Standard Operating Procedure

It is with great frequency hotels and resorts ask us to help them put marketing and
customer service solutions into Standard Operating Procedures for their staff to follow.
While we understand the importance of procedures in the back-of-the-house we find a
need for fle!ibility on its use in the front-of-the-house. I want to clarify this is not about
production SOP"s and Si! Sigma this is about forcing processes on customers.
When #alorem $roup approaches the creation of SOPs for clients we start by following
the guest %ourney and connecting the dots along the way to key internal positions that are
key drivers of customer satisfaction. We look at the breakdown in repeat booking ratios
of unsatisfied guests and analy&e their dissatisfaction. In '() of the cases we have
studied we can peg back dissatisfaction SOP"s. *es the typical escalation processes for
improving service are really destroying service loyalty and the lifetime value of
customers.

While this discovery process seems simple it takes time to rebuild the right procedures
and even more time to create the strategy to eliminate procedures. We find that many
companies with reduced staffs have limited time to look at the perspective from the
outside in or from the inside out to establish the best and most sensible operating
procedure. +ompanies simply call on their employees to create the processes and
procedures. While staff is e!cellent at working to produce requests from their leaders
they may not be as proficient at mapping the internal value chain and allocating the right
steps for the right resources. In most cases the staff simply doesn"t have the full range of
internal visibility or the clear perspective of the customer,s personal value chain to
determine the best approach to deliver service based on needs. *es we are saying it-
there is a huge gap between internal mapping and e!ternal mapping and we find that we
create policies that usually don,t satisfy customers but do satisfy the immediate need of
managers who cannot themselves create proper SOPs.

We have tested procedures using real guests real staff and this is what we have found.

/. 0ased on observations at each touch point both internal and e!ternal most written
policies are barriers to guest satisfaction and add frustration for internal players who had
no input in the co-creation of procedures.

1. 2he only solution is the procedure itself and how it satisfies management with no
regard to internal or e!ternal customers value chains or satisfaction. In such a
collaborative corporate environment we bypass the team for the sake of speed demanded
by managers.

3. We find that when the 4irectors request continuous SOP"s be written that it becomes
clear to the staff that while there is good 5management6 there is not real leadership. Why
do we say this7 2he standard reaction for a manager if something is out of control is to
create more process and procedures in order to manage the situation better the ne!t time.
8t the e!ecutive leadership level vision strategy and reaching goals are the primary
ob%ectives not battening the hatches on the ship for every wave. We suggest laying down
a customer service vision based on common sense. What 5common sense67 We find a
key difference between managers and leaders in the case of trust. 9anager"s don"t think
common sense is found in the ranks leaders trust the common sense of their staff..

:. ;ow these procedures are communicated is lackluster and directive. In today"s highly
engaging environments it is common to see how procedures and processes break all the
rules and are one way streets directed by employees on other employees. +ollaborative
mapping is never an option in the case of a time-constrained environment.

<. 0ad procedures are always communicated to guests whether directly or indirectly
giving guests a worse e!perience than the one they are probably complaining about in the
first place. We shot ourselves in the foot with an abundance of SOP"s that make dealing
with our brands intricate at best.

'. 0y setting up e!cessive SOP,s we eliminate any use of 5common sense6. =rom our
observations those companies with tight management see a reduction in motivation and
in the use of common sense always referring to SOP"s in lieu of thinking. 2he lack of
motivation in a procedure-driven company is at least 1>) more than in less procedure-
driven companies. *es they are less motivated the more processes are instilled.
?mployee attrition is higher even in a time or low employment and guest satisfaction is
lower with customer loyalty 1/) lower due to constraints placed on guests to reach
satisfaction.

(. 2he most challenging thing about procedures is that it is a huge tradeoff for
revolutionary thinking and action. Procedure driven companies are evolutionary not
revolutionary. Imposing constraints keeps employees thinking inside the bo! and
increases the topple rates of companies even those that appear clear market leaders today
tomorrow will fall. 4o you think I09 9icrosoft and ;P are revolutionary7 ;ow long
do you give them7 Is 8pple evolutionary or revolutionary7 2est it. +all each with the
same complaint and gauge your level of frustrations. *es you can almost certainly peg it
back to the blocking of satisfaction through constraining SOP"s. 8re you revolutionary7

>. Procedures focus on reducing risk eliminating the sporadic wins that produce high
revenue and increase market share. We are creating process-driven companies that turn
out to be mediocre and will @lead@ Ain it,s manager"s headsB but always from behind.

2he solution is to analy&e the custom %ourney the solution needed why the SOP is being
created in the first place the result of the SOP and then map internally collaborating in
building a world-class guest service e!perience. Or you could create a world of
procedures and put an end to loyalty and profits. *ou decide.