While creating CCC’s recent Train-the-Trainer seminar for improving supervisor coaching skills, we developed a number of role play exercises to help illustrate just what world-class coaching looks like.  We had exercises that taught things like active listening skills and tailoring coaching to personality/learning styles, to name just a couple.  And I have to say, coming up with the role play scenarios and instructions was challenging!  Not only is it hard to come up with realistic examples, but it is tricky to make sure that role plays are both:

• effectively illustrating the intended lesson
• easily understood

At times, I felt like Goldilocks—exercises were just too hard (for example, “Is that situation describing Personality A or Personality B?  Seems like it could be either – or both.”) or too easy (you know, coaching 101 stuff).).  In the end, I think we delivered some useful exercises for companies to use in their own training sessions with supervisors.  Read More »

A few weeks ago, I was chatting with a financial services member after walking her through our work on the key service interaction attributes that drive customer loyalty.  She asked me, “Do you ever get a chance to revisit and update your past research?”  The question got me thinking – both about the ideal state and the reality.    

Being a true research geek at heart, I wish I could spend all my days digging deep to re-examine a past topic – but I know that our member’s immediate business needs often mean we need to press on to explore new, emerging topics too.  Luckily, sometimes – like with our customer loyalty work – there is a perfect storm which allows us to dig deeper on a topic that is also of high interest to our members.

What our loyalty work told us was clear.  Two points stand out to me in particular:

1. Service organizations should focus on preventing and reducing customer effort: A staggering 96% of customers who put forth high effort in a service interaction are more disloyal – and only 9% of customers with low effort are more disloyal.

2. The best way to measure the customer experience is through an effort measurement: Measuring effort with CCC’s Customer Effort Score (CES™) is far more predictive of repurchase, growth, and positive word of mouth as compared to typical experience measures.

Since we debuted this research back in 2008, we’ve seen countless members start to measure effort and find initial ways to eliminate sources of customer effort.  But the question soon became, “What can I do (next) to reduce customer effort?” Read More »

By Dan Clay

I recently received a new credit card in the mail.  I looked at the ‘how to register’ details on the front of the card for the phone number, and a slight twist on this inevitable sticker changed my typical action.  Instead of providing me two equal options – a Web site and a phone number – the sticker provided the Web URL and then said, in the soft whisper of small font, “If you do not have internet access, call 1 (888)…”

They still provided the phone number.  I bet they would have taken my call without running background to check for broadband bills.  But they took a basic choice and subtly positioned one option as the obvious default. 

Harvard Business Review calls this process setting a “mass default” that directs customers toward the choice that’s better for the company and easier for the customer.  The “choice architecture”—the order of the options, the font size difference, the language preceding the phone number—nudges me to the Web and away from the phone. Read More »

Procter & Gamble, Walmart, and Walgreens are all limiting customer choice in the grocery and drug store aisle.  Why aren’t their customer service and support organizations following suit?

In line with the economic downturn, many retailers and consumer product good firms have realized that limiting customer choice can actually help drive purchase decisions.

The “Paradox of Choice” movement has evangelized this idea.  But it seems the message hasn’t trickled down to service and support…yet.

Read More »

While some of my colleagues may be focused on the NCAA Tourney this time of year, I’m enjoying another annual (US$700 million) phenomenon…Girl Scout cookies!  

I’ve encountered two separate troops recently at my grocery store, and the difference in sales approaches was remarkable.  The first troop was standard, consisting of Scouts timidly trying to approach busy people (who were, in turn, avoiding eye contact and looking guilty).  The second troop, however, clearly had their game faces on.  Not only were they confident in their approach (even offering handshakes to shoppers), but they were actually offering free cookie samples!  Talk about getting people interested in your product!

In watching that exuberant second troop, I had to wonder if they had some extra motivation…something was making them work harder.  Kudos to that troop leader for knowing her sales force well enough to find an effective incentive.  After all, it’s not just ANY incentive that makes someone work harder, it’s the RIGHT incentive.  Read More »

Stop for a minute and ask yourself this – is “getting coached” a good thing in your organization? If you’re being honest, chances are it’s probably not.

Last week Pete and I spent an entire day running our latest workshop, teaching trainers to instill better coaching practices in their supervisor and team lead populations. We had 30 companies represented across nearly every major industry. It was a great crowd, with very energetic discussion.

The very first exercise of the day involved creating a goal for coaching. And while many participants jumped in an added their thoughts, two things were abundantly clear:

 1) Coaching is a misused word and concept. The outcomes, methods, and intent of coaching around the room couldn’t have been more diverse. Naturally, we assume when everyone nods their head in agreement at the word “coaching,” it’s universally understood. Well, you know what they say about assuming…

 2) Most organizations have not defined a true goal and purpose for coaching. We’re telling our leaders to “coach” without a sense of what that really means. Good coaching does not involve performance management, nor does it involve a conference room.

Read More »

As a diehard men’s U.S. college basketball fan, the four-week period between “Selection Sunday” until a U.S. national champion is crowned, commonly referred to as March Madness, is one of the most intense and exciting months of the year.

Sixty-five teams will tip-off in mid-March, all vying for the crown of “Best College Basketball Team in the Country”.  And while all of the teams have talented athletes, and have achieved successful seasons to reach this stage, it’s their coaches that often deserve the most credit. 

Coaches recognize the strengths and opportunity areas of every player, and help guide each player individually to improvements that will ultimately boost the overall performance of the team.  You don’t find coaches telling players to simply “score more points”; they actually help them understand how to score more points.  And the best coaches emphasize “in-game coaching”, taking a few seconds during the game to guide the player to better performance, without taking him fully out of the game environment.

And while coaching in the contact center occurs almost as frequently as coaching on the court, not enough “in-game coaching” is happening in most contact centers today. Read More »

A common question I hear members ask is, “Given all of the channel options available, how do I select the right channel for my post-contact customer survey?” In this two-part post, I weigh the pros and cons of using different channels for surveying customers.

Here, I cover automated survey channels, including e-mail, Web, and IVR.  Part two will address manual channels, like outbound phone and mail surveys. Taken together, this information can guide you toward the survey administration channel that is best suited for you and your customers.  Read More »

Last week a company asked me how much more first contact resolution (FCR) improvement it has left.  The company knows its FCR rates—the ability to resolve an issue on a single contact—aren’t perfect, but at 84%, it finds it increasingly difficult to move the dial.

As I shared some of our benchmarks, I couldn’t help but comment how inflated some of the figures are—95% and above in some industries in the phone channel, and even higher rates in the e-mail channel.

This wide benchmark variance results from highly diverse definitions and measurements of issue resolution, most of which are not terribly accurate or beneficial.

Most FCR metrics have a vital flaw–they track assumed issue resolution.  Customers typically believe that upon interacting with the service organization, the issue has been resolved.  And so asking the customer via a survey or frontline rep, “Was your issue resolved?”, as conventional wisdom dictates, inevitably leads to a “yes.”  Yet unbeknownst to the customer, he may have to call back for a related issue or obtain clarification. Read More »