CUSTOMER SERVICE AT THE JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER CASE STUDY

The CASE Journal Customer Service at the Jewish Community Center Edward Demarais, Sandra Sheckman, Gina Vega,

Article information: To cite this document: Edward Demarais, Sandra Sheckman, Gina Vega, (2008) "Customer Service at the Jewish Community Center", The CASE Journal, Vol. 4 Issue: 2, pp.101-109, https://doi.org/10.1108/TCJ-04-2008-B004 Permanent link to this document: https://doi.org/10.1108/TCJ-04-2008-B004

Downloaded on: 24 October 2017, At: 09:22 (PT) References: this document contains references to 0 other documents. To copy this document: [email protected] The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 131 times since 2008* Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:485088 []

For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by U

ni ve

rs it

y L

ib ra

ry A

t 09

:2 2

24 O

ct ob

er 2

01 7

(P T

)

Customer Service at the Jewish Community Center

Edward Desmarais Salem State College Sandra Sheckman Salem, MA Gina Vega Salem State College

Thinking she had heard just about every possible critical comment from this particular member of the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors of this nonprofit organization, Doris1, the Executive Director cringed as Lacey presented her with yet another issue:

“And instead of getting up and showing the person where the information was, she just sat there and pointed. She didn’t move more than her finger,” Lacey, a long term member of the Jewish Community Center (JCC) and currently a member of the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors, complained; “and even when the member clearly was confused about where to get the brochure she was asking about, Rita acted as if she couldn’t be bothered. How can we expect to retain members and attract new ones when the first interaction someone has is with a receptionist who is too bothered to get up and help the person in front of her?” And then, without waiting for an answer to her question, Lacey walked out of Doris’ office.

Later that evening, Doris reflected on Lacey’s observations and behavior. Was Lacey acting on a personal agenda, or was she passing along information in her capacity as a member of the Board? Could other Board members be pressuring Lacey? Doris wondered why Lacey left so abruptly. Was Lacey’s frustration about Doris’ managerial style? Was the Board using the customer service issue as subtle performance evaluation? Doris resolved that she would need to take action.

HISTORY

The Jewish Community Center (JCC), a nonprofit social service organization with a mission to enhance life in both the Jewish and general community, was chartered in 1911 to provide social, recreational, and educational programs to a northeast community. The one hundred seventy five staff provided services to approximately 3,000 members. The members ranged in age from 1 month to 90 plus years. For almost 100 years, the agency served four generations of families with programs targeted to the full range of needs and interests of

1 The names of the characters have been disguised to maintain anonymity.

The CASE Journal Volume 4, Issue 2 (Spring 2008)

101

D ow

nl oa

de d

by U

ni ve

rs it

y L

ib ra

ry A

t 09

:2 2

24 O

ct ob

er 2

01 7

(P T

)

children, teens, adults of all ages, and especially families. The JCC had an outstanding reputation in childcare and family programs, and had no competition for many, many years of its long history. Many changes were bearing down on the JCC. A plethora of new competitors entered the market and each of the competitors served specific segments of the JCC’s membership base. New day camps sprouted along with a variety of after-school programs, among them boutique gyms for tots, day care centers, and art programs. Specialized fitness centers such as Curves and Gold’s Gym were eroding market share and the YMCA was planning a new facility scheduled to open in two years. Even Senior Centers in surrounding towns had become especially active with the influx of new state and local funding.

The most significant change in the external environment was in the demographics of the traditional member base. For the previous eighty years, generations of families joined and remained members of the JCC because it was the “right thing to do”. New and potentially new members were more literate, consumer savvy and used to having organizations meet their high expectations. The composition of the membership was also changing with more individual memberships as compared with family memberships. Historically, family memberships were the primary means for funding the full array of programs the JCC offered, and these family memberships were the principal method to fund niche, mission driven programs many of which were used by fewer than 1 percent of the members. In line with growing consumer savvy, families with children were opting for single service providers that met their needs or paying an individual membership for the family member who used a convenient JCC program. These families no longer felt an obligation to join the JCC and pay for an annual family membership. The proportion of non-Jewish to Jewish members was also growing due to the JCC’s convenient location and reputation of some of its programs. The percentage of Jewish members was eroding from nearly 100 percent three decades ago to its current level of approximately 40 percent. The JCC faced a constant struggle to maintain membership levels and membership revenues. Narrow, focused service providers with clear brands were bypassing the all-encompassing community service brand of the past eighty years. The era of unquestioned support for the Jewish Center by the Jewish community was coming to an end. The Center needed to earn its place in the community as a competitor with other service providers.

THE JCC ORGANIZATION

The Board of Directors The JCC’s members elected representatives who comprised the Board of Directors. The Board President normally served a two year term and was almost automatically elected to become a life member of the Board. The President and eight other representatives from the full Board comprised an Executive Committee. The Executive Committee met with the Executive Director on a monthly basis. The Board had numerous subcommittees with oversight responsibilities for various operational areas. The Board subcommittees met directly with the managers and department heads of the respective areas. The subcommittees, while trying to be helpful, frequently involved themselves in managing and sometimes performing day-to-day operations as “volunteers”. The subcommittees reported to the full Board. The full Board met on a monthly basis. The lifetime appointment practice and other policies led to a Board of Directors with more

The CASE Journal Volume 4, Issue 2 (Spring 2008)

102

D ow

nl oa

de d

by U

ni ve

rs it

y L

ib ra

ry A

t 09

:2 2

24 O

ct ob

er 2

01 7

(P T

)

than sixty members. While fewer than thirty of the Board members were active participants in the subcommittees and full Board meetings, all Board members freely interjected themselves into the JCC’s operations as they saw fit to do so.

Due to its long history, a distinct and discernable “JCC Culture” was embedded in the way the Board interfaced with the professional staff. For more than eighty years, the Board focused on fulfilling the JCC’s mission of serving the community without regard to changes in the societal, social and business environments. Many members of the Board believed that the JCC’s business model and business practices did not need to change. This deeply embedded culture made competing in constantly changing societal, technological and competitive environments even more difficult.

Board members routinely intervened in day-to-day operations and their directions to the staff frequently countermanded previous direction JCC managers and supervisors gave to the staff. The Board member interventions undermined the professional staff. Although many Board members were the customers of fee-for-service programs such as child day care, they saw no conflict of interest in setting the fees for services for which they were the primary users. To circumvent the fee setting practices, JCC’s program managers forecasted increases in sales to equal expenses in order to balance the operational budget. These were among numerous practices, in place for more than a decade, which led the JCC to experience annual deficits in excess of $100,000 per year. Some Board members stated that nonprofits were expected to lose money. The Board frequently imposed unbudgeted mandates that management was left to reconcile. One example entailed the mandate to pay for a full time police detail at the entrance to the JCC immediately after the beginning of the Iraqi Freedom campaign. The $80,000 cost of detail represented a four percent unbudgeted line item. The JCC’s near term debt was increasing with each passing year. Servicing the line of credit due to the deficits and cost cutting measures to pay for the Board mandates significantly constrained management’s ability to maintain the facility, add new programs, replace equipment, implement operational improvements and provide market rate salaries.

Individually and collectively, Board members said they wanted to see better results, such as an agency full of members and a staff happily greeting members. The Board did not require management to measure or report organizational performance. Management had little incentive, time or resources to develop and implement a performance measurement system. When Doris and the recently hired comptroller attempted to have the Board help with solving the preceding issues, the Board neither took tangible actions to identify causes or implement solutions nor held themselves accountable. Instead, the Board reverted to intervening in specific issues of interest to them as individuals, all the while thinking they were doing their part as Board members. According to Doris and other members of the management team, this “JCC culture” was a real obstacle to discussion about change.

The Management Team At the time of Lacey’s latest observation, Doris had been the Executive Director for approximately two years. Prior to assuming the role of Executive Director, she was the Program

The CASE Journal Volume 4, Issue 2 (Spring 2008)

103

D ow

nl oa

de d

by U

ni ve

rs it

y L

ib ra

ry A

t 09

:2 2

24 O

ct ob

er 2

01 7

(P T

)

Director for the JCC. Doris personally selected the five members of the management team, all of whom were passionate about the JCC’s mission. (Figure 1 provides the organizational structure.) The comptroller, the marketing and membership director, two program directors (children’s services and wellness programs), development director and Doris comprised the JCC’s management team. Most were supervisors of other staff, and Doris considered this group to be her eyes, ears, and sometimes the brain of the agency. Doris trusted their intentions and professional capabilities, did not always agree with them, and tried very hard to develop a team approach, building consensus along the way. They met on a weekly basis to address operational issues, and on a time available basis, to address longer term issues. Current events and responses to the Board’s most recent intervention, and administrative staff issues frequently constituted the meeting agenda. The management team was credentialed in their professional areas of expertise (e.g. early childhood education). Doris selected each member of the team for his or her respective professional area competency and passion for the JCC’s mission. Only the comptroller had prior management experience as the Executive Director of a medium sized nonprofit. The comptroller’s responsibilities included accounting, the front desk staff, maintenance, security, information technology and human resource management. The comptroller had no full or part- time staff to fulfill the security, information technology and human resource management responsibilities and there were no plans to assign and fill positions to address these responsibilities. Based on subcommittee and daily interactions with the Board and individual Board members, the management team was frustrated. An external, independent culture survey of the staff indicated they were demoralized and passively hostile to management and the Board.

Insert Figure 1 - Organizational Chart here

The Front Desk Staff The front desk staff was in the front line of dealing with customers. Upon entering the JCC or when leaving, the members passed the customer service window. Three women comprised the front desk staff. Their customer service responsibilities included answering all member questions about programs, renewing and adding new memberships. The women “covered” the window as their ancillary responsibilities allowed. The women were expected to perform other administrative duties such as answering the phone and redirecting calls, data entry, preparing member mailings, and assisting the Marketing Director when not responding to member’s inquiries. The front desk staff randomly received changes to programs and policies from all supervisors and directors in the JCC. The method of communication from program managers and supervisors to the front desk staff was equally broad and ranged from formal memos, yellow “stickies” to telephone calls. Customer service “situations” frequently arose because the front desk’s information was often not consistent with information in printed literature or information the program staff conveyed to members or because communications broke down between the three women. The front desk staff reported to an office manager and the office manager reported to the comptroller. The office manager was also responsible for the accounting function. In addition to the traditional comptroller’s responsibilities, the comptroller also was responsible for human resource management, information technology, maintenance, security, and all other non-program functions except for marketing and membership. The office manager and comptroller inherited the staff from their predecessors. Two of the front desk staff were recent immigrants and had

The CASE Journal Volume 4, Issue 2 (Spring 2008)

104

D ow

nl oa

de d

by U

ni ve

rs it

y L

ib ra

ry A

t 09

:2 2

24 O

ct ob

er 2

01 7

(P T

)

limited command of English. The selection of the current front desk personnel was based on an available body to fill a need at the salary the JCC budgeted. HUMAN RESOURCE POLICIES The JCC had a personnel code that vaguely outlined personnel practices. The JCC did not have specific Human Resource (HR) policies that addressed personnel selection, interviewing, job descriptions, performance evaluation, compensation, termination, training, or succession planning. Monitoring and cultivating a mission driven culture was not considered an integral part of human resource management. The budget deficits impacted the comptroller’s ability to hire a consultant to develop the policies, or hire or reassign a paid staff member to address HR improvements. The budget situation also impacted hiring salaries and salary increases were not always an annual event. Open positions went unfilled, and when filled, candidates frequently met only the minimum requirements for the position. Finding qualified staff to fill almost 100 hours in the fitness and health centers for below market- rate salaries was a constant struggle, and sometimes customer service skills were overlooked. Managers hired and promoted staff to fill positions, even though the staff member or applicant may not have had the qualifications or training. Supervision was practiced by department heads who did not often have the necessary training to be supervisors. The management team found it difficult to hold supervisors and staff accountable when they were not trained, were given conflicting direction by Board members, were not always fully staffed, and were working with minimal resources.

CUSTOMER SERVICE

It was not the first time the subject of poor customer service had come up between Doris and Lacey, and it seemed to Doris that Lacey really had it in for the front desk staff. In the name of only trying to help (“we cannot make things better if no one knows about them”), Lacey tended to march into the corner office without paying attention to whether she was interrupting anyone or anything. Lacey’s observations were usually accurate, and the issue of customer service was real. She never hesitated to report on unpleasant interactions between staff and members. Although Lacey knew Doris was working on important issues facing the JCC, Lacey always made sure Doris heard about the latest customer service “misfire.”

Doris usually responded by walking around the front office, busying herself with small tasks in order to observe the behavior of the staff. Whenever she was in the room, the staff had the best attitude, a pleasant demeanor, and often joked with her. It was not that Doris didn’t exactly believe Lacey. Doris was sure incidents of poor customer service really happened. But it was strange that Doris never saw or heard them herself. In addition to Lacey, there were isolated complaints from the regular complainers: members, some of them in positions of leadership at the agency, who always found something wrong. In contrast with these verbal complaints, a recently completed “member survey” had good or very good checked off for questions such as the quality of the programs, staff competency, quality of the staff – member/user interactions, and quality and availability of program information. The “member survey” results indicated that the overwhelming majority of the JCC’s members were satisfied.

The CASE Journal Volume 4, Issue 2 (Spring 2008)

105

D ow

nl oa

de d

by U

ni ve

rs it

y L

ib ra

ry A

t 09

:2 2

24 O

ct ob

er 2

01 7

(P T

)

Doris was acutely aware that “catching” staff in their moments of poor performance was not a useful management technique. The staff in place, no matter their lackluster qualifications, needed a supervisor who could observe them on a consistent basis and help them with their performance issues, rather than catch them. A recent round of budget cuts had reduced the workforce, leaving the office staff supervised by a talented, but overloaded office manager. Not only did the office manager not have enough time for this additional responsibility, but her office was located in a nearby but physically separate area of the building. The office manager was not even within earshot of the front desk’s activities. Although the office staff reported to the controller through the office manager, the front office staff used him as a good person to whom they could complain.

The front desk staff was the group most often criticized for less than stellar customer service. However, other staff groups were not exempt from member complaints. Although customer service was not a new concept to the agency, its relevance to the organization’s future health and viability was overlooked in many of the hiring and training practices. Members of the management team had initiated several attempts to provide customer service training to the staff. One attempt entailed a well known book and movie of the Seattle Fish Market’s (renowned for excellent customer service) interactions with customers and discussions with the Fish Market’s managers. A member of the management team led the discussions on customer service after the movie, but it met staff resistance because the staff did not think the manager, himself, had good customer service skills. The “do what I say” did not make sense when the staff saw him in real life encounters. A Board member led a second customer service training session. This training, like similar efforts, met staff resistance due to the universal lack of respect for the Board member. Management’s expectations about the importance of customer service and the need for employees to change were not taking root. Doris was frustrated because she and her Management Team still did not get it right. She was also irritated that the Board could not (or would not) see its own failures. It was much easier to criticize than to actually fix the problem, and the Board was not the best role model for customer-staff interactions.

In isolation, each customer service event was not significant. Doris wondered how many members simply didn’t renew their membership instead of complaining. With Lacey’s latest observation, Doris realized that members’ customer service comments were an issue she needed to bring it to the management team. At the next weekly Management Team meeting, Doris asked what she thought was a simple question. “Has anyone noticed how Rita interacts with members? I am constantly getting complaints about her from one of our Board members, but whenever I am within earshot, she seems pleasant.” Dead silence. And then a torrent of comments came from the agency’s management team.

“So who has it out for us now?” asked Molly, the Marketing Director and newest member of Doris’ management team. It was obvious Molly was tired of hearing about what the staff was doing wrong. “Isn’t there anything we do right?” Doris was about to address the comment when Connie, a Program Director said, “I was upset, myself. Just last week, I asked Rita to look up the time of a class for me, and I was struck by how unfriendly she was. I chalked it up to her being really busy, but it has been bothering me ever since. If this is the way she talks to me, how does she sound to the public…who always need what they want in a big hurry.”

The CASE Journal Volume 4, Issue 2 (Spring 2008)

106

D ow

nl oa

de d

by U

ni ve

rs it

y L

ib ra

ry A

t 09

:2 2

24 O

ct ob

er 2

01 7

(P T

)

“I think we have a real problem” came the booming voice of the controller Charlie, the lone male staff member on the Management Team. He was not someone who suffered fools or who initiated discussions about employee performance. Intelligent and highly trusted, he was often the first person Doris sought out when she wanted to discuss significant agency issues. His observations were always thoughtful. “We have moved staff into positions just to fill the chairs, and it is beginning to show. It’s not only the front office staff, although they are the front line and the face of the agency. Customer service is something we all need to do. It isn’t only for the front desk staff. We cannot afford to have second best for our members who are really used to going first class.”

“You have got to be kidding” interrupted Molly. “The front desk staff takes a good deal of abuse. Our members may expect first class service, but they sure aren’t classy…!” I am not sure they would be satisfied with world class service.” At that, everyone chuckled and the conversation moved on to a new initiative about membership.

ORGANIZATIONAL CHALLENGES

The agency was struggling with many challenges: an aging building, a declining membership, a fiercely competitive environment for funding and resources, a deficit budget, a conflicted Board of Directors, a frustrated management team and a demoralized staff. Doris spent a good part of every day trying to decide where to put her energies, knowing full well that no matter what she chose, someone would have a different opinion. “And the worst part of it”, she told herself, “is that they (the Board) don’t even realize it.” She often felt she had many different bosses who didn’t agree with each other and who surely couldn’t see the whole picture. With resources shrinking, and competition growing, the agency needed to find a way out of its rut.

ORGANIZATIONAL STRENGTHS

Perhaps the best part of Doris’ day was the simple reward of believing that the work she did actually mattered. Sometimes it would be a staff person who would remind her with a cheerful “hello” or a “thank you” for help with a problem, or a small child giggling in the hallway on his way to a class, or the sense of belonging she knew the agency created with some of its programs. She often wondered why the Lacey’s of the agency never seemed to see what she saw: a diverse staff working together to provide some of the best programs and services in the community. That the equipment in the fitness center was no longer new and shiny and the roof had seen better days (the bucket standing in the hall to catch the drips on those northeasters was not decorative to be sure) were challenges in this competitive climate, but without the resources to renew and refurbish them, Doris was stuck.

It was sometimes difficult to put aside the constant criticism to find the wisdom in those verbal encounters. But as Doris had learned, every criticism is a gift…something Charlie reminded her of with a smile. “Well,” she said to herself, “I need to build on the strengths that I see in the staff. Even though we are a non-profit, we have a few things to learn from our for-profit counterparts. Customer service applies to every business, and there is no reason the Center…with our mission…should be different.”

The CASE Journal Volume 4, Issue 2 (Spring 2008)

107

D ow

nl oa

de d

by U

ni ve

rs it

y L

ib ra

ry A

t 09

:2 2

24 O

ct ob

er 2

01 7

(P T

)

With that as her immediate goal, Doris decided that her vision of a friendly, efficient, and professional agency started with the front line staff. Without the necessary resources to develop and compensate staff, Doris was left to her own “home grown” devices.

The CASE Journal Volume 4, Issue 2 (Spring 2008)

108

D ow

nl oa

de d

by U

ni ve

rs it

y L

ib ra

ry A

t 09

:2 2

24 O

ct ob

er 2

01 7

(P T

)

Figure 1 JCC Organizational Chart JCC Board of Directors

(monthly meetings)

Executive Committee (President and eight members from the full board)

Comptroller Wellness Programs Children’s Programs Marketing and membership

Executive Director

Office Manager

Front Desk Staff

Maintenance

Human Resource Management*

Information Technology*

Security*

(* unstaffed responsibilities)

Development

Accounting Staff

Board Subcommittees

The CASE Journal Volume 4, Issue 2 (Spring 2008)

109

D ow

nl oa

de d

by U

ni ve

rs it

y L

ib ra

ry A

t 09

:2 2

24 O

ct ob

er 2

01 7

(P T

)