December 5th, 2011
Giving Customers First Shot At The Merchandise
Best Buy Ethics, by Kathleen Edmond.One of my readers noted that I have not written about a Peer Review case in a while. Peer Review is the appeals process by which Best Buy employees who feel company policy was inconsistently or improperly applied to them can request a “jury of peers” to hear their side of the story. The Peer Review panel’s decision is binding on the company and has resulted (for example) in dozens of terminated Best Buy employees getting their jobs back over the past several years. Most often, however, the panelists confirm that Best Buy’s leaders have indeed acted appropriately and applied our policies fairly. Here is one such case:
Several times each year, Best Buy participates in the launch of a hot new consumer electronics product – the type where customers stand in line on launch day or put their names on waiting lists as manufacturer supply slowly catches up to demand. Generally speaking, we do not allow our own employees to purchase products at launch to ensure our customers get the first shot at the allotment we have to sell.
According to a recent Peer Review summary, one of our employees was terminated for purchasing a restricted new-release product while on the clock during normal store hours. (For this particular release, the policy called for employees to wait until after the store closed that day if they wished to make a personal purchase.) The employee vehemently denied the claim and maintained the case was not properly investigated because his time clock records clearly indicated he had made the purchase off the clock after his shift and all customers had left the store.
The investigation, however, was very thorough and revealed two damaging facts:
- The employee had made several statements to co-workers regarding his desire to purchase the product regardless of the after-hours policy;
- The time clock system showed that the employee had edited his time for that shift. According to the original time record, he was, in fact, on duty at the time of the purchase and it was during normal business hours.
Based on these findings, the Peer Review panel found the termination decision to be fair and consistent with company policy. My questions for you:
1) Which was worse in your opinion? The fact that the employee violated the after-hours policy or the fact that he edited his time records to cover his tracks?
2) Pretend for a moment it had actually been an honest mistake and no attempt had been made to alter time records. When it comes to the fair and consistent application of company policy, are “I did not know” or “I forgot” valid excuses? Why or why not?
3) Did co-worker testimony regarding the terminated employee’s statements influence your point of view in any way? If so, how?
4) What about Best Buy’s practice of requiring employees to give customers the first chance at high-demand products? Fair or not fair?
It was worse that he edited his time records to cover his tracks and in doing so should call for immediate termination. But the fact that he is able to edit his own time records should concern your company. There should be controls in place that would force employees to have their manager or someone else in the process to do so. But perhaps this employee was a manager who has this capability. It did not sound like he or she was though (as they “usually” do not brag about going against policy).
Not knowing a company policy is not an excuse for such behavior. I’m certain he or she signed a company policy form. Did he or she read it all in detail and/or recall every policy? I’m sure not. But that is still no excuse. It would benefit to send out corporate communications on your policy at least twice a year, as a reminder.
Co-workers testimony in no way influenced me. The fact he edited his time to cover his tracks was enough for me to terminate him.
Your policy to give customers first chance at high demand items should remain in place. I am one of your customers. If I find out that your company allows your employees to get first crack at high demand items (with or without discount), I will be less likely to shop at your store. It is the customers who keep you in business, not your employees.
Kathleen,
Thank you much for your HCI presentation yesterday.
Much of what you said resonated deeply as your stories feel very familiar. And dangit, you sound so dang HUMAN!
Although I’m now in CT, I lived and worked 15 years in the Twin Cities. I’ve driven past Best Buy corporate offices many times. And I bet you and I were in the same office space (you with Honeywell, which turned in to my space at Wells Fargo)
All the best,
PMO
Paul Michael O’Brien
Managing Partner
Altura Consulting
2950 State Street
Hamden, CT 06517
203-213-5466
To me, the worst fact is that he edited his time records to cover his track: it is deeply dishonnest and proves that he knew he was doing wrong. Maybe I was influenced by the co-workers testimony, but once again, their testimonials prove the original intention of the employee. I can understand Best Buy’s policy to give customers the first chance at high-demand products, but I have one question that I think is important in that case too: do employees also have discounts on these kind of products once they’re allowed to buy them? If so, I think waiting a little bit is a fair deal.