6/21/23 – – If you’re a shoplifter or reseller of stolen goods, chances are you’ll be visiting a Lululemon store soon. The Canadian retailer’s yoga pants are very cool, but it’s the company’s theft-response policies that make its stores destinations of choice for sticky-fingered customers.
If you haven’t kept up with the controversy, Lululemon’s CEO Calvin McDonald has been in the news defending his company’s firing of two employees who didn’t stick to procedural policies when three masked men brazenly robbed their Lululemon store in the Atlanta area’s Peachtree City mall. Jennifer Ferguson and Rachel Rogers — who had the temerity to say “stop, thief” and call the police — failed to follow the company’s policy prohibiting store workers from confronting thieves in any way.
McDonald told CNBC: “We have a zero-tolerance policy that we train our educators (i.e. employees) on around engaging during a theft. Why? Because we put the safety of our team, of our guests, front and center. It’s only merchandise.” He went on to explain that the workers were terminated for “engaging the thieves across multiple points, including following them out of the store.”
In an NBC interview, Ferguson, who was an assistant manager, said Lululemon store personnel are instructed to, “scan a QR code. And that’s that. We’ve been told not to put it in any notes, because that might scare other people. We’re not supposed to call the police, not really supposed to talk about it.”
Ferguson did call the police, who apprehended the bad guys. But that positive outcome did not save her job or impress McDonald, who emphasized, “We take that policy seriously because we have had instances — and we have seen with other retailers, instances — where employees step in and are hurt, or worse, killed . . . And the policy is to protect them. But we have to stand behind the policy to enforce it.”
Making sound policy decisions is not easy. And of course McDonald is right to value human life above merchandise. But now that Lululemon’s “look the other way” theft policy has been disclosed and retail theft is increasing across the country, it’s hard to believe his stores will not be prime targets for even the most risk-averse thieves. If that happens, will store managers carrying out the policy be off the hook for declining sales results?
One of the nine common sources of reputational crises discussed in Chapter 3 of The Crisis Preparedness Quotient is “policies.” When policies that sound reasonable back at headquarters don’t work as intended out in the field, adjustments must be made to avoid crises. Some of the best ideas for improvement come from the people who have had to operate with the flawed polices — people like Jennifer Ferguson and Rachel Rogers. Instead of firing them, McDonald could have included them in an initiative to identify alternative approaches that are more effective in protecting people and merchandise.
In a previous blog post we discussed the inadequacy of well-intentioned “non-confrontational” airline policies that left flight attendants with no better choice than to restrain unruly passengers by duct taping them to their seats. Embarrassing videos posted online forced airline companies to listen to their crews and come up with new response protocols, training and equipment to deploy when a passenger becomes violent, attempts to kick out a window, or insists on opening the door at 30,000 feet.
There’s got to be a better policy solution for Lululemon and its frustrated store “educators.” Maybe installing panic buttons under the checkout counters (or having sales people carry Bluetooth toggles) that alert mall security or the police would not be such a bad idea. Otherwise, the company might as well go all in with a “frequent robber” incentive program:
“Hit our store three times and we’ll carry the merchandise to your car on your fourth visit!”
https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/06/business/lululemon-fires-employees-stop-robbery/index.html
Crisis Quotient Blog 