The Men's Warehouse - Tying it all together, and bringin' it home!

It has come to my attention that there are some threads common to the successful companies we’ve studied this semester. Now, there is a clear distinction between “good” case studies and “bad” case studies. For example, SAS Institute was obviously a good one, while Nordstrom was obviously a bad one. Of the case studies we’ve examined the good ones all seem to operate in a similar way, having congruous base philosophies on the way they manage their employees, their organization and their customer relationships. The Men’s Warehouse (MW) is a striking, and clear, illustration of these similar qualities, and practices, which I believe to be clutch to all the good case study companies’ thriving productivity, and include a focus on long-term value and sustainable growth, upper management participation in training the bottom rung employees, and most importantly valuing the unquantifiable and the intrinsic. These three focal points help each company go above and beyond expectations for customer service, as well as shareholder earnings, and employee satisfaction.
Akin to the SAS Institute, the Men’s Warehouse began as the brainchild of its chairman George Zimmer. At first a very modest operation, where Zimmer himself worked on the floor and served customers, it grew immensely in the 1990s because of the excellent customer service and the low prices offered. And since its inception Zimmer has always been focused on the long-term value. This is demonstrated by his statements regarding his company’s five stakeholder groups with employees being the most important with the customer, the vendor, the community, and finally the shareholder coming after. Obviously if one was only focused on that quarter, or the next, one would definitely not make a point of placing their shareholder last in their chain of focus. And in the case of The Men’s Warehouse their policies prove this standard to be valid and sincere. Versus Nordstrom who, despite a reputation for excellent customer service, espoused commitment for their employees but really instituted policies that were detrimental to employee satisfaction, possibly illegal, and whose true aim was maximizing quarterly earning numbers for investors. At SAS it was the private ownership that enabled the long-term focus, while at the Men’s Warehouse it is their hierarchy of stakeholder groups, combined with the charisma and sincerity of Zimmer and his top executives. If one is the lowliest employee at MW and hears the president talking about his appreciation and value for that individual in that position most likely because that is where they also started, that employee can believe those statements and carry it with them as they go about their daily activities. That sincerity provides a measure of inspiration to go above and beyond in one’s regularly for the customer because they know George Zimmer would do the same if he was in their position.
Hidden away within the commentary on each of these flourishing organizations is a management practice that reinforces and validates the rhetoric disseminating from the higher ranks. It is a practice common at Southwest Airlines, the SAS Institute, Harrah’s Entertainment, and of course The Men’s Warehouse. It is the direct involvement of upper management personnel in employee training in fact at the Men’s Warehouse “training was done almost exclusively by line managers and senior executives – there was relatively little specialized ‘training’ staff.” At The SAS Institute high-level executives welcomed new employees and ran new employee training sessions. Validity and sincerity in communications between upper levels of an organization and lower levels fosters an important team atmosphere and focuses all involved on the shared purpose of the organization, instead of an individual focus on my salary, my advancement, or my bonus/commission. Employees at large corporations, or even sizable regional companies, often have an ingrained skepticism or cynicism directed toward upper management personnel, almost a them versus us mentality most likely stemming from past histories of being “screwed” out of something like a bonus or benefits. Those on the Board, or the top management team, seem so removed from the daily struggle of the lowly employee, making it difficult to subscribe to initiatives that come down the chain of command both practically and intrinsically. But when that employee comes for their first day, or flies to their first Suits University, and their sales training is administered by their regions’ Vice President of Sales that employee is given the opportunity to stare that person in the face, learning from them directly, and therefore free to form their own opinion of that individual, instead of just trying to follow orders from a faceless title. It is a better utilization of power paradigms and is servant leadership in practice.
The employees at the companies we have studied this semester have all been in possession of something intangible, a quality that cannot be sufficiently described or measured, and that is never easily imitated, they all value the unquantifiable quality of human potential in their employees. At Southwest Airlines they are extremely careful to hire only those they know will fit into their culture but you ask someone what that is and they have difficulty answering they only know the type of personality required when they see it. At SAS Institute it is hiring employees with versatile skill sets, and independent streaks as micromanaging is a definite sin. SAS also provides employees with numerous benefits and perks, the effects of which on employee satisfaction cannot be quantified, and one only witnesses the effects in the continued blossoming of their stock value. This perspective of Men’s Warehouse management valuing highly the intangible and uncountable quality of human potential in their employees was fostered by the business philosophies subscribed to by George Zimmer. Zimmer is lucky enough to have an organization where he can apply his hippy liberal management style as the standard for the entire organization. He was probably ridiculed in business school for his flighty, uncountable, “soft” philosophies, but in the end he is able to laugh last and hardest because his approach proved exceptionally lucrative (especially considering the industry) and all should sit-up and pay attention, and if you want proof just look at the top line!