Since the issue of the questionnaire has been raised, here’s my two cents worth. (Apologies in advance this is a long post!). I have to agree with TrackMann above.
I did not get on very well with the questionnaire, despite having worked in various customer service roles since I was 16 and never had a complaint. After I had “failed” the questionnaire I ran through my responses with my partner who also has a large amount of customer service experience. What follows is not sour grapes but thoughtful feedback on the process used.
The trouble with some of the questions are that unless you know the internal policies/rules/values of the company, then you may make a decision that the passenger thinks is providing a good 'customer service' but one that is detrimental to the greater good or end up contravening company policy.
Everyone reads a situation slightly differently and some people are more diplomatic than others. Providing a good customer service does not always involve saying “yes” and acquiescing to whatever the customer requests. Managing peoples expectations, especially when they are being totally unrealistic, is an important part of the role. Here’s a crap example but bare with me: imagine a waiter at a restaurant spills some tap water over a customers’ new thousand pound dress. If waiter promises that the restaurant will pay for new dress I’m sure the customer would think that is providing them a great service (they can’t believe their luck, making a fuss does work!). Anyone thinking sensibly and rationally would acknowledge the customer is being completely unrealistic over a temporary patch of water that will dry out. I doubt the waiter would be very popular if he kept making such expensive promises on behalf of his employer. That’s not the best example, but you see what I’m getting at.
Turning to the questionnaire, consider the question of the ticketless passenger who needs to make the train but has spent a while queuing to renew his season ticket. He wants to be let through the barrier without a ticket in order to make the train. I’m sure a passenger in that position would think the best customer service option is to let them through the barrier and on the train (if we all had a train to catch I’m sure we’d all agree!). But unless you have first hand knowledge of company policy, how do you know what level of discretion you are allowed at the barrier? Is there not a national condition of carriage stating you must buy tickets before boarding if ticket facilities are available? Does the company prioritise letting passengers on the train without a ticket in order to provide a great customer service, or does it put a greater emphasis on revenue protection? (The uniformed revenue protection officers on the Southeastern network would suggest the latter). I thought the most suitable answer of those available was to take the passenger and ask the conductor if he could buy a ticket on-board (i.e. personally accompanying the passenger, showing concern/interest and trying to resolve the issue). For the reasons mentioned above, I discounted the answers that simply suggested buying a ticket on the train and potentially risk incurring a fine you cannot reverse. If you allow leniency to the passenger in the scenario, what about the 2nd, 3rd and 4th person who walks up behind the passenger expecting the same treatment? Again, we all know what the answer is to make the customer happy, but is that necessarily the right answer if it contravenes policy? Unless you're an internal applicant, you're not going to know what the company line is or what discretion you are allowed. It’s easy to think of another scenario with similar internal contradictions: would the company prefer a train driver exceed the speed to limit to reach the destination on time in order to provide a good customer service (I think not!), or would the company prioritise obeying driving regulations and passenger safety over the train being a few minutes late?
One question provided two possible answers that should not have been mutually exclusive: an elderly gent struggling to pay at the ticket machine with a long queue forming behind. Approaching that scenario, I would automatically realise that there is long queue of people being held up (ie the greater number who also have places to be). It would take mere seconds to inform them there are ticket machines around the corner before going straight to the struggling customer to offer assistance. Unfortunately the question only permitted one of these solutions. I naturally discounted the option of standing by and waiting to be asked as that obviously does not help the situation and, similarly, discounted the option of immediately carrying out the transaction for him as the customer may find that demeaning.
Another question raised an issue about enforcement of railway bylaws and the company’s approach to confrontation. The scenario described two males on the station smoking cigarettes and who had apparently consumed alcohol. The options available were: approach them and ask them to stop (sounds sensible, the answer I plumped for), make a tannoy announcement about no smoking, call your supervisor or doing nothing as some battles are not worth fighting. I think it is common knowledge among the public that smoking on the station is breaking a bylaw/legislation and not just company rules. Assuming Southeastern manage the station in question, does it fall to their staff to tackle minor transgressions of the bylaws (ie a quiet word in the ear, trying to keep everyone happy) or does it fall solely to the BTP to enforce them? What is the company line on potentially confrontational situations and the onus on staff to get involved? A grey area that the questionnaire does not provide for.
Consider the passenger approaching you and demanding to see the manager. The most sensible answer to me was to first ask the customer if there was anything you could assist them with (it could be what they are demanding is within your gift and there is no need to involve a manager). For obvious reasons I discounted the answers stating the manager was unavailable or would simply repeat what you were saying as these are disingenuous and unhelpful. The scenario raises questions as to the expectations of managers/supervisors towards their front line staff? Do they want to be called to every trivial incident where a decision needs to be made, or are staff encouraged to use their own judgement in all but the most serious circumstances? Unless you know the company culture, you could end up making yourself very unpopular dragging your manager into every incident. Just because a customer demands to see the manager does not mean they should automatically be granted this wish. Some of our more interesting citizens attend the gates of Buckingham Palace and demand to see the Queen. Naturally their expectations are managed and politely told this is not possible! I don’t think the guard on the gate would remain in post very long if he provided a great customer service and allowed the person access.
One question presented a scenario of all trains/lines stopped due to an incident. You as the staff member are to address the crowd when a man purporting to be a judge pushes to the front of crowd telling you of his urgent need to travel. The potential responses included: allowing the judge immediate use of your mobile telephone, asking him politely to wait whilst you addressed the crowd with an update on what’s happening or advising and outlining alternative travel arrangements to him personally. Bearing in mind you are faced with a crowd who also no doubt have urgent travel needs, why should the judge deserve special treatment and delay you updating the greater number simply because he shouts the loudest? Diverting your attention may upset the vast majority who are waiting for you to update them on what is happening. I would politely ask him to bear with me whilst I update everyone on progress and options, before turning the judge and dealing with his specific issue. The wording of the answers suggested the questionnaire wanted the judges’ enquiry dealt with there and then that I do not necessarily agree with. Again, so long as you are polite, how you mange those conflicting demands depends on the dynamic of the situation in front of you. If the crowd is in a mood to lynch you, you’re going to update them as soon as you can with what information you have.
One question raised the dilemma of dealing with more than one customer at once. If you are already talking with a customer at the barrier and a woman with a buggy and screaming child approaches in order to be let through, would it not be sensible in the interests of keeping everyone happy and keeping the flow of passengers moving to politely ask the person you're dealing with if they mind you briefly letting the woman through? The question does not state how long your conversation with the customer is going to last. If, for arguments sake, it lasts five minutes and during that time a queue forms at your ticket gate, it would be pertinent to ask your customer politely if they could hold on one moment whilst you let the mother with screaming child and maybe a few others through to save holding them up (and defacto them experiencing a poor customer service by being kept waiting). The possible responses to the scenario included ignoring the woman and screaming child (not helpful, especially if you’re trying to have a conversation), automatically waving the woman through without breaking your conversation with customer (not polite, nor responsible towards revenue protection), or the option I chose asking the customer politely to wait whilst you opened the barrier.
Anyway, to sum I thought there were too many grey areas and other options/possibilities depending on company policy and or the dynamic of the situation in front of you. Naturally Southeastern can institute whatever questions they like when recruiting staff, but they risk excluding excellent candidates based on such a crude questionnaire.
