《服务营销第八版英文教辅Case__3.pdf》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《服务营销第八版英文教辅Case__3.pdf（8页珍藏版）》请在taowenge.com淘文阁网|工程机械CAD图纸|机械工程制图|CAD装配图下载|SolidWorks_CaTia_CAD_UG_PROE_设计图分享下载上搜索。
1、People,Technology,Strategy (8th edition,2016)18 CASE 11 RED LOBSTER OVERVIEW A waitress at a chain restaurant has been fired after 19 years of service for allegedly stealing a critical comment card completed by a dissatisfied guest.Rather than appealing her dismissal through a legal suit,the waitres
2、s requests a peer review,seeking to recover her job and three weeks of lost wages.After hearing evidence from the restaurant manager,the waitress,and a hostess,the peer review panel has to decide what action to recommend.TEACHING OBJECTIVES Appreciate the problems faced by front-stage personnel in d
3、ealing with demanding customers.Discuss the design and management of customer complaint procedures.Determine what constitutes appropriate and inappropriate conduct among employees in a context where the rules are not always applied consistently.Debate the pros and cons of a peer review system for ev
4、aluating disputes between employees and management.Emphasize that this situation involves ethical issues,ranging from the fair treatment of confidential comments by customers to the fair treatment of long-term employees.STUDY QUESTIONS 1.What are the marketing implications of this situation?2.Evalua
5、te the concept of peer review.What are its strengths and weaknesses?What type of environment is required to make it work well?3.Review the evidence.Do you believe the testimony presented?4.What decision would you make and why?2009 Christopher H.Lovelock.This case is based on information in a story b
6、y Margaret A.Jacobs in the Wall Street Journal.Real names have been disguised.People,Technology,Strategy (8th edition,2016)28 ANALYSIS 1.What are the marketing implications of this situation?A customer,dining with another guest,has been disappointed in her meal(the core product)and complains that th
7、e prime rib is both fatty and not cooked“well done”as she had instructed.Service recovery has been attempted not once but twice,and both times unsuccessfully:The waitress explains that prime rib always has some fat and the meat was cooked some more,but the guest is still displeased and wont eat it a
8、ll.A free dessert is offered but declined.Dissatisfied with the food and the service(a waitress whom they perceived as“uncooperative”),the unhappy guests complete a comment card and drop it in the box.Somehow,they later learnperhaps one of them followed up with a call to the manager when they receiv
9、ed no response to their commentsthat the waitress had removed the card from the box.The caller complains angrily to the manager that she feels violated because her card was removed and her complaint ignored.One can infer that it is unlikely that either guest will ever return and there will probably
10、be negative word of mouth which could negatively affect the brands reputation and thus other restaurant units in the chain as well“You wont believe what happened to me at a Red Lobster restaurant last weekawful food and outrageous service”The manager feels that she needs to set an example to the oth
11、er staff members of what constitutes unacceptable behavior and fires the waitress for violating company policy.People,Technology,Strategy (8th edition,2016)38 2.Evaluate the concept of peer review.What are its strengths and weaknesses?What type of environment is required to make it work well?Peer re
12、view strengths Easing workplace tensions by constructively channeling the pain and anger felt by employees after being disciplined by their managers.Protecting valuable employees from unfair dismissal.Reducing racial tensions(in situations where unfair treatment may reflect racial prejudice).Saving
13、on corporate legal expenses by reducing the incidence of lawsuits(Darden says that of the hundred disputes each year that go to peer review,only ten subsequently result in lawsuits).Giving employees the option of“being judged by people who know how things work”in their particular workplace environme
14、ntin this case,“a little restaurant.”Peer review weaknesses The risk that individual panel members will tend to identify with the protagonists according to their own job situation(note the initial response of the hourly workers on the panel to support Mary Campbell,the waitress,and the managers to s
15、upport Jean Larimer,the restaurant manager).Reaching consensus requires reaching a solution.In other words,no hung jury.So there is a risk that panelists will agree to a common decision as a result of exhaustion or frustration,rather than conviction.The easy way out in such circumstances will probab
16、ly be to find in favor of the employee(after all,the panelists dont have to live with the decision).The process,while cheaper than a lawsuit,is not without costs.These include:o Peer review training o Wages plus travel expenses o Inconvenience for the restaurants or offices where the panelist would
17、normally be working People,Technology,Strategy (8th edition,2016)48 For the process to work well,the following elements should be in place:A clear understanding of the process and how it works plus a belief that it is impartial,on the part of the petitioner and the panelists.The ability to proceed q
18、uickly once the petitioner requests a hearing,including convening a panel,conducting a hearing,and coming to a conclusion.A reasonably large pool of panelists(suggesting a big company)so that there will not be difficulties in finding panelists from a cross section of jobs at relatively short notice.
19、The panelists chosen should not know the petitioner.All parties should perceive the process as fair,take it seriously,and be committed to trying to make it work.In particular,the company must be willing to accept findings in favor of the petitioner.It is worth noting that in a unionized environment,
20、there will usually be procedures for an employee to request formal grievance hearings in which he or she will be represented by the union.However,these hearings are likely to be more adversarial than peer review.3.Review the evidence.Do you believe the testimony presented?Mary Campbell has been fire
21、d for allegedly stealing a guest comment card from the box.The guests had complained on two counts:(1)the prime rib was undercooked;and(2)their waitress was“uncooperative.”Somehow the guests learned about their comment card being removed and complained to Jean Larimer.(Perhaps another guest who knew
22、 the couple witnessed the incident,saw Campbell open the box and take the card,and subsequently informed the couple).Larimers testimony is straightforward.She fired Campbell after one of the guests complained angrily.Taking the card was“removal of company property”which is forbidden by company rules
23、.Note that Campbell is one of a hundred full and part-time employees supervised by Larimer.There is no mention of previous problems concerning Campbells workno prior warnings,for instance.People,Technology,Strategy (8th edition,2016)58 Campbell,in her testimony,does not dispute that she took the car
24、d after obtaining the key to the box from the 17-year-old hostess,Eve Taunton.She explains the circumstances of the guests dissatisfaction with the food(requested“well done”but delivered undercooked and fatty).There is no particular reason to dispute her account of events,including her attempt to ma
25、ke amends.What we dont know is the manner in which she dealt with the complaining customersfor instance,was she rude and offhand to them?On the other hand,if she was really just interested in the cooking procedures for prime rib at the restaurant,all she had to do was to tell Larimer about the incid
26、ent and mention that the guests had completed a comment card on the topic.Her claim to be“consumed by curiosity”as to the contents of the card may reflect a worry that their criticisms of her“uncooperative”behavior would get her into trouble.She may be lying wh en she says she intended to give the c
27、ard to Larimer(i.e.,she could have just put it back in the box instead of pocketing it)and then“accidentally”throwing it out.Tauntons testimony confirms that Campbell did,in fact,ask for the key.However,her remarks suggest that:(1)she had not been properly trained that it was against company policy
28、to let employees take cards from the box(“I didnt think it was a big deal to give her the key”);and(2)this was not an isolated incident(“A lot of people would come to me to get it.”)She could be lying to protect Campbell,but why?It seems unlikely since she was only a summer employee and the case sug
29、gests that she no longer works at Red Lobster.4.What decision would you make and why?No one disputes that Campbell took the card from the box and never returned it.The incident is serious in terms of the impact on the two guests who feel“violated”.At issue,however,is whether the policy of forbidding
30、 removal of company property was ever specifically linked to guest comment cards,so that Campbell knew it to be a serious offence that might be punished by dismissal.People,Technology,Strategy (8th edition,2016)68 Larimer can certainly be faulted for neither preventing nor putting a stop to the prac
31、tice of asking the hostess for the key and examining comment cardsif nothing else,one must question why,in the first place,a 17-year-old hostess would have access to the key to the comments box,since the completed cards are supposed to be confidential comments to management.Is it worth making an exa
32、mple of a long-term employee over this issue?Its not quite the same as a misbehavior like stealing restaurant equipment for personal gain.On the other hand,if dismissal is too harsh a penalty,would returning Campbell to her job with full back pay be letting her off too lightly?What Happened?The pane
33、l agreed that Campbell should be reinstated but should not recover the three weeks lost wages.People,Technology,Strategy (8th edition,2016)78 TEACHING SUGGESTIONS The instructor should encourage debate about the issues involved and the ethics of the situation as they relate to both customers and emp
34、loyees.The case can be taught at different points during the coursefor instance,with Chapter 11,“Managing People for Service Advantage”,or Chapter 13,“Complaint Handling and Service Recover”.In the former instance,the instructor should emphasize the issue of peer review procedures,linking it to the
35、concepts of empowerment and enablement and noting that a firm has to be able to trust its employees to do the right thing.It may be worth determining which students have prior employment experience in full-service restaurants in any of the three positions depicted in order to get some comments on th
36、e nature of the working environment.A lively discussion should ensue as students interpret the evidence presented and try to choose between the options of(a)upholding the firing,(b)allowing Campbell to recover her job and her three weeks lost wages,or(c)some intermediate finding amounting to“guilty
37、but with extenuating circumstances”that merits a lesser punishment than dismissal.Although the most obvious lesser punishment is to deny her the three weeks lost wages,some students may suggest alternatives.To add interest to the proceedings,the instructor may wish to ask for a vote at the beginning
38、 of class on the following alternatives:(a)fire the waitress;(b)reinstate her with pay;(c)reinstate her without pay;or(d)other(list specifics).This could be done by a show of hands or,better yet,a paper ballot.A second vote can then be called for at the conclusion of the discussion and the results t
39、hen compared.As this case is derived from a Wall Street Journal story,it is not impossible that one or more students may dig up the original article.However,reading it will not give them much in the way of useful additional insights.They will learn what happened but little of how the panel reached t
40、hat conclusionwhich is really at the heart of the case discussion.People,Technology,Strategy (8th edition,2016)88 CLOSING COMMENTS No well-managed firm wants to unfairly fire or discipline employees.Such events are bad for morale,can lead to expensive lawsuits,may result in the loss of valuable expe
41、rtise,and implicitly represent incompetent or unethical behavior on the part of the supervisor who made the decision.Even when prejudice and unfairness are not present,many alleged employee transgressions involve shades of gray:Was it made clear in advance that certain behavior was unacceptable?Was
42、the employee properly trained as well as fully informed?Was he or she under unreasonable pressure?Were there extenuating circumstances?More and more employees are filing lawsuits when they feel that they have been unfairly treated.These actions can be divisive,time consuming,and very expensive to re
43、solve.Peer review,like other forms of mediation,offers a simpler,cheaper,and generally faster process for obtaining the facts and coming to what is,hopefully,an impartial resolution.This procedure also elevates the role of employees,placing trust in their good judgment and getting away from a“them”versus“us”environment.