Category: Customer Service

Executive Reality Check: What We Say vs. What We Measure

A while back I read a fascinating article by Lou Gerstner in the Wall Street Journal. He was examining the response of a financial institution’s CEO to the debacle in which they found themselves. The CEO said that it was the employees who failed to honor the corporate culture of “putting the customer first.” Gerstner goes on argue that what companies say they value in their mission and value statements often flies in the face of the corporate culture dictated from the executive suites:

What is critical to understand here is that people do not do what you expect but what you inspect. Culture is not a prime mover. Rather it is a derivative. It forms as a result of signals employees get from the corporate processes that structure their work priorities.

If the financial-reporting system focuses entirely on short-term operating results, that’s what will get priority from employees. If you want employees to care a lot about customers, then customer-satisfaction data should get as prominent a place in the reporting system as sales and profit.

I have seen the truth of Gerstner’s observations over and over again in our years of providing Customer Satisfaction (CSAT) research and Quality Assessment (QA) for companies large and small.

When I tell people about our group it is quite common to have them respond by telling me that their company has a “quality” program. When I ask them to describe their program, however, they explain that they get regular reports about Average Speed of Answer, Average Call Time, Call Counts, and similar metrics. In other words, they are measuring quantity (of calls and time) and equating it with quality. To Gerstner’s point, you get what you inspect. When our group is given an opportunity to do a true quality assessment for such a company, we find Customer Service Representatives (CSRs) more focused on cranking through as many calls as quickly as they can than they are providing any kind of positive customer experience. Despite their company’s well worded value statements about customer service, the CSRs know that their employer truly values efficiency, productivity and cost containment because that’s what the employer measures.

Alternatively, when our group has enjoyed long term partnerships with clients it is typically because the CEO and executive team truly believe in the long-term value and profitability of providing a superior customer experience. To that end, they understand the value of getting reliable data about what drives their customer’s satisfaction and the importance of objectively measuring the customer experience against those drivers. Front-line CSRs know that their company values providing a truly superior customer experience because that is what their employer measures.

It’s a simple exercise for any corporate executive. First take a look at your company’s stated values and mission with regard to customer service and/or the customer experience. Next, take a look at what’s truly being measured on your front-lines where customers interact with your team. Is there a disconnect?

If you need an experienced partner in finding out what drives your customers’ satisfaction, how to measure quality the right way, and how to effectively communicate these things throughout your organization then give us a call. It’s what we’ve been doing for over a quarter century. We’d love the opportunity to work with you and your team.

 

tom head shotTom Vander Well is partner and Executive Vice-President of C Wenger Group. Tom has written about Customer Satisfaction and Quality Assessment on previous blogs (QAQnA and Service Quality Central) and was a contributing Customer Service blogger for the Des Moines Business Record

Five Reasons to Outsource Your CSAT and QA Initiatives

Training & Coaching

Over the past decade more and more companies have adopted an attitude of “it’s cheaper for us to do it ourselves.” We have experienced an era of increased regulation, executive hesitation, and economic stagnation. Companies have hunkered down, tightened the purse strings, and found ways to play it safe. Customer Satisfaction (CSAT) research and Quality Assessment (QA) have been popular areas for businesses to do this given technology that makes it relatively easy to “do it yourself.”

Just because your team can do these things yourself, doesn’t mean that it’s a wise investment of your time and resources, nor does it guarantee that you’ll do it well. Based on a track record of mediocre (at best) renovations, my wife regularly reminds me that while I technically can do home improvement projects cheaper myself, she’d prefer that we pay an expert to do it well (and free me to invest my time doing more of what I do well so we can pay for it).

So why pay an outside group like ours to survey of your customers, or monitor your team’s calls to provide a Quality Assessment report on how they’re serving your customers?

I’ll give you five reasons.

  1. It gets done. Analyzing phone calls, surveying customers, and crunching data require a certain amount of discipline and attention to detail. When things are changing, fires are raging, and the needs of your own business are demanding a team’s time and attention, then things like crunching data or listening to recorded phone calls become back burner issues. It’s common for people to tell me that they have their own internal QA team. When I ask how that’s going for them, I usually hear excuses for why it’s hard to get it done with all the urgent matters to which team members must attend. When you hire a third party provider, it gets done. It’s what we’re hired do.
  2. It gets done well. Our clients represent diverse areas of the market from manufacturing to retail to financial services. Our clients tend to be leaders in their industries because they are good at what they do. Developing expertise outside of their discipline isn’t a wise investment of resources and (see #1) and who has time for that? Our clients want to invest their time and resources doing what they know and do well. Measuring what is important to their customers, turning those things into behavioral attributes, analyzing communication channels, and coaching their agents how to improve customer interactions in ways that improve customer satisfaction are what we do well.
  3. You get an objective perspective. When providing audits of internal Quality Assessment teams or reviewing internally produced customer survey data, it’s common for us to find evidence of various kinds of bias. Employees at different levels of an organization have motivations for wanting data to look good for their employers, or bad with respect to coworkers with whom there are other workplace conflicts. I’ve observed supervisors who are overly harsh assessing the calls of employees with whom they have conflicts. Internal call analysts, wanting to be kind to their coworkers, will commonly choose to “give them credit [for a missed service skill] and just ‘coach them on it.'” Internal research data can be massaged to provide results that gloss over problems or support presuppositions that are politically correct with the executive team. Our mission, however, is to provide objective, customer-centric data that give our clients a realistic picture of both customer perceptions and the company’s service performance. It is our mission to be accurate and objective in gathering and reporting data.
  4. You get an outside perspective. It has been famously observed that “a prophet is not welcome in his hometown.” Internal data is often discredited and dismissed for any number of reasons from (see #2) “What do they know?” doubts about the expertise of coworkers to (see #3) “They hate me” accusations of bias which we’ve discovered are sometimes accurate and other times not. Front line managers regularly tell me that they appreciate having our group providing assessment and coaching because they can’t be accused of being biased, and as outside experts we have no internal ax to grind. In addition, our years of experience with other companies provide insight and fresh ideas for handling common internal dilemmas.
  5. You can fire us with a phone call. “Do you know why I keep you around?” a client asked me one day. I took the bait and asked him why. “It’s because I take comfort in knowing I can pick up the phone and fire you whenever I want.” He went to explain that he had no desire to hire an internal team to provide the survey data, quality assessment, and call coaching our team provided their company. Not only would he bear the expense and headaches associated with developing an expertise outside of their company’s discipline (see #2), but once employed he couldn’t easily get rid of them should they prove as ineffective as he expected they would be (See #1, #3, and #4). His point was well taken. Our group has labored for years with the understanding that our livelihoods hinge on our ability to continually provide measurable value to our clients.

Yes, you can technically generate your own CSAT survey or call Quality Assessment data. Technology makes it feasible for any virtually any company to do these things internally. The question is whether it is wise for your company to do so. When calculating the ROI of internal vs. external survey and QA initiatives, most companies fail to calculate the expenses associated with ramp up, development, training, nor do they consider the cost associated with employee time and energy expended doing these things poorly and providing questionable data and  results.

Three Things They Won’t Tell You About Speech Analytics

Me: “Hey Siri? I’m bleeding badly. Call me an ambulance!”
Siri: “Okay. From now on I’ll call you ‘Anambulance.'”

Most all of us have humorous, and often aggravating, anecdotes about trying to communicate with Siri, Alexa, or any of the other voice prompted technology apps available to us. I am quite regularly thankful that no one is around to hear the tirades I scream to the disembodied, robotic female voice of my car’s voice prompt technology. It amazes me, then, to know that businesses spend huge amounts of money on speech analytic technology as a way to replace their Quality Assessment (QA) programs.

Let me start with full disclosure. Our company, C Wenger Group, has spent a quarter century monitoring and analyzing our clients’ phone calls as a third-party QA provider. Sometimes our clients hire us to be their QA team, and other times they hire us to provide periodic audits and reality checks to their internal efforts. Over the past few years we have learned that speech analytic technology has become a competitor to our service. I can quickly name two clients who have dismissed our services in favor of speech analytic software.

The promise of speech analytics is in the ability to monitor vast quantities of phone calls. Most human QA efforts, by comparison, utilize relatively small random statistical samples. Our data over the years reveals that our team can quite capably provide an accurate reflection of service performance with relatively few calls. I remember calling one skeptical client after our initial month listening to a minimal sample of calls for sales compliance. I gave him the names of three sales people whom our call analysis identified as problems. He laughed and told me that all three had been fired the previous day agreeing that our sample and analysis was, indeed, sufficient.

Nevertheless, the idea of being able to catch the needle in the haystack has certain appeal. Random samples don’t capture every instance of irate customers, lying representatives, and forbidden behaviors. That’s where tech companies and their (big ticket) speech analytic software promise nervous executives a peaceful night sleep knowing that every phone company can be monitored by computers and flag problem calls when they occur.

Just like Siri flawlessly hears my every spoken request and never fails to provides me with exactly the answer I was looking for.

I have followed up and spoken to both clients who dismissed our company’s services in favor of speech analytics. In one case, my contact admitted that they abandoned the technology after a year of unsuccessfully investing significant resources (money and man hours) trying to get it to provide meaningful results or value. In the other case my client contact admitted that the technology never worked, but that his company continued to play the political game of pretending it was working because they didn’t want to admit that they’d wasted so much money on something that wasn’t working. I have also spoken to representatives of other companies with similar words of warning. As with most technologies, it’s important to know what you are, and aren’t, getting before you sign on the dotted line.

My conversations with those who’ve employed speech analytics reveal three key things that should be considered when considering it as a technology investment.

It’s going to require a lot more work to set it up, monitor, tweak, and successfully utilize it than you think. At one industry conference I attended a forum of companies were using speech analytics. I found it fascinating that all of the panelists admitted that the technology required far more time and energy than they anticipated when they purchased it. One company on the panel admitted that they hired five full time employees just to make the technology work and to keep it working. Many people don’t realize that you have teach the speech analytic software what to listen for, what to flag, and what to report. Then you have to continually refine it so that it’s catching the things you want it to catch and ignoring the things you don’t.

In many cases, this process is not intuitive. It’s more akin to computer programming. Operations associates who thought they were going to save themselves time having to personally analyze phone calls find themselves spending even more time mired in IT issues related to the technology.

The technology is going to give you a lot of false-positives. I love that I can say “Hey, Siri” and my iPhone will come to life and ask what I need. I have also been annoyed and embarrassed at the number of times in normal conversation or business meetings that I say something that my iPhone mistakenly hears as “Hey, Siri” only to wake-up, interrupt my conversation, and ask what I want. In similar fashion, you can expect that for every instance of speech analytic software catching the right thing, it is going make at least as many, if not more, mistakes.

One of my former clients told me that the speech analytic software they employed never worked as well as advertised. “Every time it flagged a call for us to listen to there was nothing wrong with the call,” he admitted. They quickly stopped listening to any of the calls flagged by speech analytics because they soon saw it as the proverbial child crying “Wolf!”

Speech analytics can monitor volume, pitch, and words that are said, but cannot intelligently analyze content across calls. Our team recently monitored a randomly sampled set of phone calls for a customer service team. The CSRs were articulate and professional in the words they used and the tone with which they communicated with callers. Across the calls, however, we quickly noted a pattern:

  • “Let me get you to the person who handles your account.”
  • “I don’t handle your area.”
  • “You’ll need to speak with….”

In various ways, using different words, many of the CSRs were refusing to help callers. They would immediately “pawn them off” (one customer’s words) to other CSRs or dumping callers into voice mail. In some cases we heard veteran employees claim that they didn’t know how to do the most basic of customer service functions in an effort to avoid helping callers.

Our team quickly recognized that our client was struggling with a culture on their call floor in which CSRs tried to avoid helping callers (in the most professional sounding way). Customers were being dumped into voice-mail and transferred unnecessarily as CSRs played an internal game of “that’s not my customer, that’s your customer.” We addressed it with our client, citing examples. They quickly moved to address the issue and are already making significant progress toward changing behavior on the call floor.

I tried to imagine how I would tell a speech analytics program to catch such an occurrence. The ways that CSRs communicated that they couldn’t help were as varied as the CSRs themselves and their own communication styles. Customers frustration never escalated to shouting or profanity. It was all very subtle, and required experienced analysts making connections across multiple calls to recognize the pattern of behavior. Speech analytics could never do that.

Like most technologies, speech analytics has its place and its purpose. For those companies who have the resources to successfully employ it, speech analytics can analyze vast quantities of interactions and flag, with relative degrees of accuracy, when certain words are spoken or certain levels of emotion are expressed. Those considering this technology as a replacement for a thorough and well structured QA program should understand, however, that the technology has requirements and drawbacks that the technology salesperson will be quick to ignore or minimize.

White Paper: Why Customer Service Training Isn’t Enough

Companies often desire to provide basic customer service training for their team(s). Our group is often asked to provide a “Customer Service 101” training session that teaches employees some basic customer service phone skills, and we do provide that type of training. We have, however, always believed that training alone, without any kind of assessment or accountability, will have limited impact. A recent experience with one client allowed us to quantify this reality with data. Please click on the link below to download our white paper.

White Paper_Customer Service Training is Not Enough

 

Technology & Addressing the Human Side of Customer Service

I read an interesting article this morning in the Wall Street Journal by Susan Credle. The article was about how storytelling is still very much a necessity in marketing. In the article she laments the impact technology is having on her industry, and the way it hinders the human creativity in marketing:

Data and technology dominate the conversations. And conference rooms and conferences are filled with formulaic approaches. “Make a template and put the creative in this box” approaches. Often, we appear to be more concerned with filling up these boxes than with the actual creative.

Her story resonated with me as it parallels the similar impact technology has had on customer service and QA in contact centers. Technology has allowed many large businesses to “offload” common customer service interactions to IVRs, VRUs, and apps. Actual customer interactions with human agents is diminishing, yet there are two very important distinctions to be made here. First, when customers finally  escalate their issue by navigating the labyrinth of self-serve options the human interaction at the end of the line tends to be even more complex, emotional, and critical to that customer’s satisfaction. Second, not many small to mid-sized businesses have deep corporate pockets to integrate large technology suites which will automate many of their customer interactions. Many businesses are still out there manning the phones and serving customers through good, old-fashioned human interaction.

Like professional athletes who spend hours in the video room breaking down their performance with coaches, Customer Service Representatives (CSRs) still benefit from call analysis, coaching, and accountability of performance. Yet, I find many companies still want to offload this process to formulaic approaches defined by any number of confined boxes created by software developers.

Please don’t hear what I’m not saying. Technology offers wonderful tools to make the Quality Assessment (QA) process more efficient and effective. Nevertheless, I have found that there is no technology that effectively replaces the very human communication that takes place between agent and call coach. Effective QA combines objectivity and motivation. It both encourages and holds accountable. It addresses the often messy reality of human desire, emotions, behaviors, and personalities. Much like Ms. Credle’s observations of marketing, I find that technology often leads more to simply checking boxes and less to actually helping a human CSR improve their communication with human customers.

 

4 Reasons to QA Your Collections Team

Money CashPeople are always surprised to hear that our group regularly provides Quality Assessment (QA) services for our clients’ collections team(s). The mental picture we all seem to have in our head is that of low rent thugs beating up the poor customers of loan sharks on television. We think of collectors as nasty, hard-boiled agents who know how to threaten, hoodwink and cajole customers into paying up. There are, no doubt, collection agencies who operate with such tactics. Our clients, however, have learned over time that collecting from customers with respectful professionalism and a consistently high level of quality is worth the investment. Here are four reasons why:

  1. Better collections. Customers will often write the first check to the creditors who treat them respectfully. If a customer owes your company money, it’s likely they owe money to other companies as well. When the next paycheck or windfall comes in, that customer is going to decide which creditors to pay and which creditors to put off. When a collector treats a customer with empathy, professionalism and respect, we often hear customers state that it factors heavily into their decision to pay that company first.
  2. Customer loyalty. Our research team has quantified in some of our clients’ CSAT surveys that “willingness to work with me in tough times” can drive customer satisfaction and loyalty. Not all customers who owe money are dead beats. Quite often, and especially in a tough economy, good customers fall on hard times. When a company is willing to work with that customer through their difficulties and provide quality service on each call, customers tend to remember it. “What goes around comes around,” they say. When you stick by your customer in tough times, that customer will often stick with you for the rest of their lives.
  3. Employee satisfaction. Even collectors feel the weight of people’s misperceptions and I will never forget speaking with the manager of our client’s collections department a year or so after we’d been working with her team. She was ecstatic. She reported that her team had never felt so empowered and equipped (after long feeling like the company’s “red-headed step-child”). And while there will always be difficult customers to deal with, her collectors were more satisfied with their jobs knowing that the company wanted them to treat customers well. The fact that the company was willing to invest in our Service Quality Assessment to benchmark their service and help them improve was a boost for the team’s morale.
  4. Peace of mind. Even the best of collections departments can run into extreme situations. The collections effort can be some of the more contentious conversations any company has to manage. If you have collectors with short fuses or situations that need management’s attention, our clients tell us that they sleep better at night knowing there’s an objective third-party listening in (and occasionally sending them an e-mail saying, “you better look into this one.”).

It’s a mistake to assume that “collections” and “service quality” don’t go together. In fact, measuring and improving the quality of service your collectors consistently deliver on the phone can be a win-win-win-win for you, your customers, your employees, and your bottom line.

Five Reasons to Consider a Third Party QA Provider

c wenger group is a full service Quality Assessment provider, assisting clients set up their QA programs and providing QA as a 3rd party complete with call analysis, reporting of team and individual agent data, and even data led coaching and training.

c wenger group is a full service Quality Assessment provider, assisting clients set up their QA programs and providing QA as a 3rd party complete with call analysis, reporting of team and individual agent data, and even data led coaching and training.

If your team or company is thinking about getting into call monitoring and Quality Assessment (QA), or for those who are seeking a solution to their internal QA headaches, we would encourage you to at least give consideration to a third party QA solution. Many companies dismiss the idea of a third party provider without really weighing the option. With nearly a quarter century of experience and multiple client relationships of twenty years or more, the team here at c wenger group believes we’ve proven that it can be a sensible alternative.

Here are five reasons to consider a third party QA provider:

  1. Expertise. I’m sure your company is good at what it does. You have expertise in your field and would like to focus your resources and energies on doing what you do well. We feel the same way. It may seem that analyzing a phone call, e-mail, or chat should not be that difficult. The technology company who sold you your suite of software probably made it sound like it would practically run itself and give you all sorts of powerful information with a few clicks of the mouse. The truth is that a successful quality program is more complex than it seems. Many companies go down the road to setting up their own quality program only to find themselves bogged down in a quagmire of questions about methodology, sample sizes, criteria, and calibration. Don’t try to re-invent the wheel building expertise in a business discipline that distracts you from doing what you do well (and what makes you money). Let us do what we do well, and help you with that.
  2. Expediency. We’ve had many companies tell us that they purchased or installed a call recording and QA solution that they thought would deliver an easy, “out of the box” program. Instead, they find themselves feeling like they purchased an expensive plane that sits on the tarmac because no one knows how to fly it. Don’t spending months wrangling and struggling just to figure out how you want your QA program to look and work. How much time will you and your valuable, talented team members waste in meetings and strategy sessions just trying to figure out how you’re going to analyze calls? We’ve been doing QA for companies of all shapes, sizes, and types for many years, and in short period of time we can have a working, effective, successful QA program set up and delivering useful data and information right to your desktop.
  3. Objectivity. One of the most common pitfalls of internal quality programs is analyst bias. Supervisors are tasked with monitoring their own teams’ calls, but they don’t want the team (or themselves) to look bad so when they hear something that goes wrong in a call they give the agents credit on the QA form and (wink, wink) “coach them on it.” A quality team member has personality issues with an agent, so he scores that agent more stringently that the rest of the team. A team leader has an agent who is disruptive to the team. She starts looking for “bad calls” to help make a case to fire the problem team member. These are scenarios we’ve seen and documented in our QA audits. They happen. What’s the cost of an internal QA program that doesn’t deliver reliable data or results? A third-party QA provider is not worried about making people look good or grinding axes. We are concerned with delivering objective data that accurately reflects the customer’s experience.
  4. Results delivered regularly, and on time. One of the biggest problems with internal QA programs is that they chronically bow to the tyranny of the urgent (which is all of the time). When things get busy or stressed, the task of analyzing calls is the first thing pushed to the back burner. Internal analysts procrastinate their call analysis until the deadline looms. Then, they rifle through calls to get them done and the results are not thoughtful, accurate, or objective. Our clients tell us that they appreciate knowing that when we we’re on the job the QA process will get done and it will be done well. Calls will be analyzed and reports will be delivered regularly and on time. Better yet, the results will be effective at helping you make tactical goals for improvement, effectively focus your training, manage agent performance, and successfully move the needle on customer satisfaction, retention, and loyalty.
  5. You can always fire us. A client once told us that he kept us around because he slept better at night knowing that he could always fire us. His comment was, admittedly, a little unnerving but his logic made a lot of sense. “If I do this QA thing myself,” he explained, “I have to hire and pay people to do it. In today’s business environment it’s impossible for me to fire someone without a lot of HR headaches. So, if the people I pay to do it internally don’t do it well then I’m stuck with both them and the poor QA program. I like having you do QA for us. Not only do you do it well, but I know that if anything goes wrong I can just pick up the phone and say, ‘we’re done.'” The good news is that he never made that call before he retired!

If you’re looking at getting started in call monitoring and assessment, or if you have a program that isn’t working, we would welcome you to consider how one of our custom designed solutions could deliver reliable, actionable, and profitable results.

 

CWG logoLR

c wenger group designs and provides fully integrated Customer Experience solutions including Customer Satisfaction research, call/e-mail/chat Quality Assessment, and coaching/training solutions for teams and individual agents. Our clients include companies of all sizes in diverse market sectors.

Please feel free to contact us for a no obligation conversation!

Note: c wenger group will maintain your privacy

Quality Assessment and Survey Data Efficiently Delivered to your Desktop

SQC Screen Capture 1

One of the many frustrations of corporate Quality Assessment programs is how to efficiently get the results and data to the agents so that they are aware of their performance and can make necessary efforts to improve. For years, c wenger group has been delivering our clients’ QA and research data, both team and individual agent reports, directly through our Service Quality Central web portal. Managers and agents can both access their most recent data 24/7/365 with a provided user name and password. Supervisors and Managers can quickly access all of their agents individual QA data from one easy to use source and agents are able to utilize down time to pull up their QA data right at their desk.

SQC Screen Capture 3

Our Service Quality Central website can be branded for each client and offers the flexibility to provide more than just data. We have are able to provide audio and video content. In some cases we’ve uploaded individual agents calls and coaching notes so that they can hear one of their own calls at their leisure, right at their own desk. Training videos, coaching handouts, training manuals can all be shared with agents.

SQC Screen Capture 2

Our clients are busy doing what they do best and the tasks that make them profitable. They don’t want to be burdened with tasks that may be strategic and valuable, but aren’t in their area of expertise. Surveying customers, analyzing calls for quality and compliance, interpreting data trends, and reporting data to the front lines are activities that drain time, energy and resources; Resources that our clients would rather invest in their core business. That’s where c wenger group comes in.

We have over a quarter century experience surveying customers, analyzing phone calls, and turning data into actionable, effective training and coaching solutions. Our Service Quality Central web portal is one of the ways we take the burden off of our clients and deliver effective, measureable value directly to their desktop on an on-going basis.

For more information, please drop us an e-mail at info@cwengergroup.com.

Three Great Examples from This Week’s Call Coaching

Above view of several business people planning work at round tabWe had a great day call coaching two of our client’s sales teams on Wednesday. We provide integrated services for this client which include a customer survey, on-going call assessment and bi-monthly call coaching.

A few highlights from our coaching sessions:
  • Data from our ongoing Service Quality Assessment revealed that a common courtesy service skill had significantly declined for a team of Regional Account Managers. The objective data pinpointed the real reason for the decline: one agent’s performance has drastically deteriorated since the beginning of the year. We were able to share with this agent, from our survey results, how courtesy is not only a key driver of their customers’ satisfaction but is also a key differentiator between his company and their competitors. We were able to listen to a call together in which the courtesy skill was missed and discussed strategies for implementation. The agent left informed, motivated and equipped. The ongoing call assessment will hold him accountable to make progress.
  • Another agent on the same team was new about 18 months ago. The agent transferred from an operations position and was new to the phones. In the beginning he was the poorest performer, struggling to learn the ropes. In our coaching session yesterday we were able to show that our data now quantifies that he is currently the team’s best performer. From “worst to first” in less than two years. “It’s all because of your coaching and data,” he said. “It’s thanks to you.” He did the hard work, but we’ll gladly take the compliment. It was great to celebrate with him. We love being the bearers of good news!
  • In a different session we coached a member of the Inside Sales team. The Service Quality Assessment revealed the agent’s service performance has declined slightly in recent months. It wasn’t a major problem, but we wanted to address it before it got worse. Digging into the behavioral data, we could identify specifically which service skills had been demonstrated less consistently, listen to examples in actual calls, and discuss strategies for remembering and employing the skills. The agent will receive monthly data via our Service Quality Central web portal to track the progress.
We leave our time with the client feeling good about the measurable value we’ve been able to provide through real data that translates into actionable coaching and training. If you’d like real data to quantify which dimensions of service drive your customer’s satisfaction and real number that reveal how your agents are performing in those daily moments of truth with customer, the give us a call (515.278.1516) or drop us an e-mail. It’s what we love to do!

In Customer Service, Improvisation is Sometimes Necessary

 

from henriqueiwao via Flickr

My colleague was scheduled to present a training session to one of our client’s teams this morning. I was scheduled to attend and observe. While I was aware of the general topic being presented in the training, this was my colleague’s baby. She had written and produced the training and I’d never seen it presented before. She did, however, ask me to arrive early and set up the lap top, projector and slide show for her. Knowing that she was scheduled in a previous meeting, she realized that she would be pressed to arrive on time and needed to be ready to jump right in to her training presentation.

I was happy to help out. I arrived early, set up the laptop, projector and slide show. I greeted our client guests as they arrived and helped them all get settled. My colleague was clearly running behind. I apologized, explained the she would be there momentarily and attempted to initiate some small talk among the 20 or so team members assembled. A few minutes passed by. My colleague had still not arrived.

The Senior Manager in the room grew visibly anxious by the delay. From the oppostie side of the room he said, “Tom, will you please go ahead and get us started? We need to stay on schedule. You can start the training and she can take over when she gets here.”

The subtext of this was not a question as in “Can you start us?” but a gentle demand: “Tom, you will start this session. Our team’s time is valuable and we don’t have time to wait around.”

Ummmm… Okay. So I got up and approached the laptop praying that my colleague’s slide show was thorough and detailed. Slide one contained the objectives. Sweet. I can go through these. The first point of the training was talking about voice tone.  I quickly pulled some information from my years as a trainer and plowed forward.

A few months ago I wrote a post on my personal blog outlining Ten Ways Being a Theatre Major Prepared Me for Success. The post went viral. Well over 120,000 views to-date and hundreds of comments from around the globe. Number one on that list was “Improvisation.” I chuckled to myself as I thought about that and now found myself improvising my way through the opening slides of a training presentation I didn’t produce and of which I had no knowledge. To my great relief, my teammate entered the room a few minutes later and delivered me from having to improvise any more than I did.

I always tell my Customer Service training classes that training is all about understanding rules and exceptions. There are Customer Service rules that apply remarkably well to most service situations. Yet, for every rule there are exceptional situations to which the rules don’t fit. You don’t want to make rules based on the exceptions. You do, however, want to be prepared for the exceptional situation that requires you to think on your feet and improvise in the moment.