Net Promoter is appropriate for employee surveys. The theory is that loyal employees create loyal customers, which in turn leads to financial benefits. Many people intuitively understand this connection. However, after many years in the employee research world, I realized the employee survey process ranks alongside performance reviews as an exercise in frustration (and futility) for all involved. Poorly run employee programs can have the same unfortunate results as poorly run customer programs -- lack of executive engagement, line ownership, accountability, etc.

 

 

Several companies I am working with today are pursuing the path of Employee Net Promoter Score (ENPS). These companies have been enthusiastic about Net Promoter for customers and believe that applying a similar methodology for employees will generate some great results. Generally (with only minor variation) they are asking, "How likely is it that you would recommend Company X to a friend as a place to work?" In one case, this is all they asked. Why? They wanted the survey to be perceived as dramatically different from their bi-annual 80-question employee opinion survey, which the organization was still trying to process 9 months later. Sound familiar? Their view was that the focused question would be collected more frequently and lend itself to taking a more operational approach for changing employee morale.

 

 

This is new territory for most companies. One customer asked whether I would expect their employee score to be better or worse than their customer NPS. In many examples I've looked at, the ENPS is worse -- by up to 20 Net Promoter points. In one case, the company found that it was highly dependent on the regional leadership within their organization. Why this discrepancy? First, I believe employees who understand the business and customer strategy, as well as how they contribute to that strategy, are assets to improve customer loyalty. However, they also can be your company's biggest critics, holding their employer to an extremely high standard. And why not? Companies promise to be the best places to work, create shareholder value, and create great customer experiences. For most employees, these promises represent the values that should be practiced on a daily basis. To the extent that the practice of these values is at odds with what they observe internally, employees will be less than loyal.

 

 

At the recent Net Promoter Conference in London, Alex Alfonso from Symantec discussed their customer journey through a period of dramatic change and transition as a result of mergers and acquisitions. Throughout these major transitions, Symantec was able to keep their core company values -- innovation, action, trust, and a customer driven philosophy -- intact. Alex articulated Symantec's mission, which was to enable and empower individuals to create change in the business to improve customer experience. The mission brings together two key components, the employee and the customer, in one customer-driven strategy. And they are taking it seriously. Symantec's three key metrics are Net Promoter Score, market share, and Employee Net Promoter Score.

 

 

It will be a growing trend for businesses building Net Promoter programs for customer experience also to understand what "Recommend" means for their employee experience. These experiences are interconnected -- and only by moving toward more customer-focused employee feedback will employee loyalty move out of the human resource function and into the core of the customer experience strategy.

... more >>
12 Comments Permalink

Transactional or relationship? It seems that never a day goes by without someone confusing the two.

 

Of course, I'm talking about survey design or NPS touch point measurement. You know, that basic idea of getting feedback.

 

 

So I'm getting polled by my frequent flier airline of choice. I must admit, I have a higher propensity to answer these kind of surveys; after all, I have a professional curiosity. So when an invitation shows up in my inbox, I can't resist. Especially as I just made a life-changing decision. I'm dropping them. I wanted to share why.

 

 

Before I talk about switching, I wanted to make the point about transactional surveys. As I have flown well in excess of 100,000 miles with airline for the last 6 years, I would consider myself having a relationship with them. I'm ready to give them insight on why they are losing me as a customer. I can help them think about the shortcomings I have experienced, relative to their competition, that will give them a chance to improve their operation. Now is the perfect opportunity, right on the cusp of defection, to send my parting gift - an honest assessment based on thousands of hours spent in the company of their company.

 

But no. Instead, they want to know about my flight to Portland.

 

 

My flight to Portland was fine. It took off on time. Landed on time. The 1.5 hour journey met my expectations for a clean cabin and good crew communications (those expectations were low). There were a lot of additional questions and, I'm sad to say, I eventually gave up providing feedback on my flight to Portland.

 

 

Right before I abandoned them, one final straw of hope. They wanted to know if they would be my airline of choice going forward. No, they won't be! In clear contradiction of all my prior responses that validated the success of their Portland flight, I was still leaving their family. Alarm bells should have started ringing.

 

I heard no alarm bells. The survey went on, apparently un-phased by this contradiction in response.

 

The problem was a transactional response to a relationship problem. Measuring a relationship with a transactional approach is a recipe for frustration. If you have a relationship with a customer, you need to give them the opportunity to evaluate the relationship, not just the most recent transaction. The alternative is worse than nothing, just frustrating.

 

 

What about switching costs. Well, this story also illustrates the problem with "loyalty" programs, sometimes they are nothing to do with loyalty.

 

 

In fact, my frequent flier program is more about creating switching costs than about creating genuine brand loyalty. I didn't choose my airline because I thought they were the best. I didn't think they offered superior service or competitive offerings. I liked their competitors better. I chose them because they bought my loyalty, expensively, with their loyalty program. Free first class seats became a crutch for lousy service and equipment, essentially a hidden discount. It was the opposite of loyalty  - a disloyalty program to keep a disloyal customer from switching by offering a goodie bag. Sooner or later, even the goodies don't offset the basic problem with their product. Then, despite the lock in, despite the switching costs and inconvenience, I finally vote with my feet and go for a better service. Helluva way to run a business.

... more >>
1 Comments Permalink

Several people sent me this gem from my homeland, the UK. The BBC reported the fact that Prime Minister Gordon Brown was making personal phone calls to voters to respond to their feedback on his government's performance.

 

 

Now it's tempting to make some inference here about the level of support amongst voters that would drive this kind of behavior, but I'd rather take a different tack. Also a tack that is less likely to get me into trouble with folks who hold strong political viewpoints.


First, closed loop action does seem to convert detractors, as it did with this particular voter. I'm not sure what would be more surprising, getting a follow up from the Prime Minister or a follow up from many of the companies who send me surveys but either way, expectations are greatly exceeded when someone reaches out to actually show they listened. It pays to close the loop.


Second, let's talk about word of mouth. Brown's PR people explicitly saw this as a word of mouth opportunity. Clearly, having the BBC pick up on it was good PR and probably not lost on the staff. However, suspending cynicism, maybe the word of mouth effect in politics is strong enough to make a difference? If so, why not for your brand?

... more >>
0 Comments Permalink
Richard Owen's and Laura Brooks' Blog

loading...

Actions