Chicken contractuals

By Dean O. De La Paz
From BusinessWorld
June 30, 2005

It should have been easy enough to tell between white meat and dark meat. Unfortunately, the food server knew only Classic Roast from Fiesta. Not trained on the latest variant, he avoided answering customer queries. Perhaps, it was the failure of the brain cells as the odds fell to 1 of 3 from 50:50. Perhaps, it was the failure of training. Or, maybe this is symptomatic of the emerging Philippine blue-collar profile.

Knowing product differences is one tiling. It is a matter of associations, identifying forms and differentiating by shape, color and smell. Even at the Sunny Hill Obedience School, by olfactory analysis alone, Spot can tell between a slipper and a roll of newspapers. But to communicate differences is altogether a more complex activity.

Effective communication requires slightly higher brain functions than has a frog and a smattering of primary education. Impromptu replies cannot be scripted. Neither can intelligence. More is needed than the kind the chicken chain management afforded the poor fellow.

Never mind that the manager, profusely apologetic for the incompetence, revealed that only familiarization was required. Unfortunately, snubbing of customer queries on product differences can be misconstrued as disrespectful obstinacy at the very least, and bad manners at worst.

Given the level of relationship training, the chicken chain management did not seem to care what its customers felt. Greasy slips of passive questionnaires and suggestion boxes notwithstanding, the first line of service are the crews, not paper forms and flyers.

Once assaulted by coarse behavior at the service counter, no amount of Kenny Roger’s music can win back lost appetites or instill patronage where establishments care little for its patrons.

The real reasons, however, are found in the store manager’s explanations.

Turnover was high as the crews were mostly contractuals, many part-time, some sourced off the street. None carry identification tags as they are out the door within months. Add to this the manager’s revelation that the outlet along Quezon Boulevard did its own hiring. Scrimping on training was one way out of cost pinches. Blind outsourced hiring was another.

In another part of town, the circumstances were merely variations of a theme.

At a chicken restaurant at the Rockwell Power Plant Mall, a contractual could only differentiate between Original Recipe and Hot and Crispy. The dilemma was understandable. High school curricula include dissecting frogs and cats. None have wings and they do not come in pre-cut parts.

The odds increase with combinations of breasts, thighs, legs and wings. Add the permutations afforded by fixings and the education required rises exponentially. At least more than there are fingers on one’s hand.

Debunking these is the fact that to tell between light meat and dark simply necessitates a coin toss. Forget exponents. Pavlovian training will do.

Here product knowledge inadequacy reveals other problems spawned by outsourcing. Without regard for customer patronage, the Rockwell contractual imposed personal inadequacies by insisting that the choice was only between Original Recipe and Hot and Crispy. So much for southern Kentucky comfort and charm.

Not only was communication poor, it was poorly executed. Again, training was not only inadequate, but also deficient in basic tenets of marketing. While crews are taught the rudiments of processes, not enough is spent on establishing customer rapport and service.

Worse, by multi-tasking contractuals, hygiene standards suffer as food handlers also handle money, coins, the cash register and sometimes rags dipped in solvents.

The outsourcing phenomenon, a cost-saving mechanism, is taking its toll on customer care. Where once companies spent heavily on employees, ensuring both product knowledge and good customer relations to ensure continued patronage, these now suffer from contractualization.

The cost strategy is understandable. Unfortunately, contractuals apparently care little for the companies in which they are assigned. There is no company loyalty and little done for them to go beyond robotic chores and into developing patronage.

The trade-offs may not be worth it in the long run where institutional reputation suffers, inflict ing profound detrimental effects to a business founded foremost on service, warmth and hospitality.