Sometimes I wonder if what the call centre industry needs is full-time spin doctor. I always come back to this thought whenever I see an article like this.

Now, regardless of your view on call centres you’ll see that it’s a pretty weak article - there’s some “rough” statistics banded about and talk about people taking things into their own hands….just the kind of thing I come to expect from our press which loves to hate UK business. If the press would give us half a break it would be nice - perhaps the independent should construct a follow up article about the good stuff UK contact centre’s are doing. But hey…pigs might fly.

I’m pleased that people want to act, in fact I’m quite tired of apathetic Joe Public. I just wish they were encouraged to do it in a different fashion.

As a Contact Centre Consultant I’m more attentive than most when I call my water company, bank or car insurers. In fact, I expect good service first time and I’m very intolerant if I don’t get it. I’m pleased to say that this doesn’t happen very often, the companies I call offer me very good service.

So I struggle to understand what’s going on here…what I read in the press is radically different from what I see.

I think an element of this is the press trying to find a story in something that doesn’t exist.

But I think it mostly comes down to supplier selection: I choose companies that offer good service. If you treat me badly, I switch. It’s no trouble nowadays to move anything: mortgage, bank, services. If you think it is then you’re just lazy. Remember though that this won’t be the cheapest company…but that’s the way the world works. If you want quality service you have to pay for it. So come on people, vote with your feet.

You don’t complain that the lacklustre service in McDonalds isn’t as good as the Michelin starred restaurant down the road, so stop complaining that you end up in a queue when you call your electricity supplier. After all, you did switch because they were the cheapest.

Regards,
DB

I don’t know about you, but I’m a bit of a ’snooze surfer’. Nothing to do with either the sea or the web, ’snooze surfing’ is that process of hitting snooze on the alarm clock every n minutes to ‘ease’ oneself into the day.

So, it’s with a mixture of intrigue and alarm (ho ho) that I suddenly discovered that the days of ’snooze surfing’ may be at drawing to a close…

Clocky, the Smart Alarm

Whatever will they think of next?

Some people are lucky; they sail through life with a ‘devil may care’ attitude and don’t seem to be susceptible to the ill-effects of the modern workplace. For the rest of us, though, we’ve got to watch out as there is a very real and ever-present danger in every workplace, be it small or large.

That danger is stress.

Sometimes stress isn’t taken seriously enough, yet it is one of the most commonly cited reasons for employee absence. Unlike most ailments, however, stress can take more than a few days tucked up in bed to cure. For many people stress is debilitating, impacting in all areas of their lives. Relationships suffer, tensions rise, friendships wane. It’s a bad thing.

In the call centre, it’s quite common for agents and management alike to be placed under ever-increasing pressure to meet often arbitrary performance targets. Quite often these targets are based on bad management information and as a consequence unattainable. However, senior management isn’t always the most rational of beasts, and so no quarter is given to those who speak out. As a result, we are bound by unrealistic targets and this places enormous - often insurmountable - pressure onto us.

This causes stress!

Some ideas to mull over

The question is: are call centres particularly conducive to employee stress? I’d like to suggest that they are, and that we can do something about it.

Modern contact centres are all about efficiency and lowered costs. Sure, many will argue otherwise, but when push comes to shove, it’s about getting the most out of a workforce for the lowest overall cost. It should therefore come as no surprise that the workforce get stressed when every last detail is analysed using spurious and unreliable analyses. The average senior manager cares not for statistics. They care not that the mathematical basis for their pie-charts is based on incomplete or incorrectly interpreted data. They just want to ensure that the little graph of costs keeps heading down whilst its sister graph of profits heads up.

The pressure to perform is all around us.

We can, however, do something about all of this. We need to ensure that senior management is educated to the knock-on effects of nebulous and unrealistic target setting. Tell the Pointy Haired Bosses that their targets need to be realistic - and ensure that we exercise our right to full disclosure on the measures that such bosses use to define performance, targets and so on. Emphasise the point that the continual tightening of the target thumb-screws is resulting in worker stress and hammer home the point that stress is extremely dangerous to an organisations resourcing; people quit, or end up on long-term sick-leave. Educate your colleagues - ensure that they understand that stress is not a good thing, it’s not macho and that long hours do not necessarily let you achieve more. Host a chill-out day - something fun which allows workers to leave the daft targets behind and relax. For that matter, why not offer free relaxation sessions or even massage?

There are so many ideas to combat the effects of stress, but these are reactive and the best way to deal with stress is to prevent it ever happening. As managers and strategists, we must be very careful about what we ask of our workforces, and we must ensure that our targets are not built on false assumptions and lies.

Sorry it has been so long without an update. The work here is overwhelming, and various events have made it difficult to stay in touch.

There is a desperate need for the work here; the impression the western press is creating that all is in recovery is far from the truth. The government has spent very little funds, and most people will still be in tents or rubble houses when the monsoons hit. The poverty, hopelessness, and overall devastation of this beautiful island is beyond belief. Every day something makes you realise that there is no way anything that we do is enough - there is always something more.

The original project was through Global Crossroads, to build permanent housing for families affected by the Tsunami. While the time spent was rewarding in the sense of a visible output - the house - the poor organisation, suspect family selection process, and complete lack of project management by Global led to many frustrating waiting periods where work was delayed. Tania & I agreed to help with the project management however the support promised by Global did not materialise, and we made the decision to join an alternative organisation. We did however succeed in working on the completion of two houses.

DO NOT GIVE YOUR MONEY TO ORGANISATIONS SUCH AS GLOBAL CROSSROADS. THEY ARE NOT SET UP TO PROVIDE EFFECTIVE DISASTER RELIEF AND THERE ARE OTHER ORGANISATIONS THAT WILL PROVIDE FAR BETTER OPPORTUNITIES TO AID THE PEOPLE OF SRI LANKA.

I am now working with Project Galle 2005 - http://www.projectgalle2005.com - which is a frontline aid programme.

Having raised concerns over the sanitation and tent quality at many of the camps and the lack of drainage with the monsoon coming early, it was agreed that we would begin a large scale joint project with the United Nations - UNCHR, UNICEF & World Food Programme, with CHF International ( http://www.chfhq.org ), and with Red Crescent. The scope is to prioritise camps for upgrades, work with the government, community leaders, camp owners (e.g. Italy have donated around 1000 tents to the original camps), and technical experts in identifying solutions to bring the camps to an acceptable standard of living. Thereafter there will be the implementation of the upgrades for the first 20 camps identified for phase 1. Phase 1 will provide a significant improved standard of living for 3500 people from almost 1000 families, and ensure the survival of the camps through the monsoon. Phase 2 will include further camps, with a total of 63 identified for upgrade. I have also proposed an ongoing education programme for the camp leaders, which the UN have signed off yesterday.

I have been selected by the joint organisations to head this up as Programme Manager for the overall project. This means I am in regular meetings with the UN agencies and CHF & Red Crescent, as well as with local government, to ensure all parties are working in coordinated workstreams.

As I have only a week or so left, I am trying to drive through the government permission (via UN intervention), the assessment and detailed solution designs for each camp, and create the detailed implementation plans including government & stakeholder signoff. I also need to concentrate on handing off and training up resource for the actual implementation management.

Phase 1 of the programme will run throughout April, and I am under constant requests by PG05, the United Nations, and CHF, to extend my stay to manage the implementation. I have explained the situation that while I am able to fund my stay, it would require paid leave from Zurich, and that this was agreed only until the end of March. It is clearly something that I feel is extremely important, and I have therefore agreed to request an extension to my leave. Watch this space…

The National Audit Office has today published a report about the new directory enquiry services (DQ).

There’s been some interested comments about this already in the press, and although I don’t agree with most of them I see no need to go over old ground. So I’m going to pick on something that caught my eye as I snoozed in bed this morning.

On BBC Breakfast was a guy from 118tracker.com. This is a very good website and lists details of all the DQ providers together with rates and services they offer.

I wasn’t so impressed with his comments. His suggestion was that the public was largely uniformed about the extended DQ services that are available. He then went on to say that this was OFCOM’s fault.

If you’ve read my posts in the past you may have realised I’m not a fan of OFCOM. I don’t believe they work hard enough to enforce the legislation that’s in place. However, I’m happy to defend OFCOM on this point. They’re not a marketing organisation and it’s not up to them to educate consumers as to the services available. The only responsibility OFCOM have is to ensure that consumers are aware that they have a choice of suppliers. I think they did this very well.

Marketing
At the end of the day, I don’t think the failure to take up these services is due to a lack of advertising. People are not interested in them and have therefore ignored the advertising. I don’t think the public is prepared to pay a few pence to get cinema listings when they’re free in the local paper or on the ‘net.

The important thing about a free market is that you…market. You’re not forced to offer any particular service. Ensure that there is a market for what you’re offering, ensure that people are prepared to pay for it.

Public perception
In true style of the 3G licence fiasco, enormous amounts of money were being thrown around after 118 numbers were allocated by the big boys trying to get the best numbers. This was followed by several large-scale advertising campaigns, one was so successful that still to this day people shout “Got your number!” at me when I’m out running.

This gave the public an inflated perception of what liberalisation of the market was going to offer. They didn’t exactly know what was going to be different - they just knew it was going to be great. This gave way to dissapointment when things weren’t much different to what they used to be.

As a consequence everybody is still saying that opening the DQ market was a failure. Some say it’s more expensive. Some say the services are no better. Some say the quality is worse. But the truth is:

Some DQ providers are cheaper than 192, and some are more expense.
Some DQ providers offer extended services, and some don’t.
Quality is the only thing we can’t measure because data was never collected about 192. However, many DQ providers offer over a 90% success rate.

All call centre staff will know that the 10% of numbers not found will be more to do with GIGO than anything else.

You pays your money, you takes your choice. A free market at it’s best.

Regards,
DB

I just want to have one quick dig at OFCOM: They elected to disallow use of 118192 because it was seen as the best number and be an unfair advantage.
At which point did someone think this was a better number than 118118?

It seems that once again we’re seeing another high street retailer consolidating (aka ‘closing’) a call centre for efficiency reasons. This is management speak for ‘we’re losing hand over fist so we have to do something radical’. In this case, it’s a holiday firm whose “business has been badly affected by the increase in online holiday bookings“.

As the web becomes the ubiquitous choice for the discerning consumer, it’s clear to me that call centres run by established ‘bricks and mortar’ style retailers are going to be potentially under threat. The effect of Amazon on high street booksellers is clear to see - in my own home city of Edinburgh, I’ve seen a couple of long-established book stores change hands or go out of business.

The Amazon Effect is well known within the world of booksellers; it ripples through the working days of all those whose jobs are involved with books, such as publishers, retailers and distribution networks. By using the powerful emergent medium of the internet to great effect, Amazon created a completely new channel of direct sales to the consumer.

The Diversification Threat

As companies such as Amazon diversify into other areas (such as consumer electronics, entertainment and even film rentals), more and more established and conventional retailers are set to be hit. Many of these affected companies are large enough to have invested in call centres to support and augment their sales and customer service channels. The fact that these new, diversified web eTailers compete on price, choice and in many cases simple convenience makes their continued success inevitable. The conventional high street may well be beyond salvation, at least in the way we know it.

Consolation?

It’s not all bad news. Though many big online organisations eschew the call centre in favour of more cost-effective, streamlined and automated processes, the fact is that many will still need to provide a human voice at some point in the loop. Successful online direct sales companies such as Dell may well redress the balance; what the article doesn’t mention is the fact that Dell are opening a large call centre relatively nearby, which is likely to be larger and thus offer some consolation.

However, big fish call centre investments such as Dell leave areas with too many eggs in too few baskets. Whilst incentives are dangled like big juicy carrots to tempt and persuade these big fish to establish call centres in a given area, what we perhaps need is the complimentary big stick to ensure that they stay.

In my opinion, there has always been a touch of the ‘easy come, easy go’ attitude to call centres from many of the companies which operate them. We as an industry need to continually stress the need to deliver quality over the quest to continually trim costs. If we can do this, perhaps more customers will stick by the conventional players - for reasons of quality products and good service if nothing else.

John

Link: http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=284432005

…about my effort: Leaving one ski vertical in the snow whilst landing over 10 metres from it.

Darryl’s crash

And I had my jacket undone at the time which made for a very cold and damp afternoon.

Well, I’m back from a weeks skiing and feeling like waxing lyrical. As I’m not overly known as a ‘people person’ and am never likelyto be the worlds greatest trainer I thought I’d share a few observations from the last week.

Point one: I’m not the worlds greatest skiier and never will be

Point two: Last year I didn’t do very well. I finished the week thinking I hadn’t done anything at all.

At the end of this week I was skiing Red runs comfortably and thinking WOW I can do this! So what changed? The simple answer is my instructor, at the end of the first week I was STILL having problems stopping. This year that problem was solved within 15 minutes on the first day ( 2 minutes to recognise the problem and 13 to ‘break’ the habit). Looking back on the first year, the sessions were fun but I didn’t seem to get anything out of them. This year again fun but an actual feeling day on day of getting something out of it.

One thing that stands out however is the different Styles.

This year the instructor would call one person down at a time, then spend just 60 seconds pointing out ONE error and getting tghem back into line, working on one problem at a time. Last year everyone go down then a group breakdown on the problems. Obviously the task loading with the two techniques is radically different.

Example 1 (This year). Ski down, speak to the instructor and get “You need to push further into the skis as you stop". Back to the top and wait to go again. With thinking time about correcting the one error. Repeat as required.

Example 2 (Last year). Ski down. Back to top. Wait for everyone else to go. Instructor says, “Dave you need to push into the skis, Keep your upper body straight, Start the turn earlier and move the knee more, away you go.” Repeat once or twice.

Now which of these is better? Are either of them wrong? People learn in different ways I know and we’re really into a subject here I know almost nothing about.

So a couple of questions to the trainers here.

1. How you decide how to teach a group?
2. How do you know if it’s working 1/2 way through the session?
3. Is it correct to change the method 1/2 way through?
4. Do you tell the group you are changing or just do it subtly?
5. How do you judge success during a session?

Have fun,
DaveA

Today I discovered a new diversion from my planned activity for the day*.

I’m not normally one for games, but this one at least has some relevancy to what Gurus is all about, so I figured I’d give it a plug. After all, we all need a break from our call centre work, and so what better way to spend our free time than with a frustratingly addictive little call centre game.

Ah, and with the most annoying soundtrack, too. Try it, I think you too will end up whittering away some time trying to reach your quota.

It makes me wonder whether we should make a Gurus game. Hmmm… now there’s an idea…

John

* the planned activity for the day was something more mundane and serious and boring, so the diversion was very welcome indeed

Stuart just posted this at CCV: McDonalds article.

My first reaction was one of horror. This is surely taking things a little too far. Then I started to put some thought into it and realised this could go either way. There’s scope for major success or failure.

The golden arches
The logistics are quite interestig for starters - The sound needs to be sent from the terminal to the call centre, and then the order needs to be sent back to the resturant. All of this can be accomplished over IP, so each resturant just needs an internet connection. Issues here are latency and reliability. If there’s a big delay then the customer will get upset, and if the line is down then no order. I suppose in this instance a real person would step in.

The customer perception
The customer is not going to expect to be sent to a call centre, so when they roll up they will expect a voice immediately. This means no queueing. McD’s will have to staff their call centre carefully to ensure that this doesn’t happen - and the 3 daily peaks of breakfast, lunch and dinner will have to be carefully thought about.

The real fact is that the customer shouldn’t realise that there’s anything different from normal going on. Ok, it may not be a local accent, but there’s sufficient “transients” nowadays for this to be accepted. As long as speed of service is there and there’s no latency on the line, the customer doesn’t lose at all.

Quality of service
This is where the make-or-break is. We could have agents that don’t understand anything about the order that they’re taking. There’ll be wrong orders, complaints, lack of ownership by the staff in the call centre. It’ll be a mess.

But I don’t think it’ll turn out like that. I think that this presents a chance to improve the order process. Training is easier. There’s likely to be less people to train and they can all be trained by one trainer. This means the process will be much more uniform. These people can get to know the products better, and will always be aware of the latest offers. Finally - it’d be possible to record the transactions to improve the service more later on.

Loss of jobs
The final argument that is always made will be about the loss of jobs. McD’s could probably run each resturant with one less member of staff. There’ll be the same uproar that there usually is about jobs being lost. But what’s the problem? This is progress. Saving money like this gives us cash to advance elsewhere. Ok, so it may only result in gassing chickens, but progress is progress!

So…
I think this is cool. We may not like the sound of it (and it’s not happening in the UK yet, anyway) but I do believe that it’s good to change the way things work now and again. You never know, you may prefer it. I know many people who complained about the thought of telephone banking who now can’t live without it.

Regards,
DB

When a company really, truly, fundamentally annoys you - whether because of bad service, a lack of interest in you or your needs, a general lackadaisical attitude to quality, whatever - then you might have felt compelled to act. You might have thought about writing a letter, but, wait, that’s so old-millennium. You might have considered an email, but you know that they’ll never read it. You might even have tried calling to register your dissatisfaction, and ended up in the IVR maze from hell.

If you’re a normal person, you might fume a bit. You might tell your friends over a few beers and fume some more. You might even try to talk random strangers out of buying the products/visiting the store/doing any business with your hated organisation.

There is, however, another way. It’s the sort of thing that I have even considered. Me, mild-mannered janitor of mystery. Me, taker-of-paths-of-least-resistance (at least when it comes to these sorts of things). Me. Yes, your amiable host…

Some people, driven insane by the incredible short-sighted, can’t-give-a-damn attitude or intrinsic disastrous service of (generally bigger) companies, resort to a real ‘don’t get mad, get even’ tactic. One I secretly admire. Damn, cat’s out of the bag.

What we’re talking about here, people, is the concept of the Corporate Hate website. For instance, if you really hated CallCentreGurus and were really mad at us, you might send us a nasty email, which we’d ignore. Probably. Or, you might register CallCentreGurusSucks.com and try to get your own back. Now, of course, you’d never do that to us, as we’re the good guys, but you might do it for a larger company.

Bearing this in mind, I direct you now to this interesting article which I have just discovered. It’s a fascinating insight into the mindset of the truly offended, deeply unhappy, disrespected and angry customer. Customer with the time, and willpower, to really play hardball.

I have a lot of sympathy for some of these people. They’ve been driven to it by uncaring or ineffective organisations with lousy customer service. They’ve seen no option but to lash out in the public arena. They’re the extreme cases, for sure, but they’re customers no less.

As customer service and call centre people, it’s our duty to try to prevent such customers reaching this plateau of dissatisfaction. However, not everyone sees it this way, and so it’s no surprise that sites like this exist.

Links:
Corporate Hate Article @ Forbes

How do you like our new home? Nice, isn’t it?

Anyway….

I wrote here a couple of weeks ago about making your own telephone system rather than buying one. I’d like to talk today about a similar topic - using a “hosted", or “network-based” system.

For those who are not familiar with the concept: it’s a bit like renting a telephone system, except you don’t have the system on your site. It’s usually located at a datacentre which has reliable telephone and data connections. Thesedays, just about any telephone service is available as a hosted solution (inbound, outbound, IVR, call recording, speech recognition, etc.).

How does it work?
The basic idea is that each agent has a direct dial number. When the system is ready for an agent to deal with a call it will transfer it through to this number. In certain cases the telephone lines are lost competely and the voice sent via IP. Some setups are slightly more complex, with an active-x or COM component provided to install on each agent’s PC. Via the internet this lets the hosted system know what each agent is up to, and in return provides from useful CTI that’s essential for some situations like outbound calling.

What’s it cost?
Obviously price differs from supplier to supplier, but you usually have to pay for the following:

• An account setup fee
• Monthly rental per agent
• Inbound leg call costs to connect to your agent (If via PSTN)
• If applicable, outbound leg call costs to connect to the customer

Pricing will depend on the exact service - and I know of suppliers who will provide an inbound IVR service free if it’s on an 0870 number and they keep the few pence made from each call. For high-call campagins this is quite a popular model.

Why do it?
The key benefit is scalability. Within hours your supplier can double your call centre capacity. No waiting times for kit. Assuming, of course, that you’ve got the lines and agents in house.

As technology improves, your supplier should update their kit and this will be at no charge to you.

You don’t have to deal with capital expenditure for the switch, which means you can account for the switch as P&L rather than as an asset.

More reliable than a switch on site - with technical support taken care of.

Multiple sites and homeworkers are easily accomodated. In fact, physical location is completely irrelevant.

Why not do it?
It can be more expensive. Whilst it seems cheaper on a monthly basis (and this is how most suppliers will try to sell to you), it will cost more over longer periods.

Lack of control. Unless you’re a very very big customer you’re not going to be able to demand changes or improvements to the system. You can’t decide which call carrier outbound calls go through so you may not be getting the most cost effective deal.

You still need telephone lines for all your agents - unless it’s a VOIP solution.

Who does it?
iCall
Ultra
Five9

to name three….but you could also consider getting a consultant to research suppliers that are suitable for you. There are many around at the moment and not all of them provide good service - so beware.

I honestly believe that most call centres will follow this route over the next 5 years. It fits perfectly with my vision for the PSF call centre. In the future your company will need to be lightweight and turnaround jobs in hours rather than days.

On the flipside - we may see the traditional box manufacturers get cleverer with what they offer and start to provide scalability-on-demand (IBM style). Keep your eyes open for this.

Regards,
DB

An ever-increasing number of us are finding the benefits of affiliation with one of the various call centre or customer service organisations. The most obvious of these is the Call Centre Association, but there are many others.

Membership of such well known organisations can be extremely beneficial, but we’re interested in hearing about the lesser-known associations and networks. How did you find out about them? Is it helping you develop or improve your call centre, or if you are a supplier, is it generating new business.

This of course extends beyond the sphere of our own industry. Many have written of the benefits to be had from being affiliated with organisations for business networking, including Chambers of Commerce and local business development agencies. Often, these organisations can offer funding opportunities for business growth or recruitment incentives.

Again, we’d be interested in your comments about any affiliation with such organisations - is it worth it, and has your company benefitted? Would you recommend others to look into such organisations.

“Why are you asking all of this", you may wonder. Well, everyone knows that in modern business (in any discipline) it’s not so much what you do but who you know and how much you are able to work that network. Playing the networking game can be hugely beneficial in many ways.

So, let us hear your thoughts on affiliations.

I was saddened to read the news that Contax, maker of some of the finest cameras available, have decided to stop making cameras. This is a crying shame for a marque up there with Leica and Hasselblad, jostling for the crown of best camera.

Completely off-topic for this blog, I admit, but as a fan and user of the wonderful G2 Rangefinder, I feel a sense of loss at the demise of this great brand.

A sign of the times, I’m afraid

John

I received an interesting email just the other day which alerted me about a film whose premise I found intriguing. Apart from the fact that I generally enjoy watching films (especially non-Hollywood fare - with a particular soft spot for low budget horror flicks and offbeat French worldy observations such as Amelie), this particular film was noteworthy because it is the first film to my knowledge to feature a call centre as a plot device. Hopw intriguing!

The film is called American Daylight and it’s a contemporary thriller set in today’s technology-savvy world. This is a world that we all know so well; one where the outsource call centre is king. When we dial our apparently local bank, we are routed to another continent.

In the case of American Daylight, Sujata (played by Koel Puri) is a call centre agent who, as it often the way, is trained to talk with an American accent, and to complete this illusion, she is renamed ‘Sue’. ‘Sue’ receives a call from a guy called Lawrence (played by Nick Moran), a millionaire who is concerned that his wife is about to empty their joint bank account. Now, I can sympathise with that. Happens to me all the time. Anyway, Lawrence tries to persuade ‘Sue’ to bend the rules to give him the ‘inside info’, which she does. Meanwhile, ‘Sue’s boss, Pat (Vijay Raaz), who has a thing for ‘Sue’, starts to resent the way things are starting to turn out between Lawrence and ‘Sue’. Lawrence falls for his ‘Sue’, not realising that she isn’t who she purports to be.

It’s an interesting concept, with shades of Cyrano de Bergerac and other such tales. I haven’t yet had a chance to see it, but I’m definitely going to make a point of looking out for it, as it will be fascinating to see how the director (Roger Christian) handles the topic and the complexities of what isn’t such a far fetched concept.

Keep your eyes peeled for it, should it hit a cinema near you.

We hear a lot of negative talk in the media about the way that call centre agents are generally treated. This is often blown out of all proportion, but it does highlight that we can often treat our call centre employees that little bit better: this article contains a few ’soft skills’ pointers which are worth bearing in mind:

1. Remember that agents are only human

Yes, it’s true. Whilst the managers are thinking about maximising return on investment by squeezing the last ounce of performance from the various teams, it’s all too easy to forget that call centre agents are individuals, with the needs, desires, strengths and weaknesses that we all possess. Don’t expect super-human performance: reward it when you see it, but nobody can perform at 100% for sustained periods of time - factor this in, and don’t try to fight against it.

2. Agents know about working the ‘phones better than the managers

In other words, the best people to identify any flaws in the call centre are the people who use it day-in, day-out. Don’t forget that as one gets familiar with a tool, new flaws may be revealed that were previously masked. Talk to your agents, see what they think about the systems they use.

3. Make it fun

Happy employees make for effective employees. If you can make little changes or allowances that make the agents’ jobs more enjoyable, you will find increased retention, better performing individuals, and such people present a much more professional image to the customers who they are in contact with. A future article will discuss some great ideas about introducing effective incentives into the call centre and some case studies. For now, however, just use a little lateral thinking. Think: what can I do (as a manager) to make my agents’ happier?

4. Talk, don’t preach, to your agents

Getting to know each and every agent may well be an enormous task, and not something that can be expected of every manager, but it’s at least worth making an effort to break the ice with some. After all, getting to know the agents - their concerns, ideas, issues and even finding out what is going well - all of this enriches our understanding of the true dynamics of the call centre without relying on MIS, much of which is somewhat spurious. Developing one’s soft skills provides a degree of balance which will help you make better, more informed decisions. Don’t forget to treat agents as equals - don’t preach, lecture or judge from on-high: these are your troops and they must also respect you - and the best way to do this is to get to know them and show them that you actually give a damn.

5. Exercise reason

Don’t expect the impossible - setting hurdles too high helps nobody. There is a fine line between effective versus ridiculous objective setting - and only experience, and the points above, will allow you to judge this properly.

As ever, I welcome your comments. This isn’t a definitive list by any means, and it’s all simple common-sense, which could be applied to investment bankers, tradesmen, software developers or teachers. It’s basic man-management, and it’s something we should all practise.