A question for modern society.

[CanSocDem]

Which is more important: A happy customer or a happy employee?

Please explain your choice.


.

[Javaman]

1. from which perspective...

from the corporations point of view: a happy customer means more revenue. a happy employee means more work efficiency.

from the average persons point of view: a happy customer means: the corporation actually did their job and didn't screw me over. a happy employee means: the corporation doesn't treat me completely like a disposable product and gives me a raise once in a while.

[CanSocDem]

3. If society wants to get better...

...it should consider the question.

As you say, 'a happy customer' means repeat business and continuing revenue. We used to say "The customer is always right..." even when they weren't. But the corporation would then, with this in mind, attempt to satisfy the customers needs.

A happy employee, on the other hand, doesn't actually produce more "work efficiency". Instead it strengthens the bond between the corp. and the employee, which from the corporations perspective is good for the company. If a company employee though does not put the customers needs ahead of his or her own, whose interests should prevail?


.

[Javaman]

15. So be a good worker bee regardless of what your company stands for...

the Hobbesian choice of the working class.

stand up for your beliefs and get fired or do the bidding of your corporation and lose your personal sense of integrity.

granted, not all corporations are horrible to work for, but at the end of the day, while they claim they care about you; the employee, they care only about you; the employee, to the extent that you don't cost them lost business or cost them additional overhead.

we all would love to work at our dream jobs. I did for a while but alas, it didn't pay enough to allow me to have a normal life. aka no living wage.

so I had to put on a monkey suit and choose the drudgery of a regular paycheck to secure enough food for myself when I retire. IF I retire.

so I do the bidding of a corporation.

I don't lie to myself about what I had to do. My choices were limited. I had to make money to eat.

while they own my soul from 7 to 4, they vanish from my radar for the remainder of the day.

so which is worse? compromising my integrity to work for a corporation, that treats me well, but considers me a burden if I don't have enough billable hours? or a life of my own choosing with not enough money for food and a roof over my head?

the Hobbesian choice of the American worker.

ah business is business.

[Brickbat]

2. Happy employees generally mean happy customers.

[CanSocDem]

5. One would think so...

...however, in my current experience, the employees happiness is completely dependent on not serving the customers needs. For example, finishing a phone call or some other personal activity...


.

[bemildred]

4. Today it seems to be a happy boss. nt

[CanSocDem]

6. And I shudder at what that is bringing us.

But you're right. Modern business is all about serving its' own needs and finding the right people to accomplish this.


.

[bemildred]

8. Which raises the question why anybody competent and serious would bother with them. nt

[2naSalit]

7. The question is pretty simplistic

Since I have a caveat to introduce... What if this isn't a corporation but, rather, say a federal agency like oh... the National Park Service. Say the employee is there to inform the public and protect the resources of any facility assigned. The employee is handled - by the employer - almost as if GI and ordered to behave toward the public as if they are customers looking at a house to buy thus requiring the employee to kiss up to the "customer" no matter what they are destroying under the employees' charge to protect?

Which is more important? Should it be a park visitor who wants to drive right up to Old Faithful ignoring acres of parking and a short walk to the viewing area or just pitching a tent along any old trail in the park with no knowledge of the dangers and appropriate safety measures regarding camping in bear country and endangering the resources and themselves or should it be the ranger who is charged with protecting the park and the public, wears a uniform and is also ordered to use the "customer is always right" mindset for all interactions?

[CanSocDem]

10. Good example.

However the distinction between a private enterprise and a public enterprise is important. In a 'public' enterprise, like the National Park service, we are all "employers". We all advocate for preservation, accessibility, and efficiency in presenting the values of the national parks. We all make the rules and we all have an interest in enforcing them.

A police action should represent all parties involved and not rely on the personal agenda (such as saving face) of the park ranger. In much the same way that we expect urban law enforcement to not let their own biases affect the way they perform public duties.

It is much easier to define the responsibilities of a public enterprise than it is to decipher the motives of a private business that serves its shareholders over the consumer.


.

[2naSalit]

13. A couple of points where it is

not as clear as one might think. The ranger is there, according to the mission statement, to protect the resources for the enjoyment of future generations. The NPS was created to protect Yellowstone and a couple other - by then - parks from the public who were trashing them after being identified as for the pleasure of the public. At this point in time, 100 years later, it has become more like attending to every need of a clueless and too large population as though the ranger were a butler... there is no redeeming personal dignity left to the job itself and the benefits of spending your season in a "special place" anymore.

There are, as in every case, other factors at play like lack of funding, no control over the damaging behavior of the public and the public's ability to make claims against the rangers or just be assholes by submitting a written complaint for which the ranger is allowed no defense or even opportunity to comment, they just get some sort of punishment because the complainer was able to write or make rude phone calls. We seem to have skewed many social values over time and, unfortunately, also have become pretty unreasonable about accepting differences between "the appropriate" and the "personal gratification at any cost = freedom" forms of behavior and thinking regarding damaging sensitive environments that sustain our species as well.

So, in the public sector the lines have become blurred as to employer *the public* and the agenda of an *employee* since the public has become a mob of Drumpf supporter-like individuals in what they expect and demand. Most have no clue about the National Parks and that there are civic responsibilities for them to abide by as well. Like they totally forget or never understood that part while the employee can only abide by the rules of behavior specified in agency management documentation.

There's a big conflict with that and it will likely come to a head in the near future as the public have become too detrimental to the parks and management criteria have to be reassessed and rules changed. In fact, be on the watch for public comment periods regarding rule changes in the parks regarding maximum human presence at any given time, especially in the parks that see heavy traffic.

[annabanana]

9. From the point of view of a customer: There IS no "happy customer" without

a happy employee.

Tell this to all your Business School Whiz-kids.. A poisonous atmosphere in a company is clearly evident to a customer. It is a natural and inevitable thing to treat people as you are treated.

[CanSocDem]

11. The "poisonous atmosphere"...

...you mention is indeed obvious to the consumer but to the company and its officers, it is just good business or 'business as usual. If the company goal is to show a 'strong quarterly profit' and in pursuing this they ignore the individual needs of consumers, are they a socially responsible enterprise?

A social democracy requires a healthy relationship between the consumer and business. The only way it works is if the needs of the consumer drive private enterprise.

To me, the pursuit of profit is a 'poisonous atmosphere'.


.

[Chan790]

12. A happy employee.

A single unhappy employee has the ability to drive off your customers and shutter your business before you even know what is going on.

A very-happy employee will go out of their way to save a bad interaction even if doing so doesn't benefit them, because it's good for your business that they take pride in working for.

The sole problem is the number of business owners that don't know that their employees are vastly more important and valuable than their customers.

Customers are largely replaceable unless you're in podunk bordering nowhere and that's not on the map.

[hunter]

14. 90% of "work" is crap.

"Economic Productivity" as we now define it is a direct measure of the damage we are doing to our earth's natural environment and our own human spirit.

It's unsustainable.

Your question makes no sense, arising from an economic ideology that makes no sense.

Some days it seems our only apparent "purpose" is to build increasingly complex war and surveillance technology.

Sometimes I wonder if, perhaps, some immortal and immoral aliens crash landed their space ship on earth and have been goading us along to develop for them the technology they need to repair their ship and go home.

They don't give a fuck if they leave this planet a smoldering ruin. All they need is a few parts; a few miles of high quality optical cable, some rare earth magnets, a few titanium bulkheads, plutonium, you know, that sort of thing...

[jwirr]

16. Why does it have to be either/or?

[Javaman]

19. because sadly...

many people have been brainwashed into thinking that it's an either or situation.

[jwirr]

21. I know. I am one of those people who refuse to think that

we need to screw one or the other.

I am assuming that the OP is thinking about wages vs cost of goods or services and there is some reason to think that way - especially today when most of the profits go to the rich and the worker just loses more.

I think one example of this might be Costco. They try to be fair to the workers and the customers.

[ileus]

17. A happy customer

without the customer, you'll have no need for employees.

[WillowTree]

18. The customer represents profit. The employee represents overhead.

'Nuff said.

[Javaman]

20. if your profits excede your overhead...

then you have "happy employees"...

BUT...

That's only if you have an employer that treats his employees humanely.

this is why workers need to have rights, unions and bargaining power, because there are many many many dickhead bosses.

[kentauros]

22. A happy employee.

Case in point: Not Always Right