“People seem to want everything these days, and if we can’t/won’t/shouldn’t give it to them, they go ballistic.”

“Some customers call us still angry from their last issue and what they’re seeking feels less like resolution, and more like revenge!”

“We’ve got customers who think they’re smarter than our reps. And I think some of them actually ARE!”

At CCC, we’ve detected a distinct shift in the landscape  – a page-turn to a new chapter in our relationship with customers.  They’re becoming more demanding, or worse, even unrealistic about what to expect from us.

It’s the dawning of a new era, and it’s one we’ve all seen coming for some time:

• The distant past (the 1990’s) was most notable for the move toward greater economic efficiency in customer service.  That was The Productivity Era. Whatever we could do to resolve issues more quickly (reducing AHT, increasing FCR) was the focus of a successful CS operation.
• Then, in the recent past (the 2000’s) we saw a move toward an increasing emphasis on greater quality in our interactions with customers – The Quality 1.0 Era.  As more and more simple issues were now able to be handled WITHOUT the need for a live rep (IVR, web self-service) then the remaining live calls we did take were, therefore, more complex and required a higher-quality personal interaction.
• Now, here we are in the 2010’s and AGAIN, something is different. But this shift isn’t so much about technology or the complexity of customer issues (although these are contributing factors). The biggest difference is the nature of our customers themselves. We’re in a new phase:  The Quality 2.0 Era.  Here are some examples we’ve heard lately that point to this shift:

Some customers have more experience in issue resolution than your reps.
Picture a well-educated customer (lawyer, doctor, professor) who has been an active consumer of your company’s products for 10+ years. What happens when that customer is having a (heated) dispute with a part-time hourly rep who has 6 months experience? It degenerates into a verbal mismatch that ultimately results in a victory for neither side.

Customers are much better at “playing the game.”
We’ve been hearing that some companies are reporting an alarming increase in “pre-escalations” — customers demanding to speak to a supervisor before they even begin to describe their issue to the frontline rep who answered their call. Clever…but annoying!

Customers are issuing threats and ultimatums (correct word is probably ultimata, but c’mon!).
I have a good friend who is — let’s just be kind and say — a VERY ACTIVE customer/consumer. She is definitely smart (-er than most reps) and she told me about a recent experience with a telecom company:  At the height of frustration over her latest unresolved issue, she boldly declared to the rep, “Stop telling me what you can’t do.  And please understand that the very next thing you say will determine whether I will ever be a customer of your company for the rest of my life.”

What do you think that rep said? Exactly what he was trained to say, “I’m sorry ma’am, that’s not something we handle — again, you’re gonna have to call our technical support number and see if they can help you.” Bottom line:  My friend is now counting the days to the end of her contract, and has a new provider all lined up to handle her entire family’s business from then on.

But there IS hope. We’d love to share some of the solutions we’ve seen to relieve these growing frustrations.  Join us for one of our live full-day seminars, or upcoming “virtual” events on the topic of “The Next Frontier of Rep Performance.” We’ll reveal clear evidence that the way you manage your reps — and the work environment you create — can have a significant impact on improving rep performance in this Quality 2.0 Era of customer service.

HOW ABOUT YOU:  What evidence are YOU seeing that customers are acting differently, and in some cases, unreasonbly?

We’ve all been the beneficiary of a helpful tip or trick from a coworker, and while we may not think of an Excel shortcut, for example, as rising to the level of a “best practice”, in the service organization these are exactly the kind of useful pieces of advice that can add up to real savings. The biggest challenge is that it can be tough to identify—let alone replicate—these time-saving habits of high performers to improve performance among the entire front line.

To address this challenge, one financial services company we work with took a structured approach to learning from and sharing the collective wisdom of their frontline reps. While the full case is available on the CCC Web site, the key insights to help you uncover and teach time- and cost-saving tips and shortcuts are below:

1) Survey and observe reps to gather existing best practices.
MassMutual begins the process by surveying their entire frontline staff to determine which productivity practices are currently being used. An efficiency team then observes how reps use available tools and systems to supplement any information not collected in the survey.

2) Prioritize your productivity results.
Instead of sharing a laundry list of the productivity techniques uncovered, MassMutual focuses on disseminating the tips and tricks that have the biggest impact on performance and time savings. To do this, they compare the productivity habits of low, medium, and high performers, focusing on the practices that distinguish high performers from the rest of the pack. For example, MassMutual finds that high performers tend to have much more organized computer desktops than their coworkers and that lower performers spend significant time navigating between multiple programs and windows. Based on these findings, MassMutual develops desktop standardization guidelines to help agents manage applications and cut handle time.

3) Make learning personal for your reps.
Based on rep responses to the initial survey, MassMutual assesses improvement opportunities and coaches to these ‘productivity gaps’ through customized, one-on-one sessions. This tailored approach ensures that coaching time is not wasted teaching generic tips that the rep may already practice. Short refresher sessions ensure that best practices are retained over the long run.

By following the above steps, MassMutual is able to capture and share practices that would otherwise remain undetected and inaccessible to the majority of reps. In doing so, they’re able solve their productivity problem by cutting AHT by over 90 seconds–all without sacrificing the quality of service they deliver to their customers.

Customer Service Buzz readers: What are your thoughts? Do you have any best practices when it comes to productivity in the workplace?

CCC Related Resources:

Disseminating Productivity Best Practices to Frontline Staff

Productivity Impact Calculator

CCC Cost, Productivity, and Quality Benchmarking Data

I love this idea, and it is central to our upcoming new presentation “The Next Frontier of Rep Performance.” But the more I think about it, the more I’ve been wondering — where, exactly, does ownership COME from?  To have it in abundant supply, you’d need to identify its source, right?

Now the confession:  Turns out I had it all wrong.

I used to think (and, BTW, feel free to join in here, so I don’t feel like I’m the only one on Lonely Island) that ownership is a gift.  It is something a company would have to “give” to its reps. 

To give them the empowerment and encouragement to “own” customer issues, and to take full responsibility for solving problems — oftentimes complex problems to which there is no one single answer or business rule to depend on.  A rep certainly wouldn’t be free to own an issue unless the company was willing (and humble enough) to remove the shackles, dispense with harsh policies, and just plain trust its people to make good, smart decisions on their own.

But just a couple of weeks ago, Pete Slease and I spent a day “embedded” with the contact center staff at a major US company (won’t mention them by name, but believe me — they are excellent at what they do, their reps have a very high degree of ownership, and everyone there is working hard to create a truly “low-effort” customer experience!).  I spent some time talking with some of their top reps about how ownership works at their company, and they set me straight in a way I was totally NOT expecting.

They agreed unanimously — a rep who is “given the gift of ownership” will never feel totally free to exercise that gift until and unless it is an expectation and a demand.  If it’s optional, some reps (particularly the newer, less experienced folks) will likely opt out.  Therefore, the company MUST insist that reps take ownership — to reinforce the idea that anything less is simply “not the way we all do business here.”

Wow.  My brain rang for a few moments like I’d just head-butted the Liberty Bell.  (both brain and bell subject to some degree of cracking)

Ownership of a call, and ownership of the resolution experience isn’t something you can GET.  Even if the company says it’s “giving” it to you — it’s not an option that you can accept or politely decline.  It’s not the whipped cream on top of your Venti White Chocolate Mocha.  It’s not something extra you can choose to enjoy, or not.

Ownership is something you MUST do.  Supported, of course, by the company, by your manager, by the QA process, and by your peers.  Now I get it.

What do you think?  In your experience, where does ownership COME from?

This skill, being able to recognize and “flex” to other personality types, can have tremendously positive results in service organizations including boosts to employee engagement & customer experience, improved coaching interactions, and financial benefits, too, like reduced callbacks and better selling success.     

I’ve worked with hundreds of companies in workshops around the world to train trainers on these techniques, and the enthusiasm for this approach to service is universally positive.  Companies rarely have difficulty justifying the implementation of personality-based service and the rollout of the training is not only engaging and exciting, it’s a heckuva lot of fun, too!  But getting this personalized service approach to stick has been a challenge for some.

So how do you make this behavior stick? 

Oh, sure, there’s a population of staff members who already possess and practice this skill, but what about everyone else?  How do you ensure that this new skill is applied consistently and correctly in customer service interactions? 

Training can certainly introduce the concept and get reps closer to understanding their own personality style, but to consistently apply the new skill takes some additional work.  Follow this simple-to-follow guidance to help boost your reps’ ability to make personality-based service stick:

1)      Role Plays/Activities – This tried-and-true approach to reinforcing ideas is a terrific way to give reps practice in a safe environment.  I’ve worked with a number of companies that have made this activity even more engaging than the traditional “you play the customer, I’ll play the rep” approach, including using recorded calls or videos for a “Name that Personality Type” game or doing role plays that show what happens when the rep incorrectly diagnoses the customer’s personality type and delivers service that doesn’t “fit” that style.  Both of these methods provide alternatives to more traditional reinforcement exercises and can actually be a lot of fun for participants. 

2)      Coaching – The heart and soul of any new approach to service, Coaching keeps this service style alive.  Coaching, the one-to-one interactions that happen on- and off-the-floor, give sups and reps a chance to discuss what’s working well along with identifying where opportunities exist and how best to tackle those challenges.  Coaching interactions can always begin by asking the question, “What personality style was that customer?”

3)      Outside-the-Box Methods –  Companies that I’ve worked with who’ve had the most success with this approach to service also incorporate less traditional methods to making this service approach stick, like creating a matrix with tips and cues for reps to follow as a quick reference guide.   One unorthodox approach that I’ve heard is to create flags that represent the different personality types and have reps raise the flag that corresponds with the customer they’re talking to at the moment.      

How do you get your training to stick?  What other techniques have you used that have worked?  Share your insights with us here. 

CCC Members: Click here to see the Soft Skills Resource Center which provides step-by-step guidance and tools to implement a tailored approach to service by customer personality types.  Already implemented it and want to know what’s next?  Check out this member’s Personality-Based Coaching Program.

This is a guest post by

Don’t get me wrong: I love working with heads of Sales. But every now and then, something crosses my desk that reminds me of how much we can still learn from other functional executives.

And what could be more cross-functional than 2011 budgeting and planning? If you’re one of the many sales leaders reviewing recent budget projections and saying, “You want me to do what with what?!” then I’d encourage you to read on for a bit of good news from an unlikely source.

As it turns out, our sister research program that supports CFOs is strongly advocating that companies shift more resources to activities directly tied to sales growth in the near term.

Now, before you dismiss that idea as too farfetched for your penny-pinching CFO to get behind, consider these key findings that will help you speak their language:

Only 46 companies from the Fortune 1000 have experienced “Intelligent Growth” across the last 20 years. Our team defined “Intelligent Growth” as:  

• Above median EBITDA margin and Sales CAGR versus industry peers
• Simultaneous growth of Sales and Margins for >50% of the time
• No sales growth stalls (that is, an 8+% drop in sales CAGR coupled with an actual sales CAGR of <2%) between 1990-2000 and 2001-2007

Impressive, but so what?

Well, these 46 companies have proven exceptionally adept at turning past economic troughs into “value creation hot spots,” generating +5% Total Shareholder Return above industry median during the previous two recessions and achieving lasting competitive advantage.

Again – impressive. But how’d they do it?

“Intelligent Growth” companies prioritized costs directly tied to sales growth for reinvestment following recent recessions, ranking customer-facing investments ahead of increases to staff pay, IT, marketing, training, R&D, operations and T&E.

So to summarize: companies growing their investment in Sales right now – in the midst of an economic trough – are the ones setting themselves up for success. Those that aren’t… well, you get the idea.

Not a bad message to share with your CFO.

But as a wise friend once told me, you shouldn’t bring someone a problem without already having a solution in mind. So what’s our recommendation here?

It’s simple: avoid using broad budget targets (e.g., “2007 spend levels”) to curtail cost creep as you plan for 2011 – remember that in Sales “you can’t dig your way out of an (economic) hole.”

Instead, identify costs with a direct link to sales growth and establish upper/lower boundaries for spend in those categories.

A few suggestions to get you started:

• direct sales costs (such as headcount, productivity resources, or skills training)
• marketing, advertising and branding investments (such as improved sales collateral or lead generation activities)
• market research
• customer-service related costs associated with increased sales volume

A little flexibility (and, of course, a little extra cash) could go a long way toward ensuring that your company joins the ranks of those achieving “Intelligent Growth” in the coming year.

This is the second in a two-part series on creating effective contact center organization dashboards. 

You probably know the saying, “You shouldn’t judge a book by its cover.”  But in the hectic pace of the modern office, internal documents often suffer this exact fate.  If something looks like it will take a long time to read and digest, given everyone’s busy schedules it’s likely that it will be set aside to review at a “free moment”…that never comes along.  And, of course, the contact center operational dashboard is no exception to this syndrome.  So it’s important to make sure that your dashboard doesn’t take a lot of effort to consume, assuming you want your audience, particularly those outside of the contact center organization, to pay attention. 

So, here are five design tips to keep in mind to de-clutter your dashboard presentation and catch your audience’s attention:

1. Create a simplified front-page that contains links for drilling down into specific metric areas—One of the challenges we often hear from members is that they are struggling to reduce their dashboard to one page…which can actually create more problems than it solves.  We suggest a one-page version reduced to high-level key metrics for upward management conversations, but be sure to  build subsequent pages—available via clickable links—to allow stakeholders to “click” metrics of interest for a detailed view of contributing factors or related measures. 
2. Use arrows and/or colors to indicate goal status and change—Status change arrows and color coding provide users with a quick understanding of progress toward goals.  For example: green light might mean “we’re on track to meet our goal”, whereas a red arrow might indicate that the metric has suffered since the last report was published.  These visual cues makes a report faster to scan and can direct the reader’s attention to areas of concern more easily.
3. Speaking of goals…Don’t forget to include general goal information for context and reference—Arrows and color coding are nice, but if they are not placed in specific target context, meaning may be lost.  So state the success measures on the page for both context and reference.  For example, instead of just telling me that we are 80% to goal, tell me exactly what that goal is (including both the number and the timeline in which we need to accomplish it).
4. Use a summary box to convey a message and guide dashboard presentations—If the dashboard is distributed electronically, summary boxes or cover pages provide a consistent message and give the dashboard owner the opportunity to communicate context and highlight key metrics.  Even when the dashboard is reviewed in a live meeting, these notes help the presenter guide the conversation and serve as reminders to stakeholders once the meeting has concluded. 
   Note: This one may sound like a “nice to have”, but is actually quite critical.  After all the time and effort that is spent producing the dashboard, what a shame it would be to have your audience miss (or worse, misinterpret) the key takeaways.  The summary box is also likely to increase your dashboard’s consumability—having the takeaways clearly stated takes the fuss of metric interpretation out of the picture, making dashboard review a low-effort experience.
5. Include data source information to build confidence in metrics—Data transparency provides users with the information needed to seek additional detail or clarification.  In addition, source citations can help build confidence in metrics, which will increase the likelihood of using the dashboard to inform decision-making processes.  Your audience will be able to place more faith in the information, as well as know immediately where to look if they are hungry for more data.

Do you have any additional design tips to share?  Any “lessons learned” stories about what happens if you don’t have an easy to understand dashboard presentation?

CCC members, for more information on how to organize metrics, we recommend listening to the Amalfi (pseudonym company) case-in-point walkthrough.

First, pick the right metrics. 

Second, ensure people to understand the dashboard. 

In this post, I’ll explore number one; stay tuned for dashboard presentation tips in my second installment in my next blog post.  For today, let’s think about metric selection. 

Poor Metric Selection Creates Ineffective Dashboard Consumption

Why does metric selection matter?  Well, one of the more common problems associated with dashboards is “metric bloat”, often brought on by uncertainty involving metric selection.  In other words, in the absence of knowing which metrics to choose, many dashboard owners will err on the side of over-inclusion.  Not only does this lead to headaches for dashboard compilation (absent a slick system on the backend that can compile all the data), but it also lessens to the effectiveness of the dashboard.  And although in part two we’ll talk about how to get readers to understand your dashboard, it’s what you do here in part one (metric selection) that will determine if people are willing to value it enough to look at in the first place.  

So, here’s my advice: 

Point One: Have different dashboards for different audiences—Dashboards generally have two primary audiences: external to the immediate organization (i.e., senior execs) and internal to the organization (i.e., day-to-day customer contact staff).  Both need dashboards for different reasons, and therefore, actually require different sets of information – speaking to the need for separate external and internal dashboards.

• Selecting metrics for external audiences is arguably easier than selecting metrics for internal audiences.  For external dashboards, keep it to high-level achievements and challenges—and relevant to corporate-level strategic priorities.  Here are some additional tips for the external dashboard:

  

• For the internal dashboard, stakeholders likely have discrete—and very different—needs. The head of workforce management has different priorities from the human resources rep.  So internal management forums require a dashboard that will provide more context than the presentation given to senior management. Here are some tips for the internal dashboard:

Certainly the internal dashboard is at more risk of metric bloat, which brings me to my next point. 

Point Two: Question Metrics Regularly—I like the idea of an “open dashboard” policy to ensure only the most pertinent metrics remain, particularly for creating a document that serves internal stakeholder needs.  In other words, don’t become so entrenched with current metrics that you aren’t open to considering adding and removing metrics.  Any stakeholder should have the option of proposing a metric, and your leadership team can use an “experience filter” that relies on  previous experiences with metrics.  If experience indicates the metric has little actionable value, it shouldn’t pass without further due diligence.  

But if the metric warrants exploration, go ahead and add it—and give the metric appropriate time to prove itself one way or another.  And by “prove”, I mean demonstrate an ability to contribute to actionable business decisions.  Once you’ve tested a metric—say, for six months—make a final decision by taking it back to your original group of stakeholders for discussion.

What would you add to this list of recommendations?  What have you learned in working with your own dashboard metrics?  Have you tried an “open dashboard” policy? 

CCC members, reference our Dashboard Resource Center to read more about best practice companies approach their dashboards and access tools for assessing your metrics.

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.

Since properly executed coaching is the single greatest driver of performance for service organizations (yielding more than a 12% increase in output), and poor coaching is among the most corrosive drivers of performance, this is one occasion where organizations need to provide clarity for their teams.

The question then becomes: how can we provide clarity around what properly executed coaching looks like? 

CCC Members, check out our latest series of seven e-learning modules on proper coaching techniques for supervisors. Also, track coaching effectiveness of your supervisors with our coaching pulse survey.

Back at the workshop, we also found clarity by sharing the coaching goals we’ve created at CCC:

• Assisting staff in becoming more self-aware of development areas
• Providing guidance to change behaviors while continually reinforcing positive behavior
• Creating an environment of self-realization and improvement

The group also added several other components including – safe environment, collaboration, partnership, trust, engagement, inspiration, and candid but respectful. All good contributions our goal didn’t explicitly include.

A defined purpose and goal for coaching is vital. Several attendees said the first thing they’d do when they got back to the office is call a supervisor huddle and reach consensus on a definition.

While creating a goal for coaching not sufficient, it is a necessary step in creating a sound coaching program.

What are your thoughts here? What’s missing in the goal above? And more importantly, how can you get your supervisors and reps to build their own goal with your guidance?

(As a side note, HBR wrote a really great piece entitled “Can You Say What Your Strategy Is?” The piece demonstrated most organizations lack concision in their strategic statement and organizational goals. If you haven’t read this, please do yourself a favor and check it out. It’s a great tactical piece that applies to setting goals, well beyond this blog post.)

If you’re like most of your peers, you’re on the lookout for fast and effective ways to cut expenditures in today’s cost-constrained environment. On the top of many executives’ lists – relaxing their average speed of answer (ASA) to cut back on staffing requirements. It’s an instant win for many contact center executives, but not one they exercise freely.

The prevailing belief is customers don’t want to wait on hold, so we’d better pick up the phone fast.  Companies spend significant resources to determine what ‘fast’ means to the customer, closely benchmarking their service levels with their peers. Changing their goal from 80% of calls answered in 20 seconds to 90% answered in 30 seconds becomes an agonizing decision without the right data.

So, what are customer breaking points?  Turns out there are greater tolerances for waiting time variance than often thought:

Click to Enlarge

• Customers preferences peak at 30 seconds, which seemingly indicates that they expect to wait that long, or possibly even that customers like to wait.
• Roughly between 30 and 50 seconds is when service levels impact the experience, though only marginally.
• Beyond 50 seconds the experience reaches a true impact point.

At first, that spike at 30 seconds looked counter-intuitive to me. Who wants to be on hold?  Then again, there are times when I’m not quite ready for a call, still getting my account information in hand or thinking about how I’ll explain my situation to a service rep.

Some research we conducted a few years ago showed that customers will willingly trade off 30 seconds of ASA for a 1% increase in first contact resolution rate. Coupling that data point, with the graphic above, tells us two clear things:

• ASA is a fairly minor consideration in the customer experience, unless it reaches that 50 second tipping point.
• Customers care significantly more about what happens when the phone is answered than what occurs while on hold.

How have you played with your ASA levels to save on costs?  Tell us about your experiences.

CCC members, can take a look at our B2B data and B2C data on service levels, plus customer reactions to other cost saving techniques like offshoring and reducing operation hours.