ICMI's Customer Management Insight - September 2007 - (Page 24) PEOPLE failed two evaluations, you were fired. Besides increasing agent ” attrition, the practice produced an atmosphere of fear — many agents would quit their jobs before they received their second or third evaluations. “We had a fear of supervisors and management, and that, to me, is just heartbreaking — that people are working in fear, says Leonard. ” Under her guidance, an impersonal and punitive approach was replaced with an affirmative culture that now includes action development plans, internal calibrations, self-monitoring and evaluation, peer-mentoring programs, specialty and refresher agent training, motivational programs, Zenger-Miller training for supervisors, reward programs, and monitoring conducted by both the quality assurance team and supervisors. The Aon/Verint study deems third-party monitoring as the most effective technique; however, monitoring conducted by both a quality assurance team and call center supervisors is considered superior to monitoring from a single source (see Figure 2 on page 21). The report states that “many organizations find it useful to use a combination of monitoring sources, in order to gain a ‘snapshot’ of calls from different perspectives. ” Leonard’s philosophy mirrors this belief. “When you’re out on the floor every day, as supervisors are, you understand why things are handled the way they are sometimes. QA is not visible at all times on the floor, and they’re not with your frontline out there on the floor — they don’t always realize something has changed within a program or [why] we do something different during a specific time of day. [Using a combined approach] gives you a nice balance of feedback from icmi’s insight M CMI: What advice would you give to managers and coaches for defusing an agent’s negative attitude toward monitoring and coaching? GIBSON: Managers and coaches have to design programs that are positive and affirming, that reward desired behaviors and, most importantly, are based on performance criteria that are meaningful, clear and attainable. With many companies I’ve worked with, I’ve found programs and criteria that are so poorly defined and unclear that even supervisors can’t agree on the criteria! Management teams have to be 100 percent certain that their program is 100 percent solid — meaningful, clear, understandable to all levels of the call center. If agents have a negative perception of the monitoring and coaching program, it is the management team’s responsibility to listen to agents’ opinions and perspectives and address them. There is plenty of room within any strong monitoring and coaching program to incorporate everyone’s perspectives — I think most call centers would find that when it comes down to it, agents, managers, supervisors and coaches are all interested in acting in the best interest of the organization and its customers. CMI: What should a call center supervisor’s objectives be when coaching agents? GIBSON: There are really two goals. First, to close performance gaps and increase performance. It’s important that agents who aren’t meeting the required performance criteria are provided with honest, accurate feedback, provided with the necessary instruction and modeling, and given the opportunity to practice and improve. Second, to solidify and confirm positive behaviors. When agents are doing the things they are supposed to be doing, it’s important to recognize that and highlight the importance of those behaviors. There are also a number of ancillary goals — increasing communication, aligning performance expectations, learning more about the motivation and perspectives of individual agents — that are worthwhile as well. Coaching is the No. 1 way the call center management team should be communicating with and connecting with the workforce. What could be more important than discussions about performance and whether we are meeting our goals? CMI: What is the current status of self-monitoring or self-coaching? How prevalent is that and how effective? GIBSON: I think many call centers haven’t implemented opportunities for agents to monitor their own performance because of the time involved. Most call centers aren’t willing to decrease the number of interactions monitored or coaching sessions conducted by supervisors — and it takes additional time to allow an agent to monitor his or her calls and record the feedback. I think it can be a useful strategy when specific parameters and objectives are put in place. When incorporating self-monitoring into a monitoring proCONTINUED www.icmi.com | SEPTEMBER 2007 24 http://www.icmi.com
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.