English 393 Final Project Final Draft Portfolio

Carver 1

MEMO Date:

December 2, 2018

To:

Professor Sheila Lalwani

From:

Ben Carver

Subject:

Research Recommendation Final Draft

The feedback I received from my peers following our first draft submission was very useful for the most part I thought. My peer reviewers were generally very generous with my draft, but they did highlight several areas where they thought that the draft needed to be improved on prior to the final. The first was to run through the draft and check for passive construction. In the final I have done my best to read through and convert any instances of passive voice to an active equivalent. My final conference with you also mentioned a similar issue; although our conference focused on awkward phrasing in general, I thought that these two issues fall into roughly the same category, which was simply improving on the syntax of the paper. The next piece of constructive criticism that my peer reviewers both touched on was to be mindful of formatting issues within the paper itself. One of the peer reviewers pointed out that my type size and font did now follow MLA guidelines and I have remedied that in the final draft. I also had a number of formatting errors throughout the paper: the location of my headers was not consistent, I had forgotten several times to indent my paragraphs, and my spacing varied somewhat between each section. Most of the formatting issues of the paper were relatively simple to fix but took some time to comb through and finish. The content of my paper most weak in the results section based on both the peer review and our conference. I have tried to flesh out my final recommendation a bit further for the final, entering into the beginnings of a comparative analysis for the different implementation options going forward. I have also gone through the document and tried to identify any places in the previous draft where I left out in text citations and included them in the final draft of the project. These mostly take place in the earlier sections of the piece, citing my background sources and research appendices more thoroughly. This class has been an extremely interesting and informative one for me. The way each section of the class was structured I think also made this quite a bit easier given the moderate workload. Including peer reviews and conferences for a grade on each project definitely made up for the decreased communication as a consequence of the course being held online. The discussion posts based on readings or documents also helped to engage in the content of the course generally, and having a guaranteed source of feedback and discussion was immensely useful. The only assignments that I didn’t necessarily find as useful were the voicethread assignments; the content of the assignments were great, but I don’t know if the format was any better than a written discussion post.

Thank you for an excellent course experience!

Carver 2

Audience Analysis Primary Audience My primary audience will be both Jill Rubenstein, the Senior Director of HR at the JCC and Mike Bracha, the Director of Facilities. Ms. Rubenstein is responsible for overseeing all HR related tasks within the organization, to include the implementation of training programs and general personnel related changes. She also conducts the employee investigations in the case of a more serious incident or complaint. Mr. Bracha is ultimately responsible for the management of the security personnel on the JCC campus. Mr. Bracha has also already expressed serious interest in exploring possible options for complaints against the security staff, and has been interviewed as part of the recommendation report. He needs to be present and sign off on any training or management strategies related to security staff. Gatekeeper The gatekeeper of the recommendation is be Jane Rosenfeld, my former supervisor who is the Human Resources Associate at the JCC of Baltmore. Ms. Rosenfeld serves as the main point of contact for the company in Human Resources related issues. She is also the individual receiving and reviewing employee complaint reports for most of the year. Ms. Rosenfeld reports directly to Ms. Rubenstein and would need to pass the report on to her. Secondary Audience The secondary reader is the Chief Financial Officer, Mordechai Bennett. Mr. Bennet supervises Ms. Rubenstein, and while she has authority over general HR policy in the JCC, Mr. Bennet advises her on appropriate uses of the departmental budget. As a general rule, Mr. Bennet

Carver 3

is hands off when it comes to the actual Human Resources policy of the JCC, but may give input depending on the scope of any program Ms. Rubenstein would like to implement. Tertiary Audience The tertiary audience may include any number of people. Attorneys may read over the proposal in the future to determine what the JCC’s response was following another incident. The security staff themselves may read the recommendation report in the future, as well as possibly JCC members filing complaints.

Carver 4

Located Below is an infographic outlining the JCC’s use of social media.

Carver 5

December 2, 2018 Jane Rosenfeld Human Resources Associate Jewish Community Center of Baltimore 5700 Park Heights Ave, Baltimore, MD 21215 Dear Ms. Rosenfeld: I am currently an undergraduate student at the University of Maryland entering my final semester. As you know, I worked under you as a Human Resources intern this past summer as the Jewish Community Center of Baltimore. While working there I reviewed all of the visitor complaint reports against staff, and noticed the high prevalence of complaints registered specifically against the security staff. We discussed this issue, and you informed me that formal complaints against the building’s security were up by more than 50% from the same time last year. I have prepared a research recommendation report with the goal of determining the causes of, and possible solutions to, this issue. The research report begins with an introduction to the problem and the specific context of the situation at the JCC. The report then introduces a body of relevant secondary research regarding possible causes for this rise in complaints against JCC staff, including research into current issues in the customer service industry, and non-traditional front of house staff. The claims made in this report are also reinforced by two pieces of primary research: a survey given to recent visitors to the JCC from Camp Koolanu, as well as an interview with Mr. Mike Bracha regarding the security staff. The report also presents the effectiveness of 3 possible solutions drawn from current research in the customer service and Human Resources fields. Each solution was compared based on its cost to the company, ease of implementation, and general effectiveness. I believe that this report will allow you to identify the causes of the complaints and inform the company’s response going forward. Please contact me any time by phone or email if you have questions about the report or my research. Thank you very much for your time. Sincerely, Ben Carver 8328 Marketree Circle Montgomery Village, MD 20886 336-253-5742

Carver 6

Research and Recommendations for How to Decrease the Number of Complaints against Security Staff at the Jewish Community Center of Greater Baltimore Written by Benjamin Carver December 2, 2018

Prepared for Jill Rubenstein, Senior Director of Human Resources at The Jewish Community Center of Baltimore.

Carver 7

Table of Contents

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………8

Summary………………………………...………………………………………………………11

Methods………………………………………………………………………………………….13

Results…………………………………………………………………………………………...15

Discussion of Results……………………………………………………………………………17

Conclusions……………………………………………………………………………………...19

Recommendation………………………………………………………………………………..19

Works Cited……………………………………………………………………………………..21

Appendix A……………………………………………………………………………………...23

Appendix B……………………………………………………………………………………...26

Carver 8

Introduction A company’s relationship with customers it serves as one of the most important factors in predicting the organization’s long-term success and profitability (Birch). For a member-centered organization like the Jewish Community Center of Baltimore, this is doubly true. The JCC thrives on the positive experience of its visitors and members; any indication that this experience is being negatively affected demands attention. One of the best measures of member experience that the JCC has, is in the form of formal member complaints against employees. Formal complaints serve as an important outlet for customers to voice frustrations about employee or organization inadequacies, as well as serving as a barometer for an organization’s customer service shortcomings (Donham). Unfortunately, the JCC is not completely free of complaints, and in some areas, complaints have risen significantly over recent months. While complaints have risen somewhat among several departments of JCC staff, the area in which in this rise is most drastic is within the building security staff. JCC member complaints against building security staff have risen over 50% during the past summer, a dramatic rise in a short period of time. A similar rise in complaints in evident in other departments of the JCC, but they are generally closer to 15-20%, as is the case with the cleaning staff (JCC Complaints). The purpose of this document is to explore viable solutions for addressing this rise in member complaints, and ultimately come to a recommendation as to how to address the problem going forward. In order to determine the causes of and a solution to this problem, we need to examine the contents of the complaints made against the security staff themselves. Primarily the complaints are centered around the perceived attitude, or rudeness, of the security staff (JCC Complaints). There is a consistent pattern of JCC members and visitors arguing that building security is “rude” or “unhelpful” during daily interactions, but not necessarily that the security staff are performing

Carver 9

their actual security responsibilities inadequately (JCC Complaints). An interview conducted with Mr. Mike Bracha on November 2 of this year also seems to confirm the notion that the issue that is highlighted by member complaints is likely caused by friction in interactions between JCC members and security staff rather than a directly security related issue (Appendix A). According to Mr. Bracha, some members of the security staff have expressed concern that they may come across as unintentionally rude when carrying out necessary tasks for the security of the JCC (Appendix A). In addition to this, 33.3% of respondents to a survey sent out to Camp Koolanu parents indicated that the security staff do not seem to welcome questions from members, as well as a similar number characterizing the staff as unfriendly or unapproachable (Appendix B). Based on the content of the complaints, the primary research survey, and the feedback of the security staff directly to Mr. Bracha, the issue driving the complaints seems to be a problem of customer service interaction on the part of the staff rather than any incompetence regarding security matters. The security staff interact with JCC members and visitors very frequently during an average day, likely more than any other division of the facilities department of the building. According to the Camp Koolanu survey, more than 75% of respondents said that they interact with security staff one or more times a visit (Appendix B). Given this increased level of interaction with JCC visitors, it is not surprising that any issue with security staff interaction with visitors would quickly become apparent in this rise in complaints. In particular, referring to the Camp Koolanu respondents that the survey data was collected from, members of the security interact with them once a day at minimum, during pick up and drop off of Koolanu campers in the morning and afternoon (Appendix B). This degree of interaction is comparable to some of the front desk personnel at the JCC, but without the equivalent level of customer service training that

Carver 10

accompanies those positions. This represents a continual point of friction between visitors and JCC staff, and it is imperative that any flaw in that interaction is addressed quickly and effectively. This ultimate goal of this recommendation report is to arrive at a solution to the complaints that will address their cause both immediately as well as continuously into the future. There are three main possible solutions that have been identified as viable options for the JCC’s specific situation. The first, is implementation of a customer service training program within the security department of the JCC. This would be done either through an outside consulting agency, or via a program implemented by the JCC’s existing Human Resources department. The second, is utilizing an employee accountability system based on industry examples. One such example of this is an employee self-policing system where staff members evaluate each other on a regular basis. The third solution is a continuation of the system of case by case review and employee termination used by the JCC currently. The report will examine the continued effectiveness of this method, and how it may be improved upon or supplemented in the future. The purpose of each of these solutions is to address the subject of the complaints as effectively as possible while incurring no more cost to the JCC than is necessary. Based on these goals, the overall effectiveness of a solution will later be determined by two criteria: the number of complaints following implementation over the course of year, and an estimate of the funds that will need to be dedicated to each option’s implementation.

Carver 11

Summary The JCC is, at its core, a volume customer-based organization. In other words, the revenue of the JCC is directly tied to the experiences of a large number of continuous visitors. For an organization the size of the JCC, the number of these visitors can range from several hundred a day at minimum, to thousands during peak hours and dates (Birch). Volume customer-based organizations include Gyms, Pools, Hotels, and community centers (MikeRowland). The shared characteristic of these organizations is that they depend on the positive experiences of their customers to encourage a returning client base, and by extension a steady revenue stream (Mike-Rowland). They also share in common some of pitfalls unique to high volume customer interactions with employees, namely customer service fatigue. Customer service fatigue refers to the degradation of the quality of customer interactions with employees in particularly high-volume settings (Birch). Examples of positions that are usually susceptible to customer service fatigue are front desk personnel, cashiers, “Help line” teleworkers, or other highly interactive positions. The effects of customer service fatigue are well known and often trained against in these positions, but other, non-traditionally interactive members of an organizations staff are also often subject to customer service fatigue (Birch). In this situation, maintenance, facilities, or security staff such as at the JCC, may be overexposed to a customer service role that they are not traditionally thought of as performing. These positions are therefore even more susceptible to customer service fatigue due to a lack of training and the direct oversight that other more traditionally customer-oriented positions might operate with (Birch). The issue of customer service fatigue as described here is particularly harmful to volume customer-based organizations like the JCC because the sheer number of visitors makes interaction with most employees inevitable. A smaller organization like a doctor’s office may be

Carver 12

able to filter their customers through a specific customer service apparatus such as a waiting room (Birch). In such a case, customers may interact with only one or two employees before their appointment, and customer service shortcomings are easy to identify and alleviate. The nature of volume customer-based organizations however, is that visitors will interact often with staff outside of what would be considered a traditional customer service apparatus (MikeRowland). The JCC’s security team is particularly vulnerable to this problem due to the nature of their work; monitoring exit and entry to the JCC’s buildings means that interaction with visitors is extremely likely, and as the primary survey results show, at least 75% of respondents interact with the security team at least once a visit (Appendix B). Recognizing this, the JCC security team is a de facto component of the customer service apparatus at the JCC, but without same support or training that other customer service roles within the organization might have. Failure to support or recognize the role of these traditionally “Back of house” positions in the customer service efforts of the organization can have potentially damaging consequences to the long-term success of the organization (Birch). As previously stated, the JCC’s revenue is directly tied to the membership fees it accrues from a customer base that it depends on. Visitors to the JCC are encouraged to buy a membership based solely on their experiences at the JCC, which are tied in heavily to the customer service environment fostered by its employees. Furthermore, members stay members based on their continued quality of experience; since the JCC is a community center, the product being sold to its members is their positive experience with the organization and its employees. For volume customer-based organizations such as the JCC, complaints and reviews are even more heavily tied to organizational solvency than most industries. According to the Journal of the Korea Academia Industrial Cooperation Society, a five-year study of gyms in the Seoul region, revealed that declines in review positivity as well as

Carver 13

poor responsiveness to complaints (Hee-Jin). While this may seem obvious, it underscores the importance of addressing threats to customer experience and employee complaints.

Methods Included in this report are the results of a survey given to recent visitors of the JCC on their personal experience with the security staff, as well as the transcript of an interview conducted with Mr. Mike Bracha. Both of these primary research efforts were conducted with the goal of determining how a possible solution to the rise of complaints against the security staff would fit into the specific context of the JCC. The Interview with Mr. Bracha was conducted on November 2nd of 2018 in Mr. Bracha’s office at the JCC of Baltimore Located in Park Heights (Appendix A). Mr. Bracha was chosen as an interview subject because he is the final manager of the JCC’s security apparatus as the Director of Facilities. He is uniquely positioned with regards to his proximity to the JCC Security team, and helped provide context to the complaints from the point of view of the specific security demands of the JCC. Mr. Bracha also personally provided insight into the concerns of the security team regarding the complaints, and shared concerns they had regarding the content of the complaints and their potential responses. One of the most important goals of this interview was to determine how the JCC currently handles customer service training among the security staff, as well as a more specific account of how the JCC currently deals with complaints against the security staff. This was done in an effort to determine how any potential solution put forward might fit into the JCC’s current response or training regimen.

Carver 14

The included survey regarding member interactions with security staff was administered via a Google form to an emailing list of Camp Koolanu parents and guardians from the past summer. The form was sent a list of 87 emails, and received 33 responses in between November 3rd and November 16th of 2018. The list of Camp Koolanu parents was chosen because it gave access to a population of individuals who regularly entered the JCC over the past summer at minimum to drop off and pick up the Koolanu campers. The general purpose of the survey was to collect data on how respondents felt their interactions with JCC security affected their experience at the JCC, as well as how often they interacted with security staff. The questions of the survey were expressly designed to gauge how members of the JCC would rate their personal interactions with JCC security, rather than any kind of subjective rating of how actual security duties were performed by the security team. The secondary research for the report was performed with two major goals in mind: to establish the ill effects of customer complaints on the JCC as a whole, and the exploration of current and alternative solutions to the problem. The secondary research of the report is focused on 3 main solution paths. First, the viability and implementation of customer service training for JCC security staff. This research was primarily drawn from the Birch, Mike Rowland, Donham, and Sunoo sources listed in the bibliography. The second body of research focused on employee accountability systems that could possibly be implemented at the JCC. These include anything from a more robust performance evaluation system to a peer accountability system as seen in some other organizations. This was primarily covered by Taskin, Lam and Evans. The final portion of research was collected with the goal of understanding the effectiveness and use of the Case by Case review and reprimand system used by the JCC currently. This was mostly covered by Flake, Hee-Jin, and Darymple.

Carver 15

Results Interview with Mike Bracha The interview with Mr. Bracha clarified and brought to light a large amount of relevant information. First, one of the most likely possible causes of the rise in complaints in Mr. Bracha’s opinion is a recent string of retirements among experienced employees and the subsequent hiring of security staff who are unfamiliar with the environment of the JCC (Appendix A). Mr. Bracha also outlined where there was possible room for Improvement in the JCC’s approach to security training, as well as where the current methods are effective. In his opinion, the case by case review method used by the JCC has been effective at addressing issues with individual security staff members, but it is also not necessarily the only solution needed. In addition to the current review system, additional training on how to deal with JCC visitors on a day to day basis may be beneficial (Appendix A). Mr. Bracha also mentioned concerns of the JCC security staff over how they are perceived. Some of the security personnel have come forward and mentioned that they feel that they are perceived as rude when they are trying to perform the routine requirements of their jobs; they often have a hard time balancing “firm but polite” tone (Appendix A). Survey Sent to Camp Koolanu Parents As mentioned previously, the primary research survey revealed that most respondents interacted regularly with security staff during their time at the JCC. Out of the 33 respondents, more than 75% answered that they interact with security staff at least once a visit if not more (Appendix B). When directly asked about the approachability of the security staff, or how open they seem to be to questions, roughly a third of respondents answered negatively. Most

Carver 16

importantly, when asked if the security staff had contributed positively to their experience at the JCC, a third of respondents answered that their interactions with security staff and had a negative impact on their overall experience. Customer Service Training Customer service training appears to be a viable option for JCC security. In a study of international hotel staff, customer service training was shown to consistently improve customer experiences over time (Mike-Rowland Et Al). These results were always positive in some manner but varied in significance somewhat. Customer service training is also generally not an immediate solution to the problem. In Christopher Birch’s piece for the Journal of Airport Management, San Francisco international implemented a holistic customer service training program that achieved very positive results, but took 3 months to be fully implemented (Birch). In addition to this, customer service training may be one of the more expensive options available, sometimes requiring the hiring of outside consulting firms if internal company resources are unable to design and implement their own program (Sunoo). These costs can be mitigated by using the existing Human Resources department, but outside expertise may still be needed (Sunoo). This also not a stand-alone solution; supplementary review is still necessary for individual problems. Training is useful, but often times complaints reveal a more fundamental problem with the individual that requires further action (Donham). Employee Accountability programs Employee accountability programs such as self-policing and peer review are useful in some circumstances but can be unreliable (Taskin). Regular performance reviews may also be useful, but is often best when used to help employees when they fail to meet clearly defined

Carver 17

goals (Taskin). In addition to this, these programs can foster resentment among employees. In the case of individual performance reviews this resentment will be directed toward the employer, but self-policing and peer review methods may cause issues between staff which is generally even worse for the work environment (Evans). However, performance reviews and peer policing systems are generally easy to implement and may utilize existing company resources without the need to hire outside expertise (Taskin). Case by Case Review Case by case review of complaints is one of the most efficient ways to immediately address individual problems. By directly dealing with the employee who is the subject of a complaint, the review determines how to deal with the problem on an individual basis often leading to termination. It is the most effective way of dealing with employees with chronic professionalism problems (Darymple). Alone however, this solution does not address any knowledge gap that may have affected employee performance prior to the complaint. This often leads to termination of employees without addressing the issue at the heart of the employee’s performance (Flake). Because case by case review often results in employee termination, it is also extremely expensive for the organizations. After accounting for time lost, human resources recruiting, training and onboarding, the total amount spent on termination and hiring of employees averages around $4000 (Flake).

Discussion of Results Based on this research, customer service training is likely one of the better options based on the risk to JCC and possible reward. While not always immediately effective in terms of

Carver 18

addressing chronic employee issues, customer service training shows consistently positive results. The only possible downside is cost, and time spent. While cost is potentially high, it is generally manageable within larger organizations with a robust human-resources apparatus (Birch). In the case of a well-established organization like the JCC, a single consultant may be all that is necessary to assist staff in constructing a training program, rather than handing it over entirely to an outside firm. Unfortunately, this is generally not a stand-alone solution. With harder cases of employee unprofessionalism training may simply not be enough to solve the problem permanently. While employee accountability programs may be effective in many circumstances, they also have a fair amount of issues. Chief among the downsides of employee accountability programs is the possibility of encouraging employee resentment. In addition to this they may punish staff for failing to meet goals that are not clearly defined. Their effectiveness stems from situations where employees are failing to live up to standards that they clearly know how to meet. A benefit of this approach is that there is often very little hard monetary investment required. Case by case review of employees is very efficient in dealing with specific incidents and chronic problems. In cases of repeated employee unprofessionalism, review and possible termination is often the best option. However, relying on review and termination without additional training may not sufficiently address the cause of the problem, as well as being extremely expensive for the organization in the long term.

Carver 19

Conclusions The most efficient solution going forward is likely not to stick to any one of the previous methods outlined, but to utilize a combination of them. Implementing a new employee accountability program of either a self-policing model, or increased performance reviews seems the least likely to be effective in the particular situation of the JCC. While running the risk of antagonizing employees, an employee accountability program would likely do little to alleviate the problem since much of the security staff appears to be unclear on what the goals they should aspiring to meet are. Customer service training would go toward addressing the knowledge gap in the security team’s training, but is not a stand alone solution to other more serious problems with security staff should they occur. While it is also likely to be much more expensive than an employee accountability system, it is more likely to have positive results in the context of the JCC. Case by case review and termination is a necessary and effective tool when dealing with complaints, but is expensive and inefficient as a primary solution. Training may address the root cause of the problem without resorting to termination as a default.

Recommendation The final recommendation of this report is that the JCC implement a supplementary customer service training program to the existing method of case by case review. Based on the research presented in this report, a combination of customer service training to establish a knowledge base for the security staff, as well as continuing individual case review to address more chronic or serious employee issues will be the best option going forward. The costs of

Carver 20

customer service training will likely be offset by fewer terminations following the programs implementation, and this will provide a continuous and adaptable response into the future. The next steps will be to identify a customer service consulting firm in the Baltimore region to collaborate with the JCC’s Human Resources department in creating and implementing a program for the security team. Sozo consulting in Baltimore city is a possible candidate as a large, local customer service consulting firm. Birch provides some outline for how an in house program may be implemented, but further research into the exact costs of implementation are being outsourcing and using the existing Human Resources assets present within the JCC. The further specialization afforded by outsourcing program development or training my also be worth any additional costs that the JCC would incur.

Carver 21

Works Cited Birch, Christopher. “‘Serve Well’: San Francisco International Airport’s Staff Engagement Approach to Providing Meaningful, Empathy-Based Service.” Journal of Airport Management, vol. 12, no. 3, Summer 2018, pp. 283–290. Flake, Dalian F. “When Should Employers Be Liable for Factoring Biased Customer Feedback into Employment Decisions?” Minnesota Law Review, vol. 102, no. 5, May 2018, pp. 2169–2228 Mike-Rowland, O. F., and C. E. Ogunlade. “Training: A Panacea of Customer Service Inefficiency and Improving Hotel Performance at Osogbo, Osun State, Nigeria.” International Journal of Arts & Sciences, vol. 10, no. 2, Sept. 2017, pp. 17–29. Evans, Joel M., et al. “Misleading by Example: The Effects of a Manager’s Unfair Customer Treatment on Service Employee Performance and Perceived Managerial Trustworthiness.” Social Justice Research, vol. 31, no. 3, Sept. 2018, pp. 260–289. Taskin, Laurent, and Juvénal Ndayambaje. “Revealing the Dominant Anthropological Consideration of Humankind in the Teaching of Human Resource Management: A Critique of Individual Performance Evaluation.” Ephemera: Theory & Politics in Organization, vol. 18, no. 2, May 2018, pp. 277–301 Donham, Cary, et al. “Train Your Staff on Complaints.” Workforce, vol. 93, no. 1, Jan. 2014,

Carver 22

p. 47 Hee-Jin, Ji. “A Study on the Effects of Company’s Actual Response to Customer Complaints on Justice, Trust and Satisfaction.” Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial Cooperation Society, vol. 16, no. 6, June 2015, pp. 3829–3836 Lam, N. W. W., and B. G. Dale. “Customer Complaints Handling System: Key Issues and Concerns.” Total Quality Management, vol. 10, no. 6, Aug. 1999, pp. 843–851. Dalrymple, J. F., and M. Donnelly. “Managing and Evaluating Customer Complaint Procedures in Local Government.” Total Quality Management, vol. 8, no. 2/3, June 1997, pp. 136 140 Sunoo, Brenda Paik. “Results-Oriented Customer Service Training.” Workforce (10928332), vol. 80, no. 5, May 2001, p. 84 JCC.org, Mission Media, 2018, https://www.jcc.org

Carver 23

Appendix A Interview with Mike Bracha Interviewee: Mike Bracha – Director of Facilities at the JCC of Baltimore Park Heights Interviewee Contact: [email protected] Interview Date: 11/2/2018

Introduction: I approached Mr. Bracha in person in October of 2018 to ask if he would be willing to sit down for an interview regarding the JCC security staff. Located below is the transcript of that in-person interview in Mr. Bracha’s office.

1. Does the current JCC security training include any instruction on how to interact with members? It does, but I would say most of the training is centered around how to respond to individuals who are not behaving well. In other words, our current training regimen focuses more on how you might de-escalate a bad situation or handle somehow who is behaving erratically than say, directing a grandmother to the café. I think in the past we have generally expected that our staff are able to be friendly to visitors without being coached.

2. What, in your view, is the cause of the rise of member complaints against security staff? Well, if we are just going by the complaints, it seems that there are more incidents where visitors are not happy with how the security staff interact with them. I don’t know exactly what would have caused a change entirely, but after speaking to Everett (One of the senior security guards), He brought it to my attention that some of our new hires are a bit more aggressive than is necessary when dealing with potential security issues. Some of the new folks are experienced security guards, but in different environments that don’t necessarily demand the same attitude as the J.

3. What has been the department’s response to member complaints against security staff? Has this response been effective thus far?

Carver 24

We have handled complaints on a case by case basis and it has been effective so far. If a staff member demonstrates a pattern of inappropriate behavior they are terminated following review. That being said there has been higher than normal turnover lately so a more comprehensive strategy may be in order.

4. Does the JCC face any unique obstacles that would make these kind of complaints more common in your opinion? I think one thing to remember is that Jewish organizations need heavy security, this horrible tragedy in Pittsburgh demonstrates that. That doesn’t mean that we should sacrifice the positive experience of visitors, but the security staff needs to be vigilant. This might turn some people off, but to a certain extent it’s unavoidable. For example, if you leave an unattended bag in a common area you may be approached by security staff or have your bag moved. For some people that really bothers them and it may lead to a complaint.

5. Have any of the security staff expressed concern about past member complaints? I think some of our previous staff have had a hard time balancing the “firm but polite” aspect of their work. I have been approached in the past by members of the team who were concerned that they might be perceived as discourteous by visitors to the JCC when giving instructions or relaying security protocol.

6. In your own words, what would you describe as the essential job functions of a security guard at the JCC. First and foremost would obviously be the ensure the safety of the JCC. Secondly would be to contribute positively to the environment and culture of the JCC. By that I mean to remain professional at all times and friendly as much is possible.

7. Have these kinds of complaints ever cropped up in the past? What was the previous response. They have of course, but usually the numbers are lower. As we do now, the complaints were handled on an individual basis and Jill and I then decide how to proceed. I think this gets back to the cause question that we discussed earlier. We had a few senior people leave or retire recently and the complaints have mainly centered around some of our new staff.

8. How seriously should we take complaints from members regarding the security team’s “gruff” attitude?

Carver 25

Complaints about the attitude of JCC staff are always important and we do take them very seriously. As I said, one of the things we look for in our security staff is the ability to remain friendly and professional under pressure. If they cannot maintain that standard, then they probably should not be working with us.

9. In your opinion, is there any area of the JCC security team’s training that we could improve? Are there any areas that you would like to add altogether? I think there is room to improve on how we train our security staff to deal with visitors on a day to day basis. Most of the recent complaints have come regarding security staff who work at the front desk, so I additional training on how to handle difficult visitors or how to project a positive attitude would help.

Carver 26

Appendix B Survey on JCC Member Experience Interacting with security staff

Introduction: The following data is derived from a survey recording the perceived quality of JCC visitor interactions with security staff. The survey data was collected from between November 3rd and November 16th of 2018, and was sent to a list of 87 emails drawn from recent customers of JCC summer camps. Located below are also the questions and answers allowed within the survey. Link to survey: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSehr6XKps5lGPqhKnMBGnIYeo_X5nwXGaHnfwCX5nzLb3CMw/viewform?usp=sf_link

Please help the JCC improve our member experience by answering a few short questions regarding your recent interactions with the security staff of our building. While the JCC strives to provide as secure and safe a facility as possible for our members, we also want to maintain the welcoming environment of our locations. Please note that these questions are specifically regarding your interactions with individual members of our security team, not the security apparatus as a whole. 1. How often would you say you speak directly with a member of the security staff of the JCC? a. b. c. d.

Infrequently – once every few visits Once a visit Twice a visit Three times a visit or more

2. How would you rate the approachability of the security staff? How do they come across? 1 – Unapproachable 2 – Unfriendly 3 – friendly 4 – Welcoming 3. Do the security staff seem open to answering questions about the JCC?

Carver 27

a. Yes, they answer to the best of their ability b. No, they do not seem to welcome questions c. N.A. I have not asked the security staff any questions. 4. Are you satisfied with the manner that the Security staff interacts with you or your family? 1234-

Yes, I am satisfied. I am mostly satisfied I am mostly dissatisfied I am not satisfied at all

5. Would you say your interactions with the security staff contribute positively or negatively to your experience at the JCC? a. They have contributed positively to my experience with the JCC b. They negatively contributed to my experience at the JCC c. They have had little impact on my experience at the JCC Results

Carver 28

Carver 29