Sheesh. Settle down a bit. We don't need anyone vapor-locking on this list....
You have made many valid points and I agree with at least some of them.
When I changed advisor pay plan to include CSI, I used individual advisor scores as the criteria---not overall CSI, not "Fix it Right". Thus the advisors have some control over their own destiny. Even if the job goes WAY wrong (as you've described) the advisor can STILL inform the customer of the status of their vehicle, listen to and understand a cutomer's needs, properly explain repairs when the customer picks up their car, etc etc. I have seen many, many instances where advisors scores were high even if the car was not fixed properly, or parts were delayed, etc etc.
We have had great results by a concerted campaign of simply asking for a good CSI score. Yes, the advisor simply asks "Please remember to return the survey and give me the best score you think I deserve." It works. The advisor has control over it. And, I might add, if I'm paying an advisor anywhere from $35-55K a year, I don't feel as though I'm being too oppressive by *insisting* that this easy-but-effective step be taken.
Yes, I have seen CSI repsonses where every item was clearly marked with the most negative answer, an obvious display of anger on the part of the customer. These are a rarity---or at least they should be. We get this from time-to-time, as everyone does, I suppose. Sometimes there is nothing the advisor could have done, sometimes the advisors COULD have mitigated the damage but didn't......
Yes, advisors take plenty of heat for situations they have no control over. That's part of the job, sorry. And perhaps that's why the best advisors are so well paid these days. I try to give the advisors as much help and support as possible---because they DO have such a rough job. I also give them a great deal of horsepower to make things happen, and plenty of latitude in handling tough situations----often times, since their in the middle of it, they know the best way to handle it.
Everyone has some measure of effect on a dealership CSI score and all should be held accountable to some extent. Sadly, and in most cases, a pay plan tie-in seems to be the easiest way to make sure that CSI issues are not ignored.
Our personal opinion of the validity, accuracy, or real world importance of manufacturer CSI scores is totally irrelevent. Right or wrong, they ARE used as a measure of sucess of failure and, this being the case, we have to contend with CSI issues the best we can. So, Farfinator, come back down to the real world where we all must deal with the unfairness of it all.
Now, as for your thoughts that advisors have no effect on shop productivity or efficiency, I must disagree. A good advisor will pre-sell most work, schedule work properly, make realistic promises, give plenty of details on a workorder, etc etc. These things DO have a bearing on efficiency and productivity. Just think of how an inexperienced writer screws up the flow of work thru the shop and you'll see my point....
Nobody ever said that service writing was easy. Some can cut it, others can't, some make excuses. I tell prospective advisors outright that it is the worst job in the store, full of problems, frustrations, and challenges. Then I ask again of they still want the job.....
Cheers to all
Doug
service writer pay plans
15 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
service writer pay plans
by Farfinator » Wed Oct 24, 2001 7:12 pm
Final Comments:
Doug,
"Reality" is that NO dealership is shackled to ANY pay plan by a manufacturer. They do NOT have to subscribe to flat rate nor do they have to set commissions based on CSI. The fact that it is "sadly" "Easier" to defer blame for weak pay plans based on manufacturer suggested criteria is EXACTLY the problem! It is easier to manage CSI by linking Advisor income to the scores, than getting of your duff and implementing and executing a REAL CSI program and coaching and monitoring its performance. Nobody ever said Service Management was supposed to be easy! Do something real! Be involved! Show some leadership and a personal commitment to the process yourself and your employees will no doubt be more inclined to echo your resolve. But, if you compensate unfairly and manage by virtue of a monthly report you will no doubt struggle to achieve your goals.
Doug,
"Reality" is that NO dealership is shackled to ANY pay plan by a manufacturer. They do NOT have to subscribe to flat rate nor do they have to set commissions based on CSI. The fact that it is "sadly" "Easier" to defer blame for weak pay plans based on manufacturer suggested criteria is EXACTLY the problem! It is easier to manage CSI by linking Advisor income to the scores, than getting of your duff and implementing and executing a REAL CSI program and coaching and monitoring its performance. Nobody ever said Service Management was supposed to be easy! Do something real! Be involved! Show some leadership and a personal commitment to the process yourself and your employees will no doubt be more inclined to echo your resolve. But, if you compensate unfairly and manage by virtue of a monthly report you will no doubt struggle to achieve your goals.
- Farfinator
service writer pay plans
by Doug » Wed Oct 24, 2001 10:02 pm
Farfinator,
You have evidentally taken a leap and assumed that I am not involved or concerned with coaching or developing our Service Advisors. This is not actually true, as I spend a great deal of time doing just that.
Yes,yes....we all know that a pay plan cannot replace good management. No news there. However, including specific performance standards into a pay plan is certainly not the worst thing that can happen and is not necessarily a sign of apathy,lack of imagination, care, or duty on the part of management, as you seem to infer.
Our latest pay plan, by the way, incorporates elements suggested by the advisors themselves and they certainly do not seem to feel oppressed or mistreated by it.
I am very "pro service advisor". I have a great deal of empathy for them and understand their plight. Nevertheless, they need to be held accountable just like all other employees.
Upon re-reading your previous posting, I can't help but wonder what *you* think an advisor *should* be held accountable for. You mentioned that the advisors have no control over CSI, shop productivity, comebacks, efficiency, discounts and so forth. I would disagree.
Anyhow, this is all beginning to sound more like argument than discussion, and my apologies to the group for that.
Farfinator, with all respect, lighten up ! Life's too short !
Cheers to all,
Doug
You have evidentally taken a leap and assumed that I am not involved or concerned with coaching or developing our Service Advisors. This is not actually true, as I spend a great deal of time doing just that.
Yes,yes....we all know that a pay plan cannot replace good management. No news there. However, including specific performance standards into a pay plan is certainly not the worst thing that can happen and is not necessarily a sign of apathy,lack of imagination, care, or duty on the part of management, as you seem to infer.
Our latest pay plan, by the way, incorporates elements suggested by the advisors themselves and they certainly do not seem to feel oppressed or mistreated by it.
I am very "pro service advisor". I have a great deal of empathy for them and understand their plight. Nevertheless, they need to be held accountable just like all other employees.
Upon re-reading your previous posting, I can't help but wonder what *you* think an advisor *should* be held accountable for. You mentioned that the advisors have no control over CSI, shop productivity, comebacks, efficiency, discounts and so forth. I would disagree.
Anyhow, this is all beginning to sound more like argument than discussion, and my apologies to the group for that.
Farfinator, with all respect, lighten up ! Life's too short !
Cheers to all,
Doug
- Doug
service writer pay plans
by Farfinator » Thu Oct 25, 2001 7:23 pm
Ok Doug and any other interested parties,
The point from the start was to emplore managers to consider *carefully* the relative fairness of the pay plan they put in place(See post 1). To consider the processes (CSI for one)they have effected to ensure that compensation targets/measures are achievable(and not wishful thinking), and that the employee who is to affected has a real and measureable, mechanism of achieving the goals. Nothing is worse than feeling helpless to affect your own fate.
I have neither assumed that you are uninvolved nor unconcerned. I was simply trying to further a point via elements of your response. We ARE, however, taking about people's income, I apologize for taking it SO seriously, but I for one am rather
passionate about my paycheck.
I did not suggest advisor's were not "accountable", I said they did not "govern" many things, meaning they may influence but they by no means are wholly responsible for them. And, In my opinion, accountablity does not imply a direct link to one's paycheck. I consider my parts guy accountable for the part's he sell's, but if he forgets to bill out a $200.00 rotor, I don't deduct it from his paycheck!
I also did not state that advisor had no control over CSI, I merely pointed out that their success can and often is heavily influenced by factors outside of their control.
People's income should be solely a relection of their own value and contribution. If you want to or feel compelled to utilize the manufacturers CSI figures as a reference or check, rather than an absolute guage, go ahead, but to be "fair" you should make your own accessment based on your own store's circumstance. In too many instances, I have observed frustrated employees, who were victims of department or store wide deficiencies over which they had little or no control, and that just sucks.
I have little doubt that you indeed try, Doug, the message is targeted at the rest who may not even be conscious that their situation warrants attention.
The point from the start was to emplore managers to consider *carefully* the relative fairness of the pay plan they put in place(See post 1). To consider the processes (CSI for one)they have effected to ensure that compensation targets/measures are achievable(and not wishful thinking), and that the employee who is to affected has a real and measureable, mechanism of achieving the goals. Nothing is worse than feeling helpless to affect your own fate.
I have neither assumed that you are uninvolved nor unconcerned. I was simply trying to further a point via elements of your response. We ARE, however, taking about people's income, I apologize for taking it SO seriously, but I for one am rather
passionate about my paycheck.
I did not suggest advisor's were not "accountable", I said they did not "govern" many things, meaning they may influence but they by no means are wholly responsible for them. And, In my opinion, accountablity does not imply a direct link to one's paycheck. I consider my parts guy accountable for the part's he sell's, but if he forgets to bill out a $200.00 rotor, I don't deduct it from his paycheck!
I also did not state that advisor had no control over CSI, I merely pointed out that their success can and often is heavily influenced by factors outside of their control.
People's income should be solely a relection of their own value and contribution. If you want to or feel compelled to utilize the manufacturers CSI figures as a reference or check, rather than an absolute guage, go ahead, but to be "fair" you should make your own accessment based on your own store's circumstance. In too many instances, I have observed frustrated employees, who were victims of department or store wide deficiencies over which they had little or no control, and that just sucks.
I have little doubt that you indeed try, Doug, the message is targeted at the rest who may not even be conscious that their situation warrants attention.
- Farfinator
- Doug
15 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Return to Service & Body Shop Managers
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests