February 26, 2026
vectorfusionart/Depositphotos.com
Are Current Staffing Levels Harming Customer Service and Store Standards?
A recent Gallup report around staffing levels, customer experience, and staff confidence levels in being able to deliver on customer promises has shed light on what some might call an ongoing staffing crisis in various industries, retail included.
“U.S. workers’ sense of accountability for customer experience exceeds their confidence in their organizations’ ability to deliver on customer promises as staffing levels decline,” Gallup’s Megan Mulherin wrote.
First up: The percentage of workers who strongly agreed they feel great responsibility for the quality of products/services delivered to customers hit a recent high of 43% in 2025, up from 38% in 2024. There’s just one problem, though — only 23% of all workers polled agreed with the notion that their organization always delivers on promises made to customers. Interestingly, leadership figures are 10 points more likely than managers and individual contributors to say as much.
And according to American Customer Satisfaction Index data, satisfaction across the board remains flat, despite any investments in customer experience and/or services delivery. What does that say about the current state of affairs?
Staffing Presents the Most Significant Barrier Across Industries, Including Retail
Mulherin outlined that, across industries, staffing shortages dominated the reasons given as to which barriers got in the way of ideal customer service and product delivery. More than a third (37%) named staffing as the top challenge, with training (16%), tools or equipment (9%), and unclear standards (8%) trailing far behind.
“Staffing concerns have intensified alongside continued workforce reductions. Nearly one in four U.S. employees (23%) reported their organization is reducing the size of its workforce, up 12 points since early 2023. Among those reporting layoffs, 65% said individual contributors who work directly with customers were most affected,” Mulherin stated.
While healthcare and public sector employees most commonly cited staffing challenges, 39% of retail workers said as much as well. Interestingly, while 20% of retail employees polled stated that their organization was cutting jobs, 33% said that headcount was actually increasing. The industry seems volatile, with recent Challenger, Gray & Christmas data suggesting that retailers slashed ~93,000 jobs in 2025, a 123% increase from 2024’s figures. In January of 2026, Revelio Labs recorded a net ~13,000 job loss in the retail sector, particularly due to Amazon, TJX, and Burlington’s job slashing.
It should be noted that, according to a recent RetailWire discussion, Target has publicly taken action to refocus efforts on increased staffing, with most BrainTrust members commenting on the subject saying it was wise to do so.
“Staffing sits at the center of this gap. Employees at all levels consistently identify insufficient staffing as the top barrier to delivering for customers — a challenge compounded by ongoing headcount reductions, reorganizations and expanded workloads. When employees are asked to do more with fewer people, even high levels of commitment and accountability cannot sustain consistent delivery,” Mulherin wrote, also noting that engagement was key to doing more with less (or fewer staff).
“Engagement helps explain how these internal pressures affect customer outcomes. Engaged employees worldwide are more likely to feel clear about expectations, experience less burnout and believe their organization can deliver on its promises. Successful delivery, in turn, reinforces engagement. But engagement alone cannot offset structural constraints such as persistent understaffing or misaligned capacity,” she added.
BrainTrust
Perry Kramer
Managing Partner, Retail Consulting Partners
Mark Ryski
Founder, CEO & Author, HeadCount Corporation
Jeff Hall
President, Second To None
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
To what degree are current staffing levels harming retail store standards and customer service experiences, in your opinion? Which brands stand out as being particularly vulnerable to this concern?
Besides increasing front-line staffing levels, how can retailers best make use of existing staff? What other customer experience enhancements can be made in short order, or with little capital expense?
Poll
Loading …
The answer to this varies enormously by retailer. The problem of depleted staffing tends to show itself at struggling retailers that cut labor hours or staff numbers to defend profitability. This is usually a false economy as it creates numerous shop floor problems – poor service, mess, lack of stock, and so forth – that then drive customers away and hurt sales further. Target and Kohl’s are evidence of this. And Macy’s was evidence until Tony Spring started increasing staffing – which resulted in sales improvements.
Frontline staff have been asked to take on many more responsibilities in the post pandemic world. At the same time, retailers are struggling with profitability and therefore trying to keep their labor expenses down. One of the most effective approaches is to allocate or schedule precious frontline labor relative to store visits. Without adding more labor, this is the best way to improve the odds of conversion and delivering a good customer experience despite the labor challenges.
This is a case where quality is at least as important as quantity. Too often we see retailers settling on hires to keep bodies in the store. This compromise leads to a customer service death cycle. Not only does it lead to poor customer service for the untrained or underperforming associated it results in the quality associates often getting frustrated and leaving the retailer seeking improved job satisfaction.
The balance of the challenge is offering competitive wages against reduced staffing hours. Many retailers are trimming their operational hours to avoid cutting staffing levels so they can maintain quality. Hopefully landlords are smart enough to recognize this problem and help the retailer who as mandatory hours.
It doesn’t take much imagination to correlate low staffing levels to merchandise in locked cases.
Are Current Staffing Levels Harming Customer Service and Store Standards
You mean that thing that probably every member of this panel has mentioned and complained about (many, often)??
Could be.
Research consistently shows that meaningful human interaction on the floor boosts shopper satisfaction and loyalty, while understaffing not only harms employee engagement and slows operations, but erodes the very value proposition of brick-and-mortar retailing. Short staffing results in frustration for both employees and shoppers, makes the experience feel rushed and transactional instead of helpful and engaging, ultimately weakening the likelihood of repeat business. It is astonishing how many retailers look to save on the front end through minimal staffing, only to create significant customer lifetime value loss on the back end.
First, we must take out of the question the word “standards.” If a company truly has high standards, it will staff up to meet those standards. My personal experience is that showcase stores are adequately staffed. Luxury stores are adequately staffed. Many, if not most, of the rest of stores are inadequately staffed. Even stores in which staff interaction with customers is seldom required, one can tell if a store is adequately staffed but the way the store looks. We have stated many times that, store personnel are a marketing and sales ‘asset’ though financially, they are an expense. This conundrum begs the question of which is the chicken and which is the egg.
Are current staffing levels harming customer service and store standards? Of course. That, plus a lack of consistent associate training, has contributed to a decline in service and overall store standards.
Insufficient staffing can decrease customer satisfaction over the long term due to longer wait times and a lack of personalized service. It may lead to a decline in customer loyalty and, in the long run, harm the reputation of the brand. A brand that relies heavily on in-store experiences, such as luxury retailers or those in the hospitality industry, may be particularly vulnerable to these negative consequences.
In the current retail landscape, we must distinguish between employee commitment and operational capacity. Store teams want to serve customers well. The real constraint is capacity. When staffing is tight and expectations remain high, service standards are usually the first to suffer.
Long lines and limited assistance are not attitude problems. They are the inevitable outcome of a team stretched beyond its capacity. Retailers cannot promise high-touch service while continuously reducing frontline coverage.
The answer is not only adding headcount, but aligning staffing models with the experience being promised. Prioritization, realistic workloads and smarter scheduling make a meaningful difference. If customer service is central to the brand, labor strategy must reflect that.
The impact of staffing levels on store standards and customer experience is real—but it’s not uniform across retail. Some operators have historically leaned into lean labor models, while others have invested more heavily in staffing as a strategic advantage. The gap is showing. Dollar stores are a clear example of how chronic understaffing is undermining execution—inventory sitting on the floor instead of on shelves, poor recovery, and a degraded shopping experience. More recently, Target has made similar trade-offs, reducing labor in response to softer sales, but in doing so has created a self-fulfilling cycle where in-stock levels, store conditions, and service all suffer—further impacting sales and traffic. By contrast, retailers like Costco and, increasingly, Walmart have demonstrated that investing in staffing and retention can actually improve productivity, customer experience, and long-term financial performance.
Beyond simply adding labor hours, the more scalable opportunity is how existing staff are deployed and enabled. Retailers can drive meaningful improvement by aligning labor to peak traffic periods, simplifying tasking so associates spend more time on the floor with customers, and leveraging tools that improve productivity—whether that’s better inventory visibility, task management, or mobile-enabled selling. Cross-training associates to handle multiple roles also increases flexibility and reduces friction during busy periods. Just as important is clarity of expectations: stores that execute well tend to have disciplined routines around recovery, replenishment, and customer engagement.
There are also several low-cost ways to improve the experience without adding significant labor. Ensuring strong in-stock positions on key items, maintaining clean and navigable aisles, and improving basic wayfinding can go a long way. Small service cues—greeting customers, visible associate presence, and faster checkout—disproportionately impact perception. In many cases, the issue isn’t just staffing levels; it’s execution of the fundamentals. Retailers that recommit to those basics, while using labor more intelligently, can close much of the experience gap without dramatically increasing costs.
Considering staff are your ambassadors to shoppers, retailers with inappropriate staffing levels absolutely hurts adherence to store stands and the customer experience!
I say it regularly here, so you can predict my comment. In retail, labor is an asset. Sadly, most retailers see it as an expense. Determine the ROI on labor, not the effect on the P&L in the short term.
This very quicly becomes a retailer by retailer conversation. At American Eagle, there are always associates straightening product on the front tables and they always greet people upon entering. That’s rare at most other stores in the mall. And it’s not a coincidence that AEO has one of the best maintained floors in the mall. At Best Buy, I frequently have questions and it’s sometimes difficult to find someone wearing an orange apron. But when I do they are always knowledgable and helpful.
Margin pressures create expense pressures, and since payroll is one of the biggest expenses, it obviously comes under quick and deep scrutiny. But smart retailers understand that front line associates are make-or-break in conversion and shopping experience. Staffing will never be a simple formula. Retailers will have to experience both too much and too little in order to identify the optimal level.
More Discussions
Are Family Dollar’s New Micro-Stores Likely To Succeed?
Family Dollar looks for a format change while Dollar Tree pushes multi-price strategy harder.What’s Quince’s Secret Sauce?
How has Quince made such an impact in so little time?Will Digital Rebates Bolster Slumping Alcohol Sales?
Will the issuance of digital rebates help bolster slumping alcohol sales?
The answer to this varies enormously by retailer. The problem of depleted staffing tends to show itself at struggling retailers that cut labor hours or staff numbers to defend profitability. This is usually a false economy as it creates numerous shop floor problems – poor service, mess, lack of stock, and so forth – that then drive customers away and hurt sales further. Target and Kohl’s are evidence of this. And Macy’s was evidence until Tony Spring started increasing staffing – which resulted in sales improvements.
Frontline staff have been asked to take on many more responsibilities in the post pandemic world. At the same time, retailers are struggling with profitability and therefore trying to keep their labor expenses down. One of the most effective approaches is to allocate or schedule precious frontline labor relative to store visits. Without adding more labor, this is the best way to improve the odds of conversion and delivering a good customer experience despite the labor challenges.
This is a case where quality is at least as important as quantity. Too often we see retailers settling on hires to keep bodies in the store. This compromise leads to a customer service death cycle. Not only does it lead to poor customer service for the untrained or underperforming associated it results in the quality associates often getting frustrated and leaving the retailer seeking improved job satisfaction.
The balance of the challenge is offering competitive wages against reduced staffing hours. Many retailers are trimming their operational hours to avoid cutting staffing levels so they can maintain quality. Hopefully landlords are smart enough to recognize this problem and help the retailer who as mandatory hours.
It doesn’t take much imagination to correlate low staffing levels to merchandise in locked cases.
You mean that thing that probably every member of this panel has mentioned and complained about (many, often)??
Could be.
Research consistently shows that meaningful human interaction on the floor boosts shopper satisfaction and loyalty, while understaffing not only harms employee engagement and slows operations, but erodes the very value proposition of brick-and-mortar retailing. Short staffing results in frustration for both employees and shoppers, makes the experience feel rushed and transactional instead of helpful and engaging, ultimately weakening the likelihood of repeat business. It is astonishing how many retailers look to save on the front end through minimal staffing, only to create significant customer lifetime value loss on the back end.
First, we must take out of the question the word “standards.” If a company truly has high standards, it will staff up to meet those standards. My personal experience is that showcase stores are adequately staffed. Luxury stores are adequately staffed. Many, if not most, of the rest of stores are inadequately staffed. Even stores in which staff interaction with customers is seldom required, one can tell if a store is adequately staffed but the way the store looks. We have stated many times that, store personnel are a marketing and sales ‘asset’ though financially, they are an expense. This conundrum begs the question of which is the chicken and which is the egg.
Are current staffing levels harming customer service and store standards? Of course. That, plus a lack of consistent associate training, has contributed to a decline in service and overall store standards.
Insufficient staffing can decrease customer satisfaction over the long term due to longer wait times and a lack of personalized service. It may lead to a decline in customer loyalty and, in the long run, harm the reputation of the brand. A brand that relies heavily on in-store experiences, such as luxury retailers or those in the hospitality industry, may be particularly vulnerable to these negative consequences.
In the current retail landscape, we must distinguish between employee commitment and operational capacity. Store teams want to serve customers well. The real constraint is capacity. When staffing is tight and expectations remain high, service standards are usually the first to suffer.
Long lines and limited assistance are not attitude problems. They are the inevitable outcome of a team stretched beyond its capacity. Retailers cannot promise high-touch service while continuously reducing frontline coverage.
The answer is not only adding headcount, but aligning staffing models with the experience being promised. Prioritization, realistic workloads and smarter scheduling make a meaningful difference. If customer service is central to the brand, labor strategy must reflect that.
The impact of staffing levels on store standards and customer experience is real—but it’s not uniform across retail. Some operators have historically leaned into lean labor models, while others have invested more heavily in staffing as a strategic advantage. The gap is showing. Dollar stores are a clear example of how chronic understaffing is undermining execution—inventory sitting on the floor instead of on shelves, poor recovery, and a degraded shopping experience. More recently, Target has made similar trade-offs, reducing labor in response to softer sales, but in doing so has created a self-fulfilling cycle where in-stock levels, store conditions, and service all suffer—further impacting sales and traffic. By contrast, retailers like Costco and, increasingly, Walmart have demonstrated that investing in staffing and retention can actually improve productivity, customer experience, and long-term financial performance.
Beyond simply adding labor hours, the more scalable opportunity is how existing staff are deployed and enabled. Retailers can drive meaningful improvement by aligning labor to peak traffic periods, simplifying tasking so associates spend more time on the floor with customers, and leveraging tools that improve productivity—whether that’s better inventory visibility, task management, or mobile-enabled selling. Cross-training associates to handle multiple roles also increases flexibility and reduces friction during busy periods. Just as important is clarity of expectations: stores that execute well tend to have disciplined routines around recovery, replenishment, and customer engagement.
There are also several low-cost ways to improve the experience without adding significant labor. Ensuring strong in-stock positions on key items, maintaining clean and navigable aisles, and improving basic wayfinding can go a long way. Small service cues—greeting customers, visible associate presence, and faster checkout—disproportionately impact perception. In many cases, the issue isn’t just staffing levels; it’s execution of the fundamentals. Retailers that recommit to those basics, while using labor more intelligently, can close much of the experience gap without dramatically increasing costs.
Considering staff are your ambassadors to shoppers, retailers with inappropriate staffing levels absolutely hurts adherence to store stands and the customer experience!
I say it regularly here, so you can predict my comment. In retail, labor is an asset. Sadly, most retailers see it as an expense. Determine the ROI on labor, not the effect on the P&L in the short term.
This very quicly becomes a retailer by retailer conversation. At American Eagle, there are always associates straightening product on the front tables and they always greet people upon entering. That’s rare at most other stores in the mall. And it’s not a coincidence that AEO has one of the best maintained floors in the mall. At Best Buy, I frequently have questions and it’s sometimes difficult to find someone wearing an orange apron. But when I do they are always knowledgable and helpful.
Margin pressures create expense pressures, and since payroll is one of the biggest expenses, it obviously comes under quick and deep scrutiny. But smart retailers understand that front line associates are make-or-break in conversion and shopping experience. Staffing will never be a simple formula. Retailers will have to experience both too much and too little in order to identify the optimal level.