Customer Service ??????

[rockyroad]

Our association approaches it this way - we provide a service to the schools. We need to be accommodating to the schools in certain areas: Be on time, be prepared, be professional, provide a quality product. If we don't do those things, they will find officials somewhere else. We do not "schmooze" with coaches, and we apply the rules as written...but we do need to be responsive to the schools needs.

[Tio]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Our association approaches it this way - we provide a service to the schools. We need to be accommodating to the schools in certain areas: Be on time, be prepared, be professional, provide a quality product. If we don't do those things, they will find officials somewhere else. We do not "schmooze" with coaches, and we apply the rules as written...but we do need to be responsive to the schools needs.

You have just provided a great definition of professionalism.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Tio

You have just provided a great definition of professionalism.

Yep, and that's what our association stresses; professionalism. Regardless of what you do 9-5, being an official is being a professional. Here, that means showing up in business casual attire (rather than jeans or sweats, although jeans are ok on weekends), showing up on time, treating the school staff with respect, leaving the changing room as clean or cleaner than we found it, and conducting ourselves as adults on the court.

But "customer service" stinks of undue deference to coaches.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Yep, and that's what our association stresses; professionalism. Regardless of what you do 9-5, being an official is being a professional. Here, that means showing up in business casual attire (rather than jeans or sweats, although jeans are ok on weekends), showing up on time, treating the school staff with respect, leaving the changing room as clean or cleaner than we found it, and conducting ourselves as adults on the court.

But "customer service" stinks of undue deference to coaches.

I have a friend who got to work the state baseball tournament last year. Great umpire, but he decided to take it a step farther by calling/contacting the coaches after every ballgame and asking them to let him know how he could improve and that he was really interested in their opinions. He's admitted to me that he's just "playing the system" since it appears that coaches ratings is the main (if not the only) criteria in deciding who gets to work deep in the playoffs. And his plan worked very well -- his ratings were through the roof.

I'd rather stay home than call or email a coach after a game.

[tref]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I have a friend who got to work the state baseball tournament last year. Great umpire, but he decided to take it a step farther by calling/contacting the coaches after every ballgame and asking them to let him know how he could improve and that he was really interested in their opinions. He's admitted to me that he's just "playing the system" since it appears that coaches ratings is the main (if not the only) criteria in deciding who gets to work deep in the playoffs. And his plan worked very well -- his ratings were through the roof.

He got the State game before/after implementing his plan?

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I'd rather stay home than call or email a coach after a game.

+1

Same here, Im a firm believer of letting your game speak for itself & allowing the chips to fall where they may!
Besides, 80% of "coaches" dont know the rules & are biased, which makes them IMO, unqualified to perform an honest critique of our overall body of work. IJS!

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by tref

He got the State game before/after implementing his plan?



+1

Same here, Im a firm believer of letting your game speak for itself & allowing the chips to fall where they may!
Besides, 80% of "coaches" dont know the rules & are biased, which makes them IMO, unqualified to perform an honest critique of our overall body of work. IJS!

Correction, 80% don't know the rules & 100% are biased.

[tref]

You sir, are absolutely right... I stand corrected!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I have a friend who got to work the state baseball tournament last year. Great umpire, but he decided to take it a step farther by calling/contacting the coaches after every ballgame and asking them to let him know how he could improve and that he was really interested in their opinions. He's admitted to me that he's just "playing the system" since it appears that coaches ratings is the main (if not the only) criteria in deciding who gets to work deep in the playoffs. And his plan worked very well -- his ratings were through the roof.

I'd rather stay home than call or email a coach after a game.

Sounds like a version of "smile and nod." Well played by him, it seems.

[tref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Sounds like a version of "smile and nod." Well played by him, it seems.

Game, set, match! *if advancing in that manner is acceptable to the individual*

Personally, I choose not to seek but I will "smile & nod" when feedback is offered.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Sounds like a version of "smile and nod." Well played by him, it seems.

Originally Posted by tref

Game, set, match! *if advancing in that manner is acceptable to the individual*

Personally, I choose not to seek but I will "smile & nod" when feedback is offered.

Of course, who's to do say he wouldn't have advanced without the phone calls?

Luckily around here coaches don't have a say. I know 2 or 3 have given me the "unapproachable" tag.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by tref

Game, set, match! *if advancing in that manner is acceptable to the individual*

Personally, I choose not to seek but I will "smile & nod" when feedback is offered.

Agreed, but I can't help but chuckle at the fact that he has, essentially, "worked" the coaches.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I have a friend who got to work the state baseball tournament last year. Great umpire, but he decided to take it a step farther by calling/contacting the coaches after every ballgame and asking them to let him know how he could improve and that he was really interested in their opinions. He's admitted to me that he's just "playing the system" since it appears that coaches ratings is the main (if not the only) criteria in deciding who gets to work deep in the playoffs. And his plan worked very well -- his ratings were through the roof.

This sounds to me like a man who seriously gives a damn about his performance, and is willing to take the extra step to succeed.

A lot of companies have become successful by asking for feedback, evaluating it, and applying the correct information that will cause growth. It sounds to me like this guy is taking a page from that book.

As much as some of us like to make broad-brush statements about coaches and what they don't know, the truth is do indeed serve them, among others on the court/field. Those that serve better, in any field, typically get to serve more. The tricky balance, though, is serving the game, while satisfying those associated with it.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

This sounds to me like a man who seriously gives a damn about his performance, and is willing to take the extra step to succeed.

A lot of companies have become successful by asking for feedback, evaluating it, and applying the correct information that will cause growth. It sounds to me like this guy is taking a page from that book.

As much as some of us like to make broad-brush statements about coaches and what they don't know, the truth is do indeed serve them, among others on the court/field. Those that serve better, in any field, typically get to serve more. The tricky balance, though, is serving the game, while satisfying those associated with it.

No, he wasn't trying to improve (at least not with this move). I think you missed the point. He appropriately gave the coaches' comments the credence they deserved; none. However, they gave him better scores merely because he had asked for their input; not because he made the changes they suggested.

They got worked.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

No, he wasn't trying to improve (at least not with this move). I think you missed the point. He appropriately gave the coaches' comments the credence they deserved; none. However, they gave him better scores merely because he had asked for their input; not because he made the changes they suggested.

They got worked.

Exactly. My friend went to the Jim Evans umpire school and actually turned down an offer to work in organized baseball. He's an outstanding umpire.

But that doesn't matter around here. Here, it's number of years of service (and if those years are in another state it doesn't show up anywhere) and coach ratings. And his coach ratings were so high, they ignored their usual #1 qualification, years of service.

I've watched the state tournament on the Internet. A few decent umpires there (and those have connections of some kind), but I'd say 9 of the 12 are guys in their late 50s or 60s or 70s who can't move and whose best days were (if ever) a long time ago. Sectional crew chiefs wearing jackets bought in the 1980s from Kmart and using balloon protectors behind the plate. Consider it a gold watch assignment, which, to me, is despicable. The kids and the game deserve better.

I've had a conversation with a coach who's also a very good umpire. He hires his own non-conference officials and for those games he only hires from a very small group of people (and I'm happy to be one of them). I asked him once about how he rates umpires and he admitted he gave good ratings to some very poor umpires because they're "nice guys" and he doesn't want to hurt them. Then he said, "But I give all you guys the top ratings."

And this is from a guy who actually can tell me all of the bad habits and bad things these guys do on the field -- most coaches don't have a clue. So they give good ratings to the old-timers that they know well (and who would never make a call such as batter's interference or a balk or take care of unsporting behavior) and give lesser ratings to officials who feel that's all part of the job.

So, no, I won't play the game. I'm still rated very well (just not in the stratosphere), but it's unlikely I'll get the call anytime soon. I'm only a 9th year umpire (with 15 years in other states and that doesn't count).

[tref]

Originally Posted by bainsey

This sounds to me like a man who seriously gives a damn about his performance, and is willing to take the extra step to succeed.

Extra steps to succeed in the officiating field should be attending quality camps to be critiqued by people who know what they are talking about. Honest self assessment through film breakdown improves ones skillset as well. JMO

Originally Posted by bainsey

A lot of companies have become successful by asking for feedback, evaluating it, and applying the correct information that will cause growth. It sounds to me like this guy is taking a page from that book.

Those businesses differ from officiating as they dont service them in contests where one client is sure to win & the other is sure to lose. Big difference!
The customer is always right, doesnt apply on my 94x50... sorry!

Originally Posted by bainsey

As much as some of us like to make broad-brush statements about coaches and what they don't know, the truth is do indeed serve them, among others on the court/field. Those that serve better, in any field, typically get to serve more. The tricky balance, though, is serving the game, while satisfying those associated with it.

Which one is it & do you coach???

I serve in this order:

1. The GAME
2. Partners
3. Myself

while satisfying ALL associated with The GAME (until one team loses or doesn't get their way or gets a bad call or etc, etc)