Shopping can be a very mixed activity; some will embrace it and see the expedition as true retail therapy, while for others it can be a necessary evil. A recent shopping trip has led Quentin to consider the freedom we give our staff and whether organisations live out the values they espouse.

Mentioning no names of course, last week I visited an out of town home furnishings retailer with Swedish origins. To me this was never going to be a pleasurable trip, but needs must and someone needed my support. I like to think I have few prejudices, but this one I happily admit to; I don’t embrace this particular retailers experience and values.

The problem this time surrounded some faulty goods. Okay, sometimes things go wrong, I accept that. Where I get really interested is how an organisation puts things right. In this particular case two out of four wall mirrors in a pack proved to be faulty – only the two good ones were firmly fixed to the wall and were not going to come off! The solution should have been simple. Back to the store, replacement items and home again. Not having a full pack seemed to blow the system and to cut a long (very long!) story short, it came down to sorting out a refund. Now I happen to think that Customer Services staff are there to sort out problems, this time they created them. “We are not allowed to…”, “Our procedures don’t enable us to…” You get the picture – however much they wanted to sort the problem, they did not have the freedom to do so.

In a similar vein I was amused to read a press report about an incident in a branch of Morrisons when a checkout assistant insisted that a customer provide proof of age as he was buying sherry. This customer was reported as being 87. Now I know there are many creams, treatments and so on that make us look younger (apparently!) but would they confuse an 87 year old with an 18 year old? The issue here was that Morrisons had removed all discretion from their staff, presumably in case a mistake was made – but what did that do for their reputation?

Management fads come and go hopefully we learn to keep the good bits and discard the rest. One of the features of the ‘quality’ movement of the 1990s was the emphasis on giving front line staff the authority to resolve and improve matters themselves. Potentially there was much value in this approach; problems could be resolved more quickly, less management time was required and employees felt they could make a real contribution to the business. But where are we now? I suspect that a degree of freedom has been removed from front line staff, certainly the two examples above suggest this is the case, but why?

I suggest the main reason is one of fear. Businesses fear litigation of one form or another, it may be on the employment front, an action under the nebulous heading of ‘Human Rights’ (whatever that means to private sector employers) or some form of product liability or personal injury claim. Rather than manage the risk through education and training of staff and being prepared to take some risk, businesses perhaps are reverting to polices and procedures. These of course will be contractually fair, but probably do not recognise the demands of each situation. The result? Disenchanted customers and, just as importantly, staff who do things by the book and fear acting outside their authority. My suggestion? Let’s try empowering staff again. Give them freedom to act, they may make mistakes but let’s recognise that they will also learn through this and potentially customers will get a better experience out it as well.

Do you have examples of people being hampered by processes and procedures? It may even have happened in HR! Let us have a few of your examples.

Quentin Colborn is an independent HR consultant based in Essex who advises management teams on operational and strategic HR issues. Quentin can be contacted on 01376 571360 or via Quentin