Alan, Thank you!

Thank you for the passion with which you reply to my comments. My intention never is to be the most agreeable person, I merely wished to outline the section of JC's post which refered to the 'new sweatshop'.

In breif reply;

AJT's rule one: I was merely breking the question down and adressing one part of it.

AJT's rule two: Hopefully we would understand our customers befour weset up business. Also it is good that senior people understand the customers, but that is useless unless the CSR's understand them, thats a training and development issue. "Again requires focus on staff". (granted it's not this simple).

GRAMATICAL CORRECTION
Once again thank you for your positive input.

An email would be a way of responding to a customer agreed, but certainly not a way of answering the phone??

I will leave the other comment for those who can see your excellent use of irony in the extreamly long sentence. well done!!

AJT's rule three: Again good irony, my writing has never been a strong point, I am feeling slightly winded by these repeated blows.

4. Certainly no insult intended but the saying has been around for a long time!!

SMILING - not the same as laughing and if you try you will find it is possible to empathise whilst smiling, someone needs to remain positive in the conversation why can't that person be the CSR?

AJT's rule four: Thank you .. I will try and get my wind back now.

AJT's rule five: Cheers again,, we are on the same side after all and I certainly do not think I have all the right answers.
***Oh and I love a good debate**

AJT's Rule six: I could not agree more, this is why we need to debate on the ri8ght people topic!

AJT's rule seven: I never meant to be a wind up, but to relight the fire of this most important topic, so for responding with the passion and commitment I would expect from any D type personality, thank you.

This is an under used and invaluable resource and to all involved a big well done...

Scott

....are *so* polite to one another, Scott and Alan - one of the many traits of the UK folks that I admire. I can picture the two of you in a fencing match, mercilessly inflicting wounds upon one another with surgical precision, then saying, "Right! Sorry about that! And thank you so much for chest wound, I don't believe I knew my defense was weak there." : )

In re-reading this entire thread this morning, we've had great observations and ideas. Culprits that negatively affect our beloved industry range from pesky outbound salespeople to under-empowered agents to narrow-minded operations people to evil capitalist executives to the ridiculously high expectations of consumers. Cool.

Now what? As Sean Connery's character said in the movie 'The Untouchables' -
"What are you prepared to *do*?".

Brent

Brent said: "... Scott and Alan ... Now what? As Sean Connery's character said in the movie 'The Untouchables' - 'What are you prepared to *do*?'. "

- As a customer, I'm prepared to continue moaning like mad when service is unacceptably poor and continue to praise people and thank their managers when service is excellent.

- As someone in business, but only on the periphery of the Call Centre world, I'm prepared to listen to other people and react to what they say, including in this forum.

The original question was: "Why is our industry seen as a generally bad thing?"

... which puts the focus on an analysis of the causes - essential if we are to generate ideas for the right solutions, but the problem is either that there is a lack of agreement on the causes, or that there is a large number of them.

As you said: "... we've had great observations and ideas. Culprits that negatively affect our beloved industry range from pesky outbound salespeople to under-empowered agents to narrow-minded operations people to evil capitalist executives to the ridiculously high expectations of consumers."

If these (and others) are correct, isn't the only valid conclusion that the industry should start again? [It can't, of course, so it can do the next best thing, but admitting to itself that it would start again if it had the chance would give it a basis for real change].

In your first posting in this thread you supported the approach to "*spend* the money on the right technology, *spend* the money on excellent people and training, and *spend* the money on making the customer happy".

OK, but surely it has to start with "*spend* the money on excellent people" (and not just CSRs!), otherwise they will not know what the "right technology is and will not know how to make customers happy.

The implication of your statement is that the industry (at least too much of it) has the wrong technology and makes customers unhappy. It can only be the current cohort of managers in Call Centres that has produced this situation.

An 'industry' is its people - and evidently not all are up to it.

One 'last resort' phrase I have always liked is: "If the people won't change, change the people".

Am I in the right ball park for where the real solutions must lie?

BTW - In an industry that believes it is made up of "Teams", where is it in the "Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing" model.

All contributions welcome.


Alan ..........


PS [to Brent]
-------------
What do you make of Scott's points:

"in order to build the reputation and profile of a business we need to stop looking at our customers, and start looking at our staff"

"if your staff are happy ... even if they cant solve a problem a customer has, it will be a nice call for all"

"I promise you this, with the right staff in place ... your customers ... wont even notice that they have only been on the phone for two seconds"

"In an industry that believes it is made up of "Teams", where is it in the "Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing" model"

Very good question. I'd argue that it's in a perpetual state of Storming, being so-perpetuated by the constant turnover in both technologies and objectives. On a micro-level, it's also perpetuated by the fact that it's a low-paying industry at the grass roots level and therefore has higher turnover.

We should never forget that in order to move from Storming to Norming (and afterwards onto Performing) there needs to be a degree of stability throughout (in both objective terms and applied to the operational dynamics within the organisations).

Complex, but that's my own take on it!

John

John C said: "I'd argue that it's in a perpetual state of Storming, ... perpetuated by the constant turnover in ... technologies, objectives [and staff]."

If you're right, then are there any ways (strategically) that it can progress?

I would hope it can find some areas stable enough to get on with norming and performing.

A worry would be that people enjoy the excitement of storming and that the Call Centre industry has had so much of it that it may be adicted to it, so managers brought up on this are (on the whole) not the managers who can take it forward.

Chances of this happening may be nil until the accountants drive changes - after all, like everybody else Call Centre managers like people like themselves and cloning will continue.


Alan ............

Alan, I'm glad this topic has been revived - it is one of the most important issues that we all face.

I agree that there are multiple issues that we face as an industry. But the difficulty lies in that, depending on one's position in the company or as a customer, these issues are seen in parallax. The owner of a call center probably sees 'people standing around and not working'; the agents see 'the cheapskate owner standing around looking at us with a scowl'; the operations people see 'people taking too long in the bathroom'; the agents see 'the whip-cracking ops people tapping their watches while I pee'. This list, likely, goes on.

The customer, who is all-important, is then treated to service that ranges from 'I can't believe what just happened to me' to 'well, that was inoffensive' to 'I guess that was mildly helpful'. The circle continues.

And, Alan, regarding my *spend*ing comments, you are correct: the right people first. I had them in no particular order. However, I did not wish to imply that the industry has the wrong technology - some centers may. However, the point was simply that call centers tend to either scrimp on cheap technology that doesn't support their environments, or they blow huge wads of cash on the latest fad and expect that this alone will increase profit.... different topic, that.

"If people won't change, then change the people..." Absolutely. Not to sound harsh, but you are right: not everyone is up for it. And let's be honest. If someone is underperforming in their jobs, at any level, they can't be happy coming to work. And if they aren't happy coming to work, then help them out by allowing them to move on.

My feelings on Scott's points? "stop looking at the customer and start looking at the people": both must happen, in my opinion. But I think you have to understand your customer first, then hire/develop the right people.

"if your staff are happy ... even if they cant solve a problem a customer has, it will be a nice call for all": Agree to a large extent. I think Scott's point is that a happy staff has a direct effect on customer satisfaction and retention (Harvard Busines Journal, 1998, great graphic). However, the call center must be continually evolving in their abilities to resolve customer issues.

"I promise you this, with the right staff in place ... your customers ... wont even notice that they have only been on the phone for two seconds" Somewhat agree, although I believe it's understated. There must be a balance between cost and service. It's easy to plant one's flag on the moral high ground and beat one's chest for the sake of service, particularly when you aren't the one paying the bills. As I've said many times in this forum before, the real challenge is achieving the appropriate balance between service and cost. Finding that ever-changing calibration is the true difference between 'good' and 'excellent'.

All for now - glad to see some action in here again!
Brent

All,

One thaught, and touching on the cloning issue Alan braught up. A very successful call centre we work with have a specific resource dedicated to their recruitment, this team is made up of people with HR background and CC background. This is ideal as this team conbined with external input recognise that the person who we would like to see working for our company isn't always the right person for the job.

On the subject of if people wont change change the people. I agree, however I do think that enough opportunity to change and develop has to be given to people, bearing in mind that for £5ph or so not everyone we get will ever be team leader or superstar material. That I think is a good thing as we do need to have superstars but it is also good to have some good plodders as well.

Catch.....

Well after gettingmy knuckles wrapped over the 'Quick fix' comment. I'll
put both feet firmly BACK in my mouth!

What happens in the case of an outsource call center that's seemingly exhausted
the local catchment staff area and a good deal around it?

Answer: Stop advertising in the local papers, make your recruitment staff redundant and outsource your recruitment to an agency 25 Miles away!

3 months down the line they're wondering why they've got 40% atrittion in the first 3 weeks of employment.

The public perception is one thing but how many of these may have been goo members of staff put off by a poor recruitment practice.

Just as another note what is the average length of service for an agent either inbound or outbound?

With my old company (The one above) Service was 18 Months inbound and 9 Out.

The interesting counterpoint is my new company has a average service of over 4 years.

Comments

P.S I didn't mean it about quick fixes honest!

Has anyone got a good typing tutor I could borrow!

DaveA

Pardon the interruption, but could someone please explain the terms: Storming and Norming?

Thanks,
Marianne

Storming is essentially establishing the hierachy of a group of people.
Norming is everyone settling into and accepting those positions.
Aat least that is a summary of my understanding (at last my business qualification becomes usefull!)

Marianne and All,

Forming,storming,norming,performing,adjourning, - also known by it,s inventors title "The Tuckman Model 1965" this excert is taken from the website www.nciia.org/resources/teamdynamics

Forming
This stage begins with the members coming together to learn about one another. Initially members of newly formed teams feel anxious and uncomfortable. They must interact with other individuals they don’t know very well and are expected to produce quickly. Their roles in the team and the procedures for interaction may be ambiguous as well. As members become better acquainted, some of the tension may dissipate. Members will begin to become more comfortable with their roles.

Storming
This stage is defined by the "get down to work" attitude of the members. In this stage members often exhibit in fighting, resistance to tasks that compromise personal needs, struggles for power and disunity. During this stage individuals often face the conflict of sacrificing individual goals for group goals and seek assurance that the group goal is valuable.

Although confusion and opposition often appear to dominate this stage in the team-forming process, this step is critical to the beginning of order for any group. It serves as a way to establish parameters, explore controversial issues and unite the group. Although conflict may damage or destroy a team, most researchers agree that conflict is a natural consequence of team membership, and that it may, in fact, strengthen the team as the members learn to accept and constructively resolve their differences.

Norming
During this stage, team members begin to understand one another. Team conflict is replaced by a feeling of cohesiveness. This cycle is marked by the clarification of roles and tasks, with all members agreeing on how they will proceed with individual responsibilities. Tasks are accepted and completed with positive energy. During this stage, group members establish procedures for data gathering, decision-making and idea implementing. Listening practices, open communication, respect for differing opinions and disclosure of agendas are examples of relationship norming during this stage.

Performing
This stage is marked by the "let’s get the job done" attitude of team members. During this stage, teams are their most creative, cooperative and productive. Disagreement is accepted, consensus is valued and open discussion of issues and feelings are encouraged. Decisions are reached through agreements based on idea sharing but not through easy compromise or superficial voting. The norms are followed and modified as needed to accommodate progress. Individuals let go of personal objectives for the good of the team.

Adjourning
The fifth and final stage is a stage of transition for the team’s members. During this stage, teams disassemble mostly by design but at times spontaneously. Planned dissolution occurs when the team has completed its task or exhausted its resources. Spontaneous dissolution occurs when members are unable to resolve conflicts, members grow dissatisfied and depart, or when repeated failure makes the team unable to continue. In either type of dissolution the results may be stressful for it’s members. Members of successful teams may not want to end, and when the dissolution is unexpected, members may experience a great deal of conflict or anxiety.

Building and organizing teams goes beyond simply clumping team members together. The building of a team takes time and a critical amount of interaction to form the necessary relationships. While some teams fall prey to the ills that plague poorly managed teams, such as personal agendas, side-tracking, controlling members, and goal confusion, other just don’t gel. Team success requires great patience and the discipline not to jump in and intervene at every juncture. By following these five stages of team development, teams can achieve unparalleled results.




(*(*(* a bit long winded but a good tool to have..

Scott

Thank you for the explanations Scott and Alex.

Marianne

Fab debate guys. The whole issue is riddle with contradictions; how to provide 'excellent' service to customers when they all have differing needs; how to change perceptions when the nature of a capitalist model dictates that everyone competes,in this industry especially, it is CONVERSATIONS that are the product, the fortunate or unfortunate side effect is that it is people alone who can deliver this product and therein lies the raging battleground. What are we aiming for anyway? If all our customers are filling out "good/excellent" in their response surveys they why aim higher? Is it realistic to expect more? We are all beset by moods, prejudice and subjectivity will we ever be able to gain an "excellent" mark if for business reasons we have to say "no" to the customer. How are you gonna "enhance the customer experience" if you don't even define what you mean? All of these issues affect the people who are delivering the 'conversations' that are our product. In reality people don't always get on with everyone, conversations don't always go where we want them to go and we don't all get a rebate when we call the tax man (however smiling and happy the agent may be).
A small starting point in my view may be the call centre that has a flagging process such that when an agent believes the customer isn't entirely happy for whatever reason ; systems, processes, co policy, product, themselves, then they can flag it up and someone else can intervene positively. The empowers the agent in every sense however also opens the company to lost revenue through refunds, extra phone calls, never being able to please everyone all the time etc etc. This would go some way to change perceptions, but do managers believe there agents are capable of making these kind of judgement calls. Seems doubtful.
So we are going round and round in circles again, profit means competition, competition means the battle lines are formed by our agents in the field using the weapons of conversation. Who wins? Probably profit, that's why so many call centres are being set up in countries with low set up costs and low wages in comparison to the West. Again the conversation is now compromised by cultural and profit issues. We saw it with the clothing industry and electronics now its our turn. Business and its motives haven't changed even in the touchy feely world of call centres and their intangible conversations.
The solution to the perception debate? I don't have one, by pitting us all against each other then perhaps money and the love of it is indeed the root of all evil?
Nice debate though.

This string is awesome, thought I'd bring it back up, based on some of the questions and comments the have come up lately. Nice walk down memory lane, where did some of these good people go?

Thought I’d try and flesh out some of the things you raise here. Hope you don’t mind.

You said, “Fab debate guys. The whole issue is riddle with contradictions; how to provide 'excellent' service to customers when they all have differing needs; how to change perceptions when the nature of a capitalist model dictates that everyone competes,in this industry especially, it is CONVERSATIONS that are the product, the fortunate or unfortunate side effect is that it is people alone who can deliver this product and therein lies the raging battleground.”

I’d like to break down that sentence into points I can answer.

- Firstly, I’d disagree that conversations are the product. The ‘product’ is the satisfaction of your customers. Conversations are simply one method of delivery.
- Capitalism has little to with satisfaction. If, per chance, you are referring to the need to maximise profitability then the competition model you allude to actually means out performing your competition - delivering better so that customers become more loyal, spend more etc etc.
- I’m glad to see that you recognise that people have differing needs. That in it self is not a problem. The ‘problem’ lies with an organisations inability or unwillingness to deliver some level of diversity. ‘People’, call centre agents especially, CAN and DO deliver. All they have to do (be allowed to do) is treat people as individuals and not try to pigeon hole them via a forced (by the company) formulaic, one size suits all, approach. The so called battleground is laid out by and complained of by the same organisation – the short sighted boards of this world.


Your next bit, “What are we aiming for anyway? If all our customers are filling out "good/excellent" in their response surveys then why aim higher? Is it realistic to expect more? We are all beset by moods, prejudice and subjectivity will we ever be able to gain an "excellent" mark if for business reasons we have to say "no" to the customer. How are you gonna "enhance the customer experience" if you don't even define what you mean? All of these issues affect the people who are delivering the 'conversations' that are our product. In reality people don't always get on with everyone, conversations don't always go where we want them to go and we don't all get a rebate when we call the tax man (however smiling and happy the agent may be).

- A small starting point in my view may be the call centre that has a flagging process such that when an agent believes the customer isn't entirely happy for whatever reason ; systems, processes, co policy, product, themselves, then they can flag it up and someone else can intervene positively. The empowers the agent in every sense however also opens the company to lost revenue through refunds, extra phone calls, never being able to please everyone all the time etc etc. This would go some way to change perceptions, but do managers believe there agents are capable of making these kind of judgement calls. Seems doubtful.

- I’m surprised that you, as a trainer, haven’t grasped the fundamental here. As previous mentioned the ONLY reason a company does anything is to maximise profits and the single most profitable route is via loyal customers. The issuer here is that when customers fill out the forms they only ever relate to the practical/process side of interactions. The way we are treated is ignored. In industry today if I called someone up and I asked for a pencil and then someone loaded it into a crossbow and fired it into my heart I should be overwhelmed and a loyal customer for life... after all it was delivered VERY quickly… The fact that I may be a tad cross at being bloody and stone dead is completely ignored. It ain’t just what you do, its also the way you do it too.
You’re right that people can impact outcomes. What you will find though is that if people are allowed to 'deliver' (by that I mean be able to feel they have genuinely helped their caller) they actually feel better about their jobs and 98% of 'moods' you’ve experienced simply disappear.

”So we are going round and round in circles again, profit means competition, competition means the battle lines are formed by our agents in the field using the weapons of conversation. Who wins? Probably profit, that's why so many call centres are being set up in countries with low set up costs and low wages in comparison to the West. Again the conversation is now compromised by cultural and profit issues. We saw it with the clothing industry and electronics now it's our turn. Business and its motives haven't changed even in the touchy feely world of call centres and their intangible conversations.”

- Sad to say we go back to the blind management boards. Something happens when they walk into their offices. Everything that makes them human and compassionate and understanding as a father, or husband, suddenly gets forgotten. A looney rule set comes into play. They results of which you allude to above.

“The solution to the perception debate? I don't have one, by pitting us all against each other then perhaps money and the love of it is indeed the root of all evil?
Nice debate though.”

- I have a solution but there are none so blind as those who do not wish to hear… You’re right,great debate.

David

PS: We're all still alive and kickin' Brent but maybe some are more tired than others. Indeed some may have given up and moved on to lives where they can and do "make that difference". Nice to hear from you.

David,

>>- Firstly, I’d disagree that conversations are the product.

I accept your disagreement however....

prod·uct ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prdkt)
n.
1. Something produced by human or mechanical effort or by a natural process.
2. A direct result; a consequence:

The talk/chatter aspect means that 1 is right for me and the consequence (satisfaction) means that you are right also. To different and both correct interpretation of the same word.

However we can both see where we differ on this one.

>>If, per chance, you are referring to the need to maximise profitability then the competition model you allude to actually means out performing your competition - delivering better so that customers become more, spend more etc etc.

I'm not so sure off shore call centres with minimal set up costs actually deliver better, certainly they are cheaper.

>>The issuer here is that when customers fill out the forms they only ever relate to the practical/process side of interactions.

Disagree, the ones I see always have references relating to quality of service, perception of staff, likelihood to use service again etc.

>>What you will find though is that if people are allowed to deliver they actually feel better about their jobs and 98% of moods you’ve experienced simply disappear.

Disagree, motivation is influenced by psychological, environmental and physical factors combined . Dont you mean "What I have found though is that..."


>>- I have a solution but there are none so blind as those who do not wish to hear… You’re right,great debate.

Do tell.

David, speak of the devil himself... :) You are exactly who I was referring to when I asked where all the good people went. Hope all is well, it'd be nice to hear from you, either here or via e-mail: bpreece@destex.com

I know what you mean about being a little tired - but your comments in here, even if infrequent, do truly 'make a difference'. Even if, at times, that difference may only be to make people think. I've only recently begun to post again myself - a whole new crop of people to argue with... ;)

Talk with you soon.

The very first post in this thread says:

"increased levels of automation and technology places increasing distance between the caller and their objectives (at least in the consensus view)."

Has anyone wondered why this is? Surely the objective of each and every one of these systems includes the words "enable callers to achieve their objectives faster/more efficiently/at lower cost/with less pain" - are these systems failing to deliver or are they being mis-used?

There ARE good IVR and Speech systems out there - especially when the alternative is a 20 minute wait to speak to a human agent.

The use of scripting CAN improve outbound call quality - but what is the true cost to the agent, and to the business?

Isn't it about time that the industry took a long, hard look at it's use of technology and made sure that these systems are:

1. Capable of delivering what callers (our CUSTOMERS!) want
2. Supporting the agents, not enslaving them
3. Driving business plans, not reacting to short term issues
4. Delivering the best possible service

I'm one of the bad guys - an IVR consultant. But I've got a passion to deliver the right thing for the callers, the agents and the businesses - and you can't do one without the others. I've seen too many bad implementations of what is basically sound technology. I've argued, cajoled, encouraged and, in some cases, demanded customers take an unjaundiced view of their technologies, and act to make sure they are delivering not just business benefit, but customer and agent benefits too! This way lies support for the use of technology.

It's like a building three-legged stool - without all three stake holders getting something out, the use of technology to handle calls will always fall down.

Duncan
duncan.henry@tangent-telecom.com

In view of some of the recent press coverage and the prevelance of
the offshore market now I thought I'd wake this one up.

DaveA