Several years ago we worked for a particular client, providing third-party quality assessment (QA) for their front-line Customer Service Representatives (CSRs). One day a supervisor called me and requested that I pull a sample of one CSRs calls for analysis and coaching. I was happy to do it, but as I delved further into the request it became apparent that the supervisor was having performance issues with this particular rep and was looking for ammunition to gun them down in a performance review.
I pulled the sample and analyzed the calls. Now, I had coached this individual before and I had no problem believing that they were a pain-in-the-patootie to supervise. The CSR could be brash and stubborn, and coaching them was never a joy. However, an objective analysis of this persons calls revealed that they did a better than adequate job serving customers on the phone. I handed in my evaluation and the supervisor was frustrated with me when I reviewed the data. He was anticipating that the CSR’s behavior as an employee was an indicator of how they performed with customers on the phone.
Unfortunately, I see this quite often. A supervisor or manager can easily assume that performance in other areas of the job (e.g. attendance, attitude, ACW, etc.) is an indicator of how an agent performs on the phone. So they project ancillary job performance issues into the QA arena. The truth is, I’ve seen awful employees who are rock stars when they put on the head set. I’ve also known wonderfully warm and intelligent people who are great employees, but they should never be allowed near a phone.
In order for it to be effective, QA and call scoring must be an objective analysis of what took place in the moment of truth between company and customer. When anyone approaches call analysis with an assumption, for whatever reason, that the CSR must be good or bad, you run the risk of bias effecting the result. When that happens, it undermines the effectiveness and credibility of the entire process.