Are You Setting Your Quality Team Up For Conflict? Part II

In Part I of my post, I addressed conflict coming from Report Structure Issues.  Conflicts can also arise from the design of the quality program and poor training or the communication skills used.

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

Are You Setting Your Quality Team Up For Conflict? Part I

Unfortunately, conflict between Quality teams and Contact Center teams happens more often than it should.  Managers on both sides will say that it is probably due to personality conflicts or simple miscommunication.

While those factors do play a part at times, we need to dig deeper to find out what is really going on.  From my own observations and feedback from center employees, I’ve found that some companies actually set conflict in motion through their reporting structure, the design of the quality program and tools being used, or even poor QA training and coaching.

REPORTING STRUCTURE ISSUES WILL BRING CONFLICT

The Quality Manager and the analysts most often report to an operations executive who may not be actively involved in the day-to-day front line management of the center. The Contact Center Director or Manager and the Quality Manager are usually peers in this scenario.

Although companies design this structure of separation to have what they feel is an unbiased look at quality, they may also unwittingly be setting an “us versus them” conflict in motion.  The responsibility for fostering a cooperative relationship between quality and center operations lies with the executive level manager they both report to.

If the quality manager and center director have an adversarial relationship, their teams will pick up on this and the conflict will happen during their interactions as well.

One activity where conflict between individual analysts and supervisors or between both teams can be seen is during calibration meetings.  In these sessions, everyone listens to agent calls and observes system entries, rates skills together and discusses opportunities to improve.

Many calibration sessions become more about “I’m right and your wrong” finger-pointing with voices raised in argument over the tiniest details.  Of course the customer’s experience is often lost in this type of scenario.  Worse yet, I’ve seen quality and center managers sit back and allow this to happen and then privately talk with their team afterwards about how ridiculous the other team was acting.

Our quality and the contact center operations teams need to come together and agree on goals and missions for the best customer experience and business efficiencies and results.

Quality monitoring must be based on facts, not emotions.  Analysts, supervisors and their leadership must also be willing to admit when one of them erred in scoring or when an agent reporting to them failed the customer.  The ability to admit mistakes and learn from them is more important than grandstanding in front of the group.

Regardless of the reporting structure used, we need to insure that we are committed to the common goals and avoid the blame game or taking things personally.  We expect our agents to take feedback and coaching with an open attitude so the same expectation should be there for our quality and leadership teams in the center.

….PART 2 WILL FOLLOW SOON!

This article originally appeared in the Contact Center Pipeline January 2013 issue

Coaching Numbers or What They Really Mean?

As Contact Center managers, you have a lot of power.  OK…some days it sure doesn’t seem that way, but you really do.  Your supervisors and quality team are listening to you and are observing what you are focused on.

When you talk about metrics, what are you saying to them? If you talk purely “number” goals all the time, your quality coaches will be talking just “numbers” too.  They’ll often repeat what you are saying word for word during their coaching sessions with agents.

When  metrics are discussed during individual agent coaching sessions, you need to make sure that your “coach” knows how to explain them in terms of Customer Experience.

One of the metrics numbers that seems to get a bad rap these days is the length of the call. Some coaches aren’t bringing it up at all in coaching sessions.  There were some managers who actually tracked and rewarded based on the length of call “metric” set. Some don’t reward but are seemingly obsessed with setting a number for call length average based on studying this metric if reported by any other call center in the universe.

I’m a proponent of monitoring and coaching all types of calls.  Long, short and in between.  I don’t advocate setting an exact length of call goal for every call and then holding agents’ feet to the fire.  I do advocate learning if the call was handled appropriately in a likewise appropriate amount of time.

Long Calls:  When I hear lengthy agent calls, I think about my Dad’s famous driving “shortcuts” whenever he took our family somewhere. When he mentioned that he knew quicker route, my Mom would roll her eyes and we knew what was coming.  We could always plan on adding 20 plus minutes to the original length of the trip.  Hopefully the shortcut would involve a stop for ice cream. My father seemed to find ice cream regardless of the route. His passenger “customers” at least were given a treat for their troubles and perhaps that was his true goal.

Some of our agents don’t see the service or sales target straight ahead, but instead, go in circles on their way to closure.  they are not taking the simplest and shortest route to reach the customer goal.

Unfortunately we don’t have virtual ice cream to offer our customers who are stuck in lengthy calls that seem to be going nowhere.

Short Calls: When calls are too short, I worry too because the agent may have missed an opportunity to be proactive, add some additional tips, or listen better for clues for upselling and cross-selling clues.  Worse still are the agents who blend speed with talking over customers. Sally may have taken twice as many calls as the other agents, but what is happening during those calls?  Are they brusque and disinterested sounding, even though she took care of “business”?

Metrics should always be a part of coaching as long as they mean something to the customer and our business needs.

I love to see quality monitoring forms for calls that incorporate metrics as well as the soft skills and other skills needed for best quality.

We just need to make sure that our coaches aren’t just reading metrics numbers to agents, but are instead preparing for their coaching sessions by reviewing those numbers and how they relate to skills demonstrated and the overall customer experience.

Coaching: Plan Your Work and Work Your Plan!

“Plan your work and work your plan.”

Never have truer words been spoken for the effectiveness of your supervisors or others doing Agent skills coaching. If there isn’t a good plan for coaching, your Coaches will be just going through the motions, missing needed sessions with agents or looking at coaching as just an interruption in their busy day.

Many supervisors have every intention of working with their agents on skills, but find that the week or even a month has gone by with just minimal Coaching done. Feeling rushed, their weak Coaching substitute of “telling the agent what to work on” happens instead of an interactive and focused coaching that brings results.

Effective coaching isn’t a once and done effort. Your Coaches need to plan for skills activities time with their agents and the motivation needed to encourage continuous improvement.

Many supervisors tell me that they are buried under reports and meetings scheduled by their manager. In order to help them be successful, we need to be clear on our expectations for coaching and remove any obstacles that our Coaches have.  We can demonstrate our interest in helping them succeed by our own planning and review of theirs.

Here are some questions to help in your process:

NOT PLANNING WASTES TIME

What are my Coaching mission and goals?  Are they based on a number of coaching sessions completed or focused on results?

Many supervisors are doing a lot of coaching but with minimal results. We must make sure that our supervisors aren’t just going through a coaching checklist to meet coaching “metrics”, but instead are doing what brings results in terms of agent skills development and increased customer satisfaction.

Some Coaches tell me that they see their goal as the completion of X number of sessions.  They make sure that they do the minimum required in order to stay in the manager’s good graces. Others say that they often feel that they are spinning their wheels and making no progress. They work with the same poor performing Agents each month, telling them the same things that are needed for improvement. These coaches are frustrated by the lack of results. Their manager just repeats the mantra “more coaching” without giving direction and working hands on with them to assist in developing a good coaching plan for each agent.

The goals for Customer Experience and development of agents must be clear for your Coaches and you must also provide them with the tools to reach those goals in terms of training and working side by side with them for success.

COOKIE CUTTER COACHING WASTES TIME:

 Am I holding my Coaches responsible for completion of certain results-based activities related to successful Coaching? Are they personalizing the coaching method based on the agent’s skills, experience and learning type?

Responsibility for results, not just actions is a big key to their success. Agent skills differ, length of time on the job varies and so the time that must be spent with each agent varies as well as the type of coaching done.

Instead, many newer Coaches make the mistake of coaching everyone just once a month, using the same coaching method with every agent.  They miss the opportunity to see results from those average or struggling agents who need a boost from increased coaching or approaching the skill needs using more personalized approaches. They will tell me they don’t have the time to Coach more.  Often it isn’t more coaching that’s needed but the right kind of coaching to help the agent change skill behaviors.

Managers need to make sure that the Coaches are not just “tellers” but coaching “doers”, rolling up their sleeves and working with their agents.  Initially more intensive coaching such as role-play, side-by-side call handling while the agent observes them handling calls may be needed.  Once results are seen, the Coach will be able to work on more of a “maintenance” coaching schedule requiring less time with agents who have improved.

NOT SCHEDULING COACHING WASTES TIME

Are they scheduling Coaching activities on their Calendar?

If we are working with our supervisor Coaches on how they communicate with the agent about skills, we may not realize the importance of working with them on their time management for coaching.  I find that if it isn’t on the Coach’s calendar or schedule, it isn’t going to have priority. If your supervisor is a Myers-Briggs type “P” (http://www.myersbriggs.org/) who may like to keep plans to a minimum, keeping a calendar with Coaching and alert reminders for it may not come naturally for them.

Recently, I walked a Coach through his calendar to demonstrate how the amount of coaching needed for effectiveness could be possible.  We discussed the need to be flexible in case an urgent situation conflicts with the time and how to deal with that.

It was interesting to watch his expression when he realized that scheduling blocks of time for his formal and side-by-side coaching sessions for the month made it seem less daunting a task.

NON-ESSENTIAL TASKS WASTE TIME

Do I help them find the time to Coach?

Holding a supervisor or quality coach responsible for results but not giving them the time to do it is a recipe for disaster. I’ve had Coaches tell me that they have the desire to do more Coaching but their manager always assigns them other activities.

Your goal should be to review how they spend their time, then find ways to free them from non-essential activities so they can spend 50 to 60% of their time Coaching.

We attend a great deal of meetings and often pull the supervisors in to tell them what happened or even have them attend some meetings with us.  While communication of information is a key to the success of our business, we should decide which meetings are crucial for the Coach to attend, and which can be summarized in an email you or another attendee sends out to share key information.

Reports are another time eater for many front line supervisors who coach.  Once again, prioritizing with your help is key. Can reports be handled by an agent who has potential for moving into a lead or supervisor’s role in the future?

MOTIVATE COACHES TO SPEND TIME WISELY

What am I doing to motivate my coaches to spend the time needed and get results?

Much as our Agents need motivation, our Coaches need to be rewarded for their efforts and results.  You get the behavior you reward so you need to make sure that you are aware of their daily coaching activities and observe them in action.  If you hear an agent showing improvement when you monitor or if customers give kudos to an agent, it’s a great opportunity to not only praise the agent, but the coach who has been working with them.

Verbal and written praise goes a long way to encourage your Coaches to keep working towards the goals for improved Customer Experience.  Monetary incentives if tied to actual improvements and not just activities can be great motivators as well.

You cannot wait to notice and give positive feedback a month or two later when you review quality reports.  Take an active role in observing and rewarding good efforts and results on a daily basis.

REPEAT COACHING WITHOUT IMPROVEMENT WASTES TIME

Are any Coaches wasting time Coaching the unwilling or unable? Have I given the Coach the tools needed to be successful?

If your supervisor is coaching the same agent without results, is it because the Agent is unable or unwilling, or does your Coach need coaching themselves to learn some new techniques?

Observe the coaching sessions and coaching activities each supervisor does and then meet with them to discuss.  Do they need some coaching skills training?

If your coach is doing all the right things to drive skills improvement and motivating the agent, you need to assess whether that agent really wants to improve or is unable to show further improvement.  Your coach needs to know that you will support them and make a decision to change a coaching situation into a disciplinary one if warranted.

Originally published in Contact Center Pipeline in October 2012

Creating A Great Experience With “Non-Customers”

Contact (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Based on some of the recent call experiences that friends have shared with me, it’s apparent that many companies aren’t spending training time on teaching ways for their agents to gracefully bow out of a call to a wrong contact or when the contact they reach says they aren’t right for the product due to (insert here an objection that can’t be overcome).

These fall into the category of “Prospect Experience” or “Possible Future Customer Experience”.

Here’s a recent example:

Agent using nice Smile and Tone: “Hi is this _____? This is ___ from ____ Insurance providers. We provide Health Insurance benefits for small businesses and individuals.”

Person called responds in friendly tone: “Hi (Agent’s name)…I’m only a one person business and I’m already covered by my spouse’s insurance policy through work so I’m not a good prospect for your company.”

Agent sounding irritated: “well OK… (click)”

This call was reminiscent of the bad telemarketing calls made from “boiler room” type operations years ago (and unfortunately still some in operation today) that trained agents to have a “hit and run” philosophy: 

Call as many people as you can as fast as you can and if they are the wrong party or an insurmountable objection is given,  just hang up on them and dial again.

(NOTE: Do not try this in your center! )

Given the way that the Agent opened the conversation and identified herself, it was evident that she understood how to create a nice first impression.  Perhaps she received training and coaching on this or maybe it is her natural style of communication when greeting someone.

Once the Agent experienced rejection, her tone changed completely.  If there was to be no lead or sale made, the Agent was finished with you and saw no need to end the call positively.  Her focus was clearly on the here and now immediate results regardless of the impression she left with that prospect.  And as we know, today our prospects and customers won’t tell only ten people about the bad experience they had with our agent, they will broadcast it on Social Media to hundreds, even thousands of people.

Another example of poor “non-customer” experience is when an Agent calls and the person they are trying to contact isn’t available. It usually goes something like this:

Agent: “Hi..Is Mr. (name) available.  This is (Agent name) from (company)?”

Person answering phone: “No he isn’t. Can I take a message?”

Agent using flat tone: “I’ll call back” (hang up click)

It adds little time to the calls to use  polite phrases such as “Thank you but I’ll just call him/her back later. Is there a good time to reach him/her?”

If your training program doesn’t include discussion and role-play related to creating a great “Prospect Experience” with those who don’t buy or aren’t the right contact, I hope you’ll start covering this during training and coaching these skills too.  We should be creating a positive experience, showing appreciation to and interest in every person we are in contact with.

A wonderful mentor who coached with me many years ago always said and rightly so …”Today’s no may be tomorrow’s yes”!

Are You Coaching Empathy First, Process Second?

As a consumer, I receive my own fair share of agent calls and make calls to companies for customer service assistance too.  I also monitor calls when I work with clients since this gives me a great view into not only the skills of the agents but also what their customers are saying.

PROCESS FIRST AND LISTENING ISSUES

Many of the Agents I interact with or monitor on calls are so focused on the process and procedure of what must be done that they aren’t really listening to the Customer or Prospect. These Agents are more concerned about pulling up screens and navigating, often making the customer feel uncomfortable during the process. Dead air, pauses, talking to themselves while searching for information or missing questions the customer asks or commenting on what they said.

One recent call I listened to demonstrates this perfectly. I heard a customer telling the Agent that she had to cancel an appointment due to a death in her family. The Agent was “flipping” system screens distractedly and simply said, “Uhuh…. We have an appointment open next Tuesday at 9 a.m., OK?”

Did the Agent satisfy the Customer’s need for a new appointment?  Yes.

Was the Customer problem was resolved?   Yes

Did the Agent show interest in that Customer during that “moment of truth”? Absolutely not!

“EMPATHY CAN’T BE LEARNED” – WRONG!

Not all Agents demonstrate poor empathy due to a listening skill problem.  Others just have no idea HOW to give empathy to anyone, whether a team member, customer or friend.

A University of Michigan study, presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Psychological Science, analyzed data on empathy among almost 14,000 college students over the last 30 years. “We found the biggest drop in empathy after the year 2000,” said Sara Konrath, a researcher at the U-M Institute for Social Research. “College kids today are about 40 percent lower in empathy than their counterparts of 20 or 30 years ago, as measured by standard tests of this personality trait.”

We can’t assume that everyone understands or has experienced empathy personally enough to know how to express it.

To add to the problem, some Managers and Supervisors are also responsible for the lack of empathy shown by their agents. Training may focus heavily on the technical part of the call such as processes and product knowledge.  Metrics that drive “speedy” handling without regard to the “warm fuzzies”, as I like to call them, are pushed. Supervisors may tell Agents to be friendly and nice but don’t offer specific examples or demonstrate empathy on calls they handle themselves while the Agent observes.

WHAT CAN BE DONE TO HELP IMPROVE EMPATHY SKILLS

The most important thing Managers, Supervisors and Quality Coaches can do is to coach including role play, taking calls while demonstrating and offering phrases that can be used.  Helping the Agent put themselves in the Customer’s place to understand how they are feeling at the time of the call is important.

When you hold your next team meeting, discuss phrases and words that you can use to show empathy, concern and interest in the Customer.

“Mrs ____, I’m so sorry for your loss”

“My sympathy to you and your family”

“I don’t blame you for being upset”

“We really appreciate your business”

“Thank you for telling us about that problem so we could take care of it”>

“I’ll be glad to help you with that”

Remind your team that the customer is making a decision about them and about your company in the first 30 seconds of the call.  Taking time to acknowledge and show interest in Customers truly is as important as solving their problems.

Do Your Emails Just Generate Calls to Process First Agents?

I recently received a strange Email from my Bank regarding my credit card. The kind of Email you love to receive because you have no idea what it means and now you’re going to have to pick up the phone and make a call. I hate waiting in queue so I’m not much different from most of our Customers.

The email also had a lovely added twist for my confusion.  In essence it said  (not exact wording):  “Surprise!  we’ve moved your old card stuff to a new card.”  So now I’m wondering, Identity theft?  Lost card?  I quickly checked and still had my card, so one fear off the list.

Before calling, I went to my online account to see what my information said.  Sure enough, there is a new credit card number and recent purchases from the old card are there. But wait..for security reasons, there are only the last 4 digits of the new card visible.

What is the new number? Why do I have this number? What does it all mean?  I feel trapped in one of those old Sunday Night Mystery movies without Columbo to help me. 

The fun continues when I call the 800 service line and reach one of most non-empathetic Agents I’ve ever had the pleasure of speaking with.  I explained the email I received and my concerns.  The first thing she does is begin her Process steps.  As you may know from my other posts, my mantra is “Empathy first, process second.” Needless to say and yet I must say it, my Moment of Truth is not a good one at this point.

The Agent asks me to verify the new account number I’m calling about.  I tell her that I only know the last 4 numbers. She says, “Since you said you were online, your number will appear to the left of your account”. Now we have a problem.  She doesn’t know that other accounts have the entire number visible but the credit cards only show the last 4 numbers. She may love her processes but she obviously needs training on the online screens. Another Moment of Truth…wrong information given.

I explained again that I could not see the number and repeated that I was not only calling to find out what it was, but also why I no longer had my old account.  She finally told me after more probing that while it appeared that my account had not been compromised, a percentage of customers who had shopped at (blank) store, as I had, had issues with their cards so accounts were closed and then reopened with new numbers.  I asked her when this had happened.  She replied that she didn’t know.

I had to ask every question I could think of because she did not offer any further information.  Finally, she told me that I would receive a new card in 7 to 10 days. Yet another Moment of Truth downhill slide for me.

“What?  First you people (yes, I love that standard angry customer phrase too!) move me to a new credit card number and now you can’t expedite the card for me?”  She replied that it was already in Process (she really did love her process) and I would just have to wait.  She could give me the new number over the phone due to the waiting time but not the security code on it. She added that she could do nothing else to help.

No apology.  No empathy. No interest in me.

“Why yes…I’d like to take your customer survey at the end of the call.”

It all started with an email….

Guest Blog: “Don’t Fall into the Deadly Trap of Call Center Metrics”

I’m please to have Brian Cantor as my Guest Blogger today. I’ve enjoyed his articles on IQPC and I’m happy to be able to repost one of his most popular articles here. 

Brian is a Customer Experience and Marketing Analyst who currently serves as the Managing Editor and Director of Customer Management IQ,an online advisory portal and publication for professionals in the space.  Drawing on his events production background with IQPC, Brian also created and produced the successful “Social Media for Customer Management” and “Call Center Success” online event series.

You can contact Brian at brian.cantor@iqpc.com or visit http://www.customermanagementiq.com

♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦

This might be a world of “strategic calls” and revenue-driven customer service, and it is true that metrics like average handle time are losing meaning for many organizations, but do not dare assume that successful call center leaders are leaving performance metrics in the dust!

True, many are embracing Customer Satisfaction and NetPromoter scores as clearer indicators of excellence, but when it comes to overseeing their agents and maximizing investment into customer service, they cannot help but look at performance.

Consistent First Call Resolution (FCR), in particular, continues to represent a gold standard for call center management, at least for those Vice Presidents and other executives in attendance at the 7^thAnnual Call Centre Week Canada in Toronto, Ontario.

According to presenter Jane Torrance of Direct Energy, excellence against the first call resolution benchmark leads to reduced operating costs, improved customer and employee satisfaction, increased upsell opportunities and reduced customer complaints and negative word-of-mouth (if not an outright positive impact on brand advocacy).

It, for all intents and purposes, touches on every key element of a successful call center management strategy.

But those leaders who rely on first call resolution as a performance metric are cautioned to keep a sound perspective on the issue.  Even a measurement that seems as straightforward and self-explanatory as “first call resolution” can be nebulous, and a consequence of that muddiness is a damaging pitfall for many organizations.

In short, there is a wrong way to measure FCR.

As detailed above, one of the key reasons for FCR’s ongoing relevance is its direct connection to the customer experience.  It is not just a way to easily manage and evaluate staff—it actually speaks to the efficacy, enjoyment and value of each correspondence a customer has with the brand.

It, nonetheless, is technically a performance metric.  It is not necessarily scoring customer satisfaction, loyalty, effort or anything of the sort—it is scoring how well the agents are performing.

As an unfortunate consequence, far too many organizations focus on an internal vision for first call resolution.  They view first call resolution entirely through the lens of call center and call center agent, forgetting that resolution, at its core, is a measure that belongs wholly to the customer.

For organizations that actually care about customer satisfaction, there can be no debate—the “resolution” part of first call resolution must be defined by the customer.  It is the customer—not the agent—who knows whether or not his inquiry has reached a satisfactory end.

The “first call” part must also be determined by the customer.  Due to collapses in knowledge management and record keeping, it is entirely plausible that a customer who has tirelessly tried to reach the organization through various channels will be pegged as a “first-time caller” when his voice emerges on the other end of the telephone.  But a resolution on that call, though probably the best the organization can do at that given time, is not first call resolution if the customer believes it took more than one “call” to achieve the desired outcome.

In a customer-centric world, performance metrics should be selected based on their connection to positive outcomes for customers.  That reality, in and of itself, explains why organizations must view first call resolution as a customer-dictated measure.  If call centers are not performing the way customers desire, they are not performing well.

An insular, organizational vision of first call resolution also carries another severe consequence: it drives agents towards detrimental interactions with customers.

If required to achieve first call resolution against a company standard, agents will naturally attempt to fit all customer complaints, questions and comments into one of a few “boxes” for which a typical, hasty, painless resolution is offered.  This will minimize meaningful engagement and relationship-building, as the agent focuses on the broad, easily-addressable aspects of the customer’s call rather than the intricacies that complicate calls by getting at his true sentiment.

And so in addition to creating a disparity between the measured first call resolution rate and the percentage of customers who actually believe their issues to be resolved, the agent will actively undermine customer relationships as he seeks to deliver generic resolutions—quickly—at the expense of getting to know the customer and his expectations.

Customers, not managers, must be driving the conception of first call resolution.  Their satisfaction is what is at stake with each interaction, and their happiness and brand loyalty is what is either strengthened or weakened when the call ends.  We may use first call resolution to assess agent and organizational performance, but it only matters because it matters to the customer.

During her presentation, Torrance shared some key points to remember when measuring first call resolution:

• FCR is defined by the customer.  While organizations should be building their processes and standards to align with the customer vision, it is never sufficient to use a purely-internal measure to assess agent performance.  How the customer feels—and this will change from customer to customer, industry to industry, era to era—is what matters

• Don’t ignore channels.  Customers might have accessed your brands through various touch points prior to calling the contact center; “first call resolution” cannot simply be a telephone-based proposition.  All channels should feature the same level of agent resolve.

• Collect meaningful feedback from callers.  First call resolution is a very specific concept, and post-call surveys and inquiries must be pointed enough to capture that feedback.  That data—not the agent’s confidence that he followed the script and delivered the typical, generic “resolution”—is what provides the calculation basis.

• Adjust metrics accordingly.  As noted, the era of “strategic calls” has made some metrics meaningless or counterproductive, and that fact is amplified by placing a high premium on first call resolution.  Performance against average handle time, calls per hour and all metrics predicated on speed and volume rather than satisfaction could suffer as a result of a meaningful commitment to FCR.

• Transferred calls are not “second calls.”  If customer conception of satisfaction is what matters, they will typically be fine with a transfer if that transfer quickly gets them to the person who can properly resolve the matter.  Agents should not feel discouraged from involving other team members and supervisors if it gets the job done—the only reason transfers should be penalized is if they are being done to “push off” angry customers.

• Resolution is not always instant.  FCR is about giving the customer what he wants on the first correspondence, but what he wants might not always be something that can be exchanged over the phone or Twitter.  If the call ends with a promise that tech support will show up to the customer’s house or that billing will mail a refund, this can count as FCR as long as the customer is happy and the promise is kept.

Quality Calibration: You say it’s 80, I say it’s 90…Let’s call the whole thing off!

I love visiting Contact Centers and working with Leadership and Quality teams.  After 30 plus years in the industry, I will say that I’m still happy with my career choice.  I certainly have had a lot of interesting experiences working with all those Centers, but nothing can compare to some of  those knock-down, drag-out Calibration sessions pitting Supervisor against Supervisor, Supervisor(s) against the Quality Analysts, Supervisors against Manager.  You get the picture.

As I’ve sat and observed the interactions, including the eye rolling, the almost name calling and the defense of what some participants described to a Supervisor as “your pet Agent”, I wondered where the Customer Experience was in all of this.

So many Calibration sessions become more about “I’m right and your wrong” finger-pointing when the scores don’t agree, than how this call affected the Customer. I’ve even seen some Managers avoid the whole infighting issue by just scheduling Calibration sessions once a quarter or even less frequently instead of taking steps to improve them.

In order to have productive (and yes professional) Calibration sessions, we need to set some ground rules, for instance:

1.  Opinions are just that…opinions.  Our monitoring should be based on facts, instead of rating the call high because “Mary means well” or “John’s worked here a long time”.

Consistency in how we rate Agent skills is important.

♦

2. Listen for “Moments of Truth” for that Customer:  Accuracy, timeliness, problem resolution, empathy, listening – Did we take care of the reason for the call and if not, was it the Agent’s issue or a policy/procedure that prevented resolution (which needs revision if possible)?

Why did the Customer contact us and did we resolve? Why Not?

♦

3. If you don’t agree on the scores, why not?:  discuss rationally, not emotionally.

Don’t take discussion personally

♦

4. Make sure everyone understands what your Customers expect and need to have a positive Experience:  Customer Feedback, Surveys, comments Customer makes during the call, CSAT (Customer Satisfaction Score, or perhaps related to the Calibration fighting, I found out this also stands for Combatshootingandtactics.com ).  Our monitoring may also include checks for sales skills and revenue generation but if the Customer is satisfied we know we have a greater opportunity to sell more.

 The Customer Experience

♦

5. Repeat number 4…the Customer rules and providing what they need and want decides whether this call was an 80 or 90 or whatever scoring applies.

This is just some food for thought and I know there are more great Calibration ideas.  I hope you’ll share some of your Calibration stories here or on Twitter (I’m @mkcallconsult) or LinkedIn

My Guest Blogger Marilyn Suttle: “Doing an End-of-Day Review is Powerful – Here’s How…”

Today I’ve invited a Guest Blogger to share one of her insightful posts.

Success coach Marilyn Suttle is coauthor of the bestselling book, “Who’s Your Gladys? How to Turn Even the Most Difficult Customer into Your Biggest Fan” and President of Suttle Enterprises LLC, a personal and professional growth training firm. Her programs produce breakthrough results with customers, coworkers, and even your children. For more information, visit <http://www.WhosYourGladys.com>

The end-of-day review is a powerful tool I use to improve my performance with clients, while raising the bar on my personal effectiveness. It’s a simple practice that only takes a few minutes.

Right before leaving work at the end of the day, ask yourself:

What went well? What would I do differently next time? What do I appreciate about my customers?

Here’s why:

When you ask, “What went well?” it unleashes your brain to zero in on all the wins of your day. That makes you more resourceful.

When you make a habit of noticing what’s going right, you’ll more readily apply those same tactics to future situations.

When you ask, “What would I do differently?” it gives your mind time to rehearse better ways of responding to future challenges. Those mental rehearsals can catapult your effectiveness. It also helps you to avoid self-blame, shame, and guilt.

When you make a habit of noticing what’s going right, you’ll more readily apply those same tactics to future situations.

When you ask, “What do I appreciate about my customers?” it keeps your attention on the people who are the reason you’re in business. It helps you get your mind off the one or two curmudgeonly customers that bring you down, so you can see the overall purpose and value of all those who do business with you.

It creates a sense of closure to your work day so you can be more fully present at home with family and friends.

Not all self-reflections are helpful. Some can even sabotage your success. “What went wrong?” is not a resourceful question. It makes the little problems big and big successes little.  Rather than rehearse better ways of handling workplace issues, you’re left chewing on troubles. As you leave for the day, you’ll feel frustrated, and your resilience will tank. You won’t be much fun across the dinner table with your family and it sets you up to start the next day from a less resourceful vantage point.

I’ve been doing an end-of-day review for the last several years. Last night, I sat down and did a similar end-of-year review. One thing I’m going to do differently – I’ll keep a notebook to capture my end-of-day reviews.

What do you think? How could you build upon what’s going right and make adjustments to better serve your customers?

Posted by Marilyn Suttle on www.whosyourgladys.com/blog