AN OPEN LETTER TO A GOOD COMPANY THAT CAN STILL IMPROVE . . . .
The following is a letter I sent to administrators and supervisors in the company where I have worked for the last few months. I have been there now long enough to see both the genuinely good service we offer to our customers; but also the negative management methods which are used to evaluate the call agents.
In the course of my working relationship with Volt VMC a couple of things have come into view which, in my opinion, are flawed. One of these has to do with the call handling procedure; but the other (which is much more serious) is related to it. Both have a bearing on the method used for evaluating call agents, and for determining whether they shall remain employed or not.
In the call flow procedure one is cued in I-log to determine (by a color scheme) if the ios device is eligible for phone support. If the customer is not eligible, the agent is asked to notify them of that, inform them that there will be options for getting help, and then obtain a brief statement from the customer about the main problem and its associated symptoms. But when a customer is told (even politely through the process of "positioning") that they cannot get help over the phone without paying for it, most of the time they become angy and even belligerent about the call. This automatically predisposes the customer to be negative in any feedback or assessment they offer for that agent.
My greater concern though has to do with the criteria Volt uses for determining if an agent stays or goes. In my opinion this makes for a very flawed employee evaluation system. Call time, after call time, and logging time are fairly easy to perform since those are well within the responsibility of the call agent. But the last criterion, is the one that is the crux of the matter: it has to do with the required percentage-score for the agent from the accumulated customer satisfaction surveys. I believe the current system offers a needless kind of "fifth column" as it were, to influence company decisions about the management and oversight of its personnel. As it now stands, if the call agent does not average ninety percent or above, his job is in jeopardy, even though all of the other marks are in order (and even though he consistently passes the incube evaluations).
1. Having always done it that way (i. e., using outside occasional, random feedback to determine the retention of employees) does not guarantee offering a high quality of actual support on an employee's calls. It only guarantees that the employees that remain have found ways to "game the system". They do this by sending out carefully worded emails which request special consideration when filling out the customer satisfaction report. They do it also by asking the customer (while on the phone) to give them good marks when the survey comes into their e-mail inbox. In addition call agents have learned to detect when a call is "going south" with a particularly cranky or dissatisfied customer; and they simply end the call without logging the case. They simply hit reset and move on. From my own inquiries I have learned this procedure is a common one. No doubt, it accounts for a percentage of the "non-logged calls" by many agents. It also denies the Apple engineers the opportunity to see some valuable case notes from which they could revise or update our support procedures. These are just some of the bad side-effects of a poor system of evaluating call agents! The current system guarantees the creation of a company filled with both effective agents and "survivors" who could offer more to the company, but will not.
5. Finally, if the company persists in saying, "we have a system that works and that has worked for awhile," to this I say, "yes, but there is no telling how many genuinely good, or potentially good agents you have fired or lost due to this faulty evaluation criterion." You have simply retained a mix of genuinely good agents, plust those who have learned to game the system.
6. A final thought: think of the enhanced sense of job security the call agents will possess when revisions are made to the current system. Your employees will then know that their tenure with this company does not depend on randomly received and often capricious satisfaction surveys from a hodge podge of (often) cranky customers. It depends upon the in-house evaluation of their own experienced peers who have "been there and done that".
 |
| They seem to have made up their mind about how to evaluate their employees . . . Too bad . . . |
In the course of my working relationship with Volt VMC a couple of things have come into view which, in my opinion, are flawed. One of these has to do with the call handling procedure; but the other (which is much more serious) is related to it. Both have a bearing on the method used for evaluating call agents, and for determining whether they shall remain employed or not.
 |
| They all look happy . . . but they ain't! |
This has a direct bearing on what happens next. As we all know, if a valid email address is provided in their data record, they are automatically issued a customer satisfaction survey (which comes in two different forms depending on if the customer is eligible for support). But there are problems with such an e-mail generated invitation. One problem has to do with our current societal mindset. Today if a typical customer does not get every little thing that he thinks he is entitled to in the course of the call, he is inclined to leave a negative report for his agent. One of the things most customers think they are entitled to is "free telephone support no matter what." The idea of having to pay for it (after 90 days) to continue getting phone support rubs a lot of them raw; which in turn offers them another justification for leaving negative feedback (and in some cases, leaving the product behind).
An added complication arises when a customer calls in who is ineligible for support, but a call agent helps him anyway! Then, when that person calls back (as they invariably do), and the next agent attempts to deny support (in other words, follows the rules) the customer becomes belligerent and is likely to leave that second agent a bad survey; and all because they were (mistakenly) given help the first time, but not the second!
An added complication arises when a customer calls in who is ineligible for support, but a call agent helps him anyway! Then, when that person calls back (as they invariably do), and the next agent attempts to deny support (in other words, follows the rules) the customer becomes belligerent and is likely to leave that second agent a bad survey; and all because they were (mistakenly) given help the first time, but not the second!
 |
| Customer Satisfaction Reports: flawed in the way they were used! |
You might answer at this point, "well, we have always done it that way, and it has always worked."
To which I offer the following in rebuttal:
 |
| Us Agents know when a call is 'going south' . . . . |
2. As an alternative, our company should do what other customer support locations do (like T-Mobile for instance). We should evaluate all of our employees with "in house" methods. Volt VMC already has a system in place to do this effectively. The company just does not rely on this existing system for agent evaluations.
To be specific, we have now in place a number of experienced quality control agents who listen in on calls daily and randomly. Their in-cube evaluations and "y-jack" evaluations serve as a very good method that is close-to-home in determining whether an agent is
performing acceptably or not. These agents have been trained in the system, know the system, and know what makes for a good call (even with naturally cantankerous customers). I recommend relying solely on the evaluations of these persons in determining employee tenure.
To be specific, we have now in place a number of experienced quality control agents who listen in on calls daily and randomly. Their in-cube evaluations and "y-jack" evaluations serve as a very good method that is close-to-home in determining whether an agent is
 |
| She looks soooo sweet . . . But sweetness ain't enough! |
To let outside customers continue to play the trump card with regard to employee retention is like allowing the enemy (at a time of war) to step across the lines with a white flag and criticize the way our soldiers are treating them!
3. What then is the role of the customer survey reports? They should be used to offer constructive criticism to the call agent. But even more than that, they should be used to revise the methods and content for training new agents. THEY SHOULD NOT BE USED AS THE SOLE CRITERION FOR DETERMINING EMPLOYEE RETENTION.
4. I fully realize that my suggestions will probably not be heeded since they are coming from someone who has not been successful within the existing system. Yet I still believe they are valid.
4. I fully realize that my suggestions will probably not be heeded since they are coming from someone who has not been successful within the existing system. Yet I still believe they are valid.
 |
| THE BOTTOM LINE? YOU DON'T LET *&^%$ OUTSIDERS DETERMINE WHO STAYS OR GOES . . . ! |
6. A final thought: think of the enhanced sense of job security the call agents will possess when revisions are made to the current system. Your employees will then know that their tenure with this company does not depend on randomly received and often capricious satisfaction surveys from a hodge podge of (often) cranky customers. It depends upon the in-house evaluation of their own experienced peers who have "been there and done that".
Or in other words, this last point has to do with company-wide morale. Does Volt VMC really want the reputation of being a "meat grinder" kind of company, where the turn-over rate for its employees is high? The employees would serve VMC better if they had the support mentioned above from quality control, and if they knew their job was secure! (Having worked in the past with several companies who did not use methods like this, I can bear witness that I always worked harder and felt more loyalty to the company if I knew my job was secure.)
I offer this constructive criticism as friendly advice to a company whose products and methods I otherwise greatly respect and admire. I sincerely hope they will prove of help in revising your system of employee evaluation. As a former pastor and writer of sermons, I can honestly tell you that I have seldom ever written anything with the passion and sincerity I have applied in composing these notes to you.
LBC
