Episode 2 of the Relationship Corner
As much as we need to have cohesion and a team environment in the drive-thru, the nature of our pay structure and driving KPI's inherently work against that exact goal.
This one is for the people that have been advising for a while and managers ready to pull their hair out dealing with internal squabbles and turmoil.
Let’s break down the dynamics of the relationships in the drive-thru, how those dynamics are formed and how we, as managers, create our own issues sometimes with pay structures that do not promote unity.
From my experience, the biggest impact on dynamics in the drive-thru is the way work orders are distributed and the pay plan.
So here I will outline a few of the typical distribution tactics and pay plans that I have worked with, and how they have affected my relationships with my fellow advisors.
Distribution of work orders:
Scenario 1: The Up System. This system is structured in the same way most sales departments are. Salespeople in most places take turns when people come in the door. The name is derived from the “turn taking”. When a customer comes in the receptionist checks who is “Up” and pages that person.
I have worked in places working this system in the drive-thru. Here are the pros and cons of it.
Pros:
It attempts to evenly distribute work. Other than if there is a lineup up and everyone is just writing work orders and handling customers as fast as they can to get the customers on their way, as customers drive in advisors will write in a rotation.
It also attempts to make sure that the customer receives immediate attention as the next-up advisor should know that it is their turn and to get to that car as soon as possible. Instead of waiting for someone to address them.
Cons: These are from my observations working in this system.
The Narrow Escape (Which happens in all scenarios)
I have seen, repeatedly, that when new or off-make vehicles come into the drive-thru, some people race out of the drive-thru so they do not have to deal with them. It's like they are trying to make a break for it!
They “have to check something” or go for a smoke. Then when they come back, they want to take their turn next even though they exited the rotation of their own free will. It is funny to see however if an older vehicle comes in how “available” everyone makes themselves.
This creates natural tension between advisors that are in the drive-thru helping those people. Those customers being avoided, are incidentally, usually brand new to your dealership, a repeat customer, or have just bought a vehicle from the used car department. These are the very people you should be racing toward, not away from.
They are the people that need to have a great first experience or are having issues with their recently purchased vehicle. And instead of taking this time to shine, most advisors try and avoid them or get them in and out as fast as possible so they do not have to deal with the brain damage of it.
In addition, the jobs on new cars, which are less complicated to start, do not pay very well or they are warranty jobs, which also usually pay the advisor less than others. So, some people will try and avoid them and seek out older vehicles to write.
I cannot tell you the type of tension this creates between the advisor team. It is like a heavy cloud over your head every day. People like myself will confront the situation and take the issue to the person in charge. I prefer this to, idly watching and having to pick up the slack when people are avoiding their turn on purpose, and then lose a great opportunity that comes in that would have been mine had that person stayed at their post. Others will bicker and complain amongst themselves instead.
Imagine the level of customer service that is delivered when people are jumping out of their chairs when they see certain vehicles coming in.
The Conflict and Confrontation
The conflict created by this structure is incredible. When jobs that were sold by one advisor, go to another that did not do the work to sell it, from the point of view of the original advisor that sold it, it is like taking a knife and sticking it into someone’s gut and twisting it slowly.
Also in this situation, comebacks are not given back to the original advisor that got paid for the original job. So now a different advisor, who is not familiar with the file, and did not get paid for the original job, will be working on that file for free. Incredibly unfair in my books. And from a customer service standpoint as well. If I was that customer, I would not want to re-explain the entire scenario to someone new.
Some managers will say, “Well, it all works out in the end.” But it does not unless you are managing the rotation and paying attention to when people are ditching their post and waiting until the gravy boat drives in to be “available”. This scenario begets tension and conflict so it must have a constant finger on its pulse by management to ensure it is being done as fairly as possible.
The rules need to be clear and enforced at all times and do not allow for any self-management at the advisor level when people do not play fair. In essence, it creates more work for the manager, who does not have time to do it. Because the manager does not have time to monitor and enforce the rules, the negativity and animosity run rampant, destroying any hope of having a positive team environment.
In this scenario, the opportunity to be underhanded when not consistently managed starts a self-propagating cycle of tension that will never stop. This affects the dynamics between advisors is negative in every way.
The ever-ringing phone
Usually in this system, whoever books an appointment may or may not get to handle that appointment when it comes in. So, what is an advisor’s motivation to answer the phone at all? What is the motivation to book a complete and thorough appointment, with a history check for missed maintenance or previously recommended service and repair? The answer is, that there is zero motivation.
So, the phone rings, and rings. While people are on Facebook, it rings, while people are online shopping, it rings. Eventually, it will ring less and less if you continue with this system.
The shop capacity
How does this affect the shop?
In two ways:
First, when cars are coming in and previously recommended work or missed maintenance is added to the work order at write-up instead of when making the appointment, it changes the capacity for the shop in a major way, which is great if you are slow but terrible if you are busy and already overbooked.
Imagine, a customer WANTS to get their repairs done but forgot that there was a timing belt and a valve adjustment that was recommended last time. The person booking the appointment did not check, as they have no motivation to do so. And now if we add that job, we add 4 more hours of work to an already overbooked shop, we may cause a lack of service to other customers. Or, we may have to inconvenience our customer yet again and have to book a different appointment. How frustrating to the customer!
Second, if a tech calls a list of work and it is sold, there is a big push to have the customer do the work the same day. Why? Because if it does not get done, then the work may not come back to that advisor. So, if it is a big job that takes a tech out of the rotation for a day or two, that is sometimes bad for several other customers and advisors that are trying to get work into the shop still. This situation may also make the customer feel uncomfortable because we are too pushy to get them to do work without assessing their situation fairly.
Over and underworked advisors
Some advisors cannot handle as many work orders as others. So, this system can leave some advisors lacking enough to keep them busy, and others with too much on their plate to manage.
In this situation, I have had other advisors ask me to write more work orders that come in after a certain point. Which I am fine doing, but they seem to be “fine” when the old vehicle that needs lots of work comes in. So, to me, that is not fair either. If you have too much to deal with, and you cannot write anymore it should not matter what comes in.
This system creates the worst level of service possible. Why make it so hard for the customer to spend their money with us? Why would we make it so difficult to book a complete appointment with us?
Scenario 2: The Free for All. This system has no structure of rotation. So, whoever is free will take care of that customer coming in.
Usually, in this system, the advisors will keep what they have booked or sold previously.
Pros:
The strong flourish
In this setup, the people that can do more, do more. This may inspire others to do so as well. Those that are less organized can slow down and alter their workload accordingly at a pace they can handle.
The phone gets answered
Because the advisors that book appointments, get to keep those that they booked, there is no holding back from giving great service by picking up the phone immediately and booking a fantastic appointment, complete with a history check, proper notes, and so on. This helps maintain shop capacities and works to book big jobs on days that can handle them.
There is no pressure to sell the job the same day if the shop is overbooked.
If by chance you are busy and overbooked, you can re-book that work and not worry that you will not get paid fairly for the work that you sold on that visit.
Cons:
The Narrow Escape still applies here, see above.
Too many bookings for one advisor
If one advisor is answering the phone lots and booking lots of appointments, when they roll in, other advisors may have to pitch in and write work orders for that advisor. This situation will make some angry, jealous, and catty.
If advisors do not have an equal number of appointments this will frustrate some as they are writing for another and missing opportunities themselves. They do not realize, however, that the key is in their own hands. If they answered the phone more and booked more appointments they would also have people writing for them too.
This can leave a few people feeling like they are being left behind when they look at the gap in labor sales.
Leaves room for manipulation of bookings
What I mean by that is, that if an advisor answers the phone and a customer is wanting to book for a previous repair, and that repair is a great paying job, the advisor may “not see” the previous booking and inadvertently take that job in a way that allows them to keep that job for themselves.
Example: On the previous work order there is a quote for repairing an oil leak at the oil pan. The customer calls in to book it. The booking advisor sees the previous recommendation, but books the car in for an oil leak check instead. This will not raise any flags as there is no repair being made, it is a diagnosis. So, unless the original advisor sees the booking and recognizes the name, they would never know that they are being dealt an underhanded blow from a teammate.
Pay Plans
For these reasons with regards to distribution, some service managers that do not like to deal with internal conflict, or do not know how to manage it, create a completely team-based plan. Meaning, that the total sales are tallied and everyone gets an equal share of the pie. The trouble with this for a high-performer is that if they are doing the lion’s share of the work, they will want their paycheck to reflect that.
The issue with the totally team-based plan is that a top performer will not stick around long. Why? In most places I have worked I move 45%-50% of the total labor sales monthly. It takes the work of 3 advisors to move the number of labor dollars through the shop as I do. So, how long do you think I would work on a purely team-based structure? Not long. I would not like to see that someone doing 1/3 of the sales is getting paid the same as me.
So if you are a manager trying to attract top-flight advisors, you will not do so with a team-based plan. The team-based plan creates a lot of animosity between the performers and those that hang on to their coattails.
Conversely, in a solely individual plan, there is no motivation for advisors to help their fellow teammates and sell on their behalf or book a great job for them.
For this reason, hybrid versions of the distribution and the pay plans are the best option. They allow for individual sales, and team goals to help promote positive dynamics and a cohesive atmosphere. Nothing is ever perfect. But we can mitigate many of the arguments with clear rules and regular checking in to see that they are being followed.
Hybrid structures keep the animosity between advisors to a minimum and the teamwork component of the department at least on the radar of the advisors so they can try and work together.
If you are interested in learning about hybrid plans and distribution techniques that work reach out.
Message me: adviseme@goldstandardservicetraining.com
Comments