QUALITY DESIGN FLAWS WILL BRING CONFLICT
When you are designing the tools used by quality analysts, you may be setting expectations based on a checklist rating skills using a “did it happen or didn’t it happen” method. There are times when the customer interaction requires an agent skill to change or not be used at all.
A manager shared this story of checklist focused quality monitoring:
The agent had a flawless customer experience demonstrating great skills and the customer sounded very happy with the service provided by the agent. She even complimented the agent during the call.
At the end of the call, the customer said, “Thanks…you’ve answered all my questions. That’s all I needed. I’m going to call my husband right now and let him know”. The agent thanked the caller appropriately and ended the call nicely.
Despite this wonderful customer interaction, the quality analyst scored him negatively for one skill. According to the quality rating form, the agent did not ask, “Is there anything else?”
The customer clearly stated that she was satisfied and added that she had all the information needed.
Instead of hearing what the customer said to the agent about having “all I need”, the quality analyst was focused on the quality checklist box for “anything else?” that needed to have a yes or no.
- Is your quality monitor format rigid without opportunities for the analyst to make exception for certain call types?
- Have you asked your analysts what think their job is? It’s amazing how many managers expect their analysts to state what’s on their job description, when in reality, the analysts doesn’t see their role the same way.
- Do your analysts just see their role as a check-off of skills or are they listening to what the customer says to judge quality?
- Does your quality program rate technical skills separately from soft skills so you can see if agents excel in both or one of these?
- How often do you review your quality monitoring tools to insure that they are providing you with the information needed for coaching skills?
POOR TRAINING AND COMMUNICATION SKILLS WILL BRING CONFLICT
An agent shared this story with me recently and showed me the emails related to an interaction with a quality analyst who had given him major quality error, which he said was incorrect. These are the emails exchanged:
Insurance Quality Analyst email sent to Agent: “You’ve made an error in the data entered for this call. I listened to the call and you did not speak with the actual customer. You spoke with his wife. If you disagree with this error, please respond.
Agent email response: “Yes, I disagree. I did not make an error. Please check the customer profile to confirm.
Analyst reply: “No. You did make error.”
Agent reply: “OK”
If you just looked at the dialog in the emails, it appears that the analyst and the agent disagree on the error, the analyst rechecked and confirmed the error, and that the agent finally accepted the error.
However, this wasn’t the end of the story. After further investigation, the error was finally removed. So, what actually occurred?
The quality analyst said that she had listened to the call, heard that the agent was speaking with a woman instead of speaking with a customer named Michael Smith directly. This would definitely be a violation of their insurance procedures and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).
After the agent’s supervisor listened to the same call, he heard the agent correctly and thoroughly verified the customer’s identification and had shared information with the Michael Smith on file. Michael was the woman caller’s name.
The analyst admitted that she had not listened to the call a second time or even looked at the customer’s account information. She said she had missed hearing the woman identify herself as “Michael” at the start of the call.
Then, why did the agent just respond with “OK” to accepting the error when he knew he had not done so?
The agent told me that others on his team were experiencing similar situations with other quality analysts. When they reported these issues to their supervisor, they were told it had been sent to the quality manager for review, and the agents would later receive a canned “Your error has been removed” email from the original analyst.
The agent added that these false errors still continue and that he and his teammates have decided to stop interacting with the quality analysts who email and just forward these issues to their contact center supervisor with their reason for not accepting the error.
If these issues with communication and poor quality observation skills are continuing, it is obvious that the quality manager is not coaching with his team.
- Is the Quality Manager monitoring and rating calls together with each analyst to coach them on their observation skills?
- Is the Quality Manager pulling some random emails to check on their written communication skills and direct interactions with agents?
- If the analysts are also doing coaching with agents, have you sat in and observed them coach and then coached while they observed you?
Do your supervisors and the quality analysts have similar coaching activities and goals, and discuss with each other so that they are working towards the same results?
This article originally appeared in the Contact Center Pipeline January 2013 issue
Filed under: Training, Customer Service, Quality Assurance, Call Center, Call Center Manager, Communication, Employee Development, Call Monitoring, Quality | Tagged: Call Center, Training, Call Monitoring, QA, Call centre, Education and Training, Management, Quality assurance, Communication | 4 Comments »