Tim Hortons

So I imagine by now everyone has heard about the situation at Tim Hortons that resulted in the firing of an employee for giving away FREE Food. The employee's crime? She gave a FREE TimBit to a regular customers youngster.

Within 2 days this event was reported in every national newspaper, was on all major online news feeds and was being discussed on our local All News radio station. This is a perfect example of how the employee, in this case the manager who fired the employee, owns the brand.

By this single action the manager was communicating to the entire Country how Tim Hortons treated their employees and by default how they viewed their customers -- definitely an off-brand Moment of Truth.

Tim Hortons had rightly established a policy that it was inappropriate to give away FREE Food. The issue here was that the manager had not been given (or felt they had not) the ability to interpret this policy against a strong, well-communicated set of brand value that would help them interpret the policy in a manner that was consistent with the brand values.

I think common sense would tell us, that firing someone for giving a free TimBit was not the intention of the policy. But it was totally correct based on the policy.
The positive ending was that the employee that was fired was quickly re-hired by Tim Hortons at another location. Tim Hortons recognized that they needed to respond quickly and they did.

The question is, will they recognize the root cause of the problem and take steps to instill a strong, well-communicated set of brand values/service principles across the organization so their policies are interpreted appropriately.

I always say, "An organization needs a short list of expectations, versus a long list of rules."

Cheers!