By Kevin Flemming, CSP Kevin Flemming is president of Integrity Personnel, Inc., a Lehigh Valley-based staffing and recruiting firm. He writes about staffing issues for small and medium-sized employers. His column, "Talent Search," appears in the Eastern Pennsylvania Business Journal every third week of the month.

Editor’s note: This is the second of two articles

I hate my phone company! Well, one of them at least. Between regular phones, mobile phones and Internet access, my firm uses three different telecommunications providers. But there’s one, in particular, whose bills I really hate to pay.

My visceral reaction to this company comes from dealing with its employees. Every time I call their customer service department to resolve a problem or ask a question, I’m forced to navigate a ridiculously long menu of options while listening to pre-recorded commercials. Finally, I get connected to a live person who can’t answer my question and tells me to hold while they transfer me to another department – thus starting the cycle over again. When I finally get to tell my story, I’m assured that the problem will be fixed. However, I have found that they almost never follow through on the fixes. It would be funny if it weren’t true.

In 21st Century America, we don’t experience many quality problems with the products we buy. Automation, digital technology, and distribution networks have created a competitive environment that practically assures satisfaction with every purchase. But the quality of customer service we receive has dropped alarmingly over the past several years. From automated phone menus to the surly kid behind the counter, consumers have come to expect poor service. The larger a company is, the greater the problem.

Strip malls and blacktop

There is no shortage of excuses for this problem. Cost cutting, outsourcing, and even Wal-Mart has been blamed for the decline in customer service. So why hasn’t the business community been able to reverse this universal trend? I believe that there is one, overall cause for our failure: bad service is just another effect of workforce sprawl.

In my previous article, I compared problems with the current workforce to the issue of sprawl. Suburban sprawl results from the short-sighted and uncoordinated development of open space. Its effects are evident in the dull and undistinguished buildings that spread across the landscape of suburban Pennsylvania. By building large, box-like structures surrounded by acres of parking spaces, developers generate a fast return on their investments. But they sacrifice the future potential of the space by choosing a structure with a limited use, built with minimal quality and even less creativity.

When a new strip mall or mini-market is built on what was previously open space, there is an immediate economic benefit. The original owner of the land makes a profit. The builder who invested in the project sees a return on capital. And, of course, new business is generated in that geographic market. Unfortunately, those benefits are temporary. After ten or fifteen years, the property looks less attractive. The limits of the original design prohibit creative alternatives for the property. Rental and tax income begin to decline. No one driving by this building thinks that it adds value to the neighborhood. No buyer will take a risk to find new uses for the space.

Short-term focus cause for poor hiring decisions

Although many argue that economics drives this type of development, the fact remains that builders have the opportunity to create beautiful and important structures. No one prohibits a developer from investing in better architecture. There are no forces rallied against making new properties fit better into the existing landscape, or adding buildings that enhance a community’s image. Sprawl has never been born out of necessity – it’s caused by a lack of accountability to the future of the community.

I am seeing some companies build workforces in the same careless way. Just like the driving force behind suburban sprawl, this type of hiring is the result of companies sacrificing long-term benefits for short-term returns. Employers are populating their organizations with mediocre, uninspired people in an effort to fill open seats as quickly and possible.

Instead of creating career oriented positions, the short-term employer fills seats. Rather than demanding high performance from their employees, they accept minimum effort. Over time, their workforce becomes less and less productive, leading to the same type of sprawl that we see in our communities. So less accountability to the future health of the business inevitably leads to less qualified workers, further degrading the business’ capabilities to serve its customers.

There is still time to reverse the trend

I don’t believe that the executives at my phone company deliberately chose to deliver lousy service. The performance of their customer service staff probably developed over a long series of poor hiring decisions. Just as suburban sprawl degrades the appearance of a community over time, this company’s management will eventually notice the effects of their employees’ poor performance. Unfortunately for their customers, it will be too late.

It’s not too late for smaller businesses to take pro-active steps to beautify our labor landscape. Employers in this country have control over the quality of their workforce. A long-term employer will choose to hire the best talent available for their organization because it wants its business to remain attractive over time. It will require more effort and more investment … and yes, a little more risk. But the effects of that choice will be much more positive for its customers and suppliers over the business’ lifecycle.

After all, who wants their company to look like a strip mall?