The pandemic crisis has affected all facets of visitors’ delight. Some U.S. corporations that relied on an exclusive face-to-face delight found that they could not serve visitors.
The biggest confusing challenge for companies that continue to operate in person, such as supermarkets, retailers, restaurants and others, can simply be their new role as executors. These operators, who seek to comply with external mandates and corporate policies, have to deal with provocative consumers and arbitrate hostile behaviors.
The maximum non-unusual problem, of course, is the requirement to wear an on-premises mask. A consumer organization sees a consumer who wears a mask only as irresponsible and selfish, but as a serious risk to their physical and family condition. Today, this organization bureaucracys a gigantic majority. A recent vote found that 82% of the U.S. electorate was in favor of a national mask mandate.
Another organization considers wearing a mask to be an attack on their freedom. Some call mask wear “sheep” and are willing to stick to arbitrary government rules. Instead of meeting the requirement of a mask, some will bragably demonstrate the rule. Some have experienced store collapses. Michigan and Missouri have even noticed gunfire related to masks. While violent clashes are rare, many consumers of anti-masks simply forget about the signage and give a loose mask, necessarily in bold to prevent them from entering.
Companies sometimes avoid being embroiled in disagreements between groups of visitors. They are rarely a political party, les not their clients of the opposite persuasion abandon them. But dressing up in a mask is a challenge you can’t help.
Brands like Walmart, McDonalds, Best Buy, Starbucks and Target have a mandatory mask everywhere in the United States. Some, such as Family Dollar and Dollar Tree, must avoid national policy and stick to local mandates.
The challenge of these policies is how to implement them. While it is rare to see a visitor intentionally demonstrate the legal responsibility of wearing shoes in a store, it is not unusual to see others challenging the mask requirement. This puts store staff in the awkward position of confronting consumers who do not comply and denying them service. For in-store disputes, some brands have asked their workers to be kind, face confrontations, and allow non-compliant consumers to remain on site.
Some countries, including France, Spain and India, have national legal responsibility to wear a mask in public. This creates a consistent operating environment for companies in those countries. In the United States, the scenario is much more complicated.
Not only is there no national legal responsibility to wear a mask, however, for a while, President Trump was skeptical and even warned that some citizens do not wear a mask for physical fitness reasons, but to show their disapproval of their policies.
In the absence of a national requirement, states and localities are guilty of mask regulations. Some states have imposed masking in public spaces, others have left the progression of regulations to local governments. Even in places where there is a state-level requirement, some local governments have resisted implementation. Austin, Texas, for example, emphasizes “education, not dating.”
This messy patch of regulations leaves corporations and mask mandate executors a role few visitors enjoy and planners may have predicted earlier this year.
Even if corporations decide to take on consumers without a mask, other consumers can fight. A fountain shop in the workplace would be an unlikely site for a violent assault, however, in Hackensack, a visitor broke another visitor’s leg after being asked to adjust the mask.
Beyond compliance issues, another domain of conflict is the threat that unmasked consumers pose to employees. Employees facing the public don’t have the opportunity to paint from home and can touch dozens of consumers every day. This puts them at a greater threat of infection than other people, even if they are set to be cautious.
These frontline employees would likely see clients unmasked as a fitness risk and self-centered people. In a highly publicized case, an employee at a Houston grocery store contracted the virus and took it home. Both his parents evolved in severe cases, with his father ending up in the intensive care unit. Although it’s to turn out where the employee contracted the virus, her sister blames consumers who don’t wear a mask in her store.
A worker who sees expressive clients as self-centered and dangerous is unlikely to give them exemplary visitor delight. Beyond that, they can blame the control for endangering them by not enforcing the rules. The delight of workers and customers will be reduced when the office is unnecessarily threatening.
Even corporations that pride the joy of their workers face the threat of new conflicts. Stores, warehouses, delivery networks and other in-person activities must continue to operate. Situations and activities that seem to some workers may seem unnecessarily threatening to others.
A group called the Congress of Essential Workers has organized protests demanding more protective equipment, better testing protocols, hazard pay, and other changes. Companies with generally good employee relations in the past are finding themselves dealing with workers who fear coming to work and think the firms should do more to protect them.
From a business perspective, the most productive solution would be a transparent and accurate government policy. More importantly, regulations will have to be enforceable and well executed if necessary.
Despite the preference of a large majority of Americans, a national mandate is highly unlikely at this time. Even national and local regulations are likely to remain fragmented and implemented inconsistently.
In the absence of an undeniable regulatory solution, in-person operators will want to identify their own transparent regulations and compliance policies. Even if the requirement of a mask does not apply strictly, workers will still want to be vigilant to monitor visitor conflicts. The pandemic has higher degrees of tension for everyone and minds can light up quickly.
The possibility of a confrontation in the office is unprecedented and corporations do not yet have an option to advance the safety of workers and visitors. In my next article, I’ll propose a strategy based on psychology to do just that.
I write about science-based business strategies. The delight of the client and corporate culture is not unusual in the fact that they involve humans. My friction books
I write about science-based business strategies. The delight of the client and corporate culture is not unusual in the fact that they involve humans. My books Friction (McGraw Hill, May 2019) and Brainfluence (Wiley) reflect the science of vital behavior in practical business advice. This is also true for my Neuromarketing blog and my podcast, Brainfluence. I like practical applications, not theory. Lately I’m concentrating on writing, talking and teaching. Previously, I co-founded College Confidential, a university-linked virtual company that it acquired through DMGT, founded in the UK. I spent years in direct marketing as a co-founder of a successful catalog company and, before that, I ran business doing plans for a Fortune 1000 company. You can find more information about me and my RogerDooley.com. Follow me on Twitter on @rogerdooley.