coachpalooza summary report

�

Coachpalooza A Call Center Focus Group Series Summary Report

A Coaching Report from Knowlagent

By: Debbie Qaqish and Dwight Lucas

Fall 2005 ©Knowlagent. All rights reserved. 2

2

Driv ing value at the f ront l ine of bus iness.

Knowlagent® is a registered trademark of Knowlagent, Inc. Value-Driven Coaching Model for the Call Center™ and Value-Driven Coaching Model™ are trademarks of Knowlagent, Inc. All other trademarks used in this document are the property of their respective owners.

The information contained in this document is proprietary to Knowlagent, Inc. Unless you are the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the intended recipient), you may not read, print, retain, use, copy, distribute or disclose any information contained in this document.

Copyright© 2005 Knowlagent, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Knowlagent® Inc.


3


Table of Contents

��

��

��

�� ! "��#��$

�� ! "��%&

�� '�"��! "��&(

�)� ! "�� &&

)�� ! "��*�� &+

)�� ,�� -"��"� ��+(

)�� .�- ��"��+ �� ,�� -�� (

,��"��"��"�� (

,��.��"�� &

��

��

��

�� /��)"��.��! "�� 0�� (

/�-��1�� &

/�-��2��"�� &

�� -"�� 1�� +

�� -"�� 2��"�� +

�� 1��

�� 2��"��

�� 1��

�� 2��"�� ! �� $


4


��

“We recognize the value of coaching…we just don’t have time to do it.”

- Coachpalooza ’05 participant

Coaching is one of the highest impact, yet overlooked, ways to achieve company goals in the call center. The best centers know this, and are attempting to develop coaching models, tools and initiatives to drive coaching, yet even the best are struggling with how to deliver enough quality coaching in the unique call center environment.

To better understand the call center coaching environment, Knowlagent conducted Coachpalooza ’05, a Focus Group series with seven large call center groups that included 53 supervisor and manager level participants. This strategic initiative allowed us to better understand:

• the attitudes towards and the perceived value of coaching • how coaching is conducted and measured • what gets coached • the challenges to coaching in the dynamic call center environment

Participants in the Focus Group series included leading companies from a variety of industries including financial services, insurance, retail, telecom, and travel, with agent populations ranging from 450 to 12,000.

This Coachpalooza ’05 Summary Report is the compilation of data and insights gathered from all activities associated with these Focus Groups.

�

��

Coachpalooza ’05 was an intense Focus Group series designed to gather quantitative and qualitative data. There were several methods used including:

• Pre-Focus Group Surveys administered on-line for executives and supervisors

• On-site, ½ day Supervisor Focus Groups that included team and individual activities and discussions

Following the completion of each Focus Group, the Knowlagent team prepared a detailed Coachpalooza ’05 Report of Findings for the participating organization that highlighted key coaching findings for that group. As a conclusion to the Coachpalooza ’05 program, Knowlagent has prepared this Summary Report to present the common themes from all groups.


5


�

��

Section I: Pre-Focus Group Surveys

The Pre-Focus Group Surveys were designed to give the Focus Group team an early indication of the coaching environment of the center. Specifically, the survey looked for:

• attitudes towards coaching

• metrics of coaching

• what is being coached

• coaching resources

• similarities and differences between executive response and supervisor responses

Section II: Key Findings

The Key Findings Section is based on all information from all sources and the findings are categorized into four distinct groupings:

• Time

• Information

• Process

• People

Section III: The Value-Driven Coaching Model & Recommended Best Practices

All call centers in the Coachpalooza ’05 event, say they strongly believe in the value of coaching, yet few of them seem to be able to convert that belief into action. There appear to be a number of environmental, cultural, and technology driven inhibitors that restrict coaching from occurring and that obscure the effectiveness of coaching. The Value-Driven Coaching Model was developed based on findings from the Coachpalooza ’05 to provide a simple structure for addressing these inhibitors and for providing a sense of priority and synergy among key elements.


6


��

The Pre-Focus Group Surveys were designed to give the Focus Group team an early indication of the coaching environment of the center. Specifically, the surveys looked for:

• attitudes towards coaching

• metrics of coaching

• what is being coached

• coaching resources

• similarities and differences between executive response and supervisor responses

The Pre-Focus Group Surveys were administered on-line to both the call center executive sponsor and the group of supervisors who were to be in the on-site Focus Group.

The surveys for each group were almost identical, although there were a few questions that were unique to each group. Supervisors answered 30 questions including two questions regarding experience that executives did not. Executives answered 31 questions, including 3 questions not asked of supervisors regarding center headcount and company perception regarding the coaching of supervisors.

The following section captures the responses to each question for each group and discusses the similarities or differences in each group’s set of responses.

There are 7 sections of responses from the Pre-Focus Group Surveys:

1. Coaching Attitudes

2. Coaching Metrics

3. What Gets Coached

4. Coaching Follow Up

5. Coaching Resources

6. Key Performance Indicators

7. Coachpalooza ’05 Demographics


7


�

�� ! "��#��

1. My company understands the value of coaching agents

While all executives said their company understands the value of coaching agents, 22% of supervisors disagreed or had No Opinion.

My company understands the value of coaching agents

5% 5%

39% 39%

0% 0% 0%

12% 20%

80%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

StronglyDisagree

Disagree No Opinion Agree Strongly Agree

Supervisors

Executives


8


2. My company understands the value of coaching supervisors (Executive Responses)

All Executives said their company understands the value of coaching Supervisors. This question was not on the Supervisor survey.

My company understands the value of coaching supervisors (Executive Responses)

0% 0% 0%

100%

0%0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

StronglyDisagree

Disagree No Opinion Agree StronglyAgree


9


3. The agents understand the value of coaching

There was general agreement on this topic between executives and supervisors.

The agents understand the value of coaching

2%7%

0%

68%

22%

0% 0%

20%

80%

0%0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

StronglyDisagree


Supervisors

Executives


10


4. The supervisors understand the value of coaching

Although supervisors were more emphatic, there was general agreement on this topic between executives and supervisors.

The supervisors understand the value of coaching

2% 0% 0%

22%

76%

0% 0% 0%

80%

20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

StronglyDisagree


Supervisors

Executives


11


5. Supervisors are comfortable coaching

Supervisors indicated they are comfortable coaching, but executives did not express the same belief. The large majority (93%) of supervisors indicated they were comfortable coaching, but only 50% of executives stated their supervisors were comfortable doing so. Supervisor responses on this item were consistent with other questions that indicate very high confidence in their ability to do their jobs.

I (supervisors) are comfortable coaching

2% 2% 2%

22%20% 20% 20%

40%

0%

71%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

StronglyDisagree


Supervisors

Executives


12


�� ! "��

1. On average, how much time is spent coaching each agent per day?

Both executives and supervisors believe that agents receive a small amount of coaching on a daily basis. Only 22% of supervisors indicated that they coach each agent more than 20 minutes per day. In contrast, 44% of supervisors say agents receive less than 10 minutes of coaching per day, as do 100% of executive respondents.

�

�

�

�

�

�

On average, how much time is spent coaching each agent per day?

100%

0 0

34%

22%

44%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

1-10 minutes 11-20 minutes Over 20 minutes

Supervisors Executives


13


2. On average, how much time does each supervisor spend on overall coaching activities per day?

Supervisors appear to spend a small percentage of their day involved in overall coaching activities. While 20% of executive respondents perceived that supervisors delivered over three hours of coaching per day, 80% of supervisors indicated that they actually spent less than two hours per day on coaching activities.

On average, how much time do you (Supervisors ) spend in all coaching activities per day?

2%

22%20%20%

15%

34%

7%

20%

40%

20%

0%0%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

1-10

minu

tes

11-2

0 minu

tes

21-3

0 minu

tes

31-6

0 minu

tes

1-2 h

ours

3-4 h

ours

Supervisors

Executives


14


3. On average, how much time is spent coaching supervisors on a monthly basis?

Despite a consistent and strong belief that companies understand the value of coaching in general, most supervisors said they receive little on-going coaching. The dispersion of responses on this topic was quite varied, but 57% of supervisors stated they receive less than one hour of coaching per month.

In contrast, 75% of the executives perceived that supervisors were receiving over 2 hours of coaching per month.

�

On average, how much time is spent coaching you (Supervisors) on a monthly basis?

25%

0%

20%23%17%20%20%

14%

0% 0% 0% 0%

25%

50%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

None

1-30

minu

tes

31-6

0 minu

tes

61-1

20 m

inutes

121-

240 m

inutes

>240

minu

tesVar

ies

Supervisors

Executives


15


4. On average, how much time do supervisors spend each day preparing for a coaching event?

The overwhelming majority of supervisors spend less than 60 minutes per day preparing for all coaching activity. This was supported by 100% of executives who indicated that supervisors spend less than 30 minutes on prep time each day. This finding further substantiates that coaching typically occurs in an informal manner.

On average, how much time do supervisors spend each day preparing for a coaching event?

26%

3% 3%

100%

69%

0% 0%0%0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

0-30 minutes 31-60minutes

1-3 hours 3-5 hours

Supervisors

Executives


16


5. On average, how much time do your supervisors spend each day conferring with peers on coaching?

One group of supervisor participants spent over 30 minutes per day conferring with peers, but the overwhelming majority of supervisors do not.

On average, how much time do your supervisors spend each day conferring with peers on coaching?

0% 0%

100%

0% 0%

14%

86%

0%0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

0-30 minutes 31-60minutes

1-3 hours 3-5 hours

Supervisors

Executives


17


6. Please indicate the percentage of total coaching devoted to positive coaching (improving performance, congratulations, career growth, etc.)

A slight majority (52%) of supervisors said they spend 60% or more of their coaching time on positive coaching. Executives perceived that supervisors spend less time than they indicated on this topic, with only 25% of executives responding that more than 60% of coaching was positive. Also of note is that 25% of executives were not sure on this topic.

Please indicate the percentage of total coaching devoted to positive coaching.

0%

25% 25%

0% 0%

25%

28%

24%

15%

21%

12%

25%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100% Not Sure

Supervisors

Executives


18


7. Please indicate the percentage of total coaching devoted to negative coaching (attendance, compliance, low motivation, etc.)

Only 6% of supervisor participants indicated that in excess of 60% of their coaching is negative.

Please indicate the percentage of total coaching devoted to negative coaching.

44%

3%

25%

3%0%

25%

0%

25% 25%

0%

25%25%

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%

0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100% Not Sure

Supervisors

Executives


19


8. Supervisors have sufficient time to coach each day

71% of supervisors stated they do not have enough time to coach. This belief was further supported during the Focus Group sessions in which every supervisor indicated they did not have enough time to coach.

Supervisors have sufficient time to coach each day

39%

5%

20%

5%

20%

0%

32%

20%

40%

20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

StronglyDisagree


Supervisors

Executives


20


�� '�"��! "��

1. What are the events that trigger coaching in your center?

The following list represents the top ten events that trigger coaching in the call center. Responses are listed in order of those that occur most frequently to those that occur less frequently in the Pre-Focus Group Surveys. Unsatisfactory metrics, low attendance, and poor quality scores are the top three events that trigger coaching in the call center.

• Metrics

o Calls per hour, AHT and statistics were listed most frequently in this category

• Attendance o Poor attendance and tardiness issues

• Quality Scores o Unsatisfactory Quality Scores trigger coaching in the call center

• Communications/Questions o This category includes relaying departmental and company

information to agents and answering various questions and requests from agents

• Compliance o This category includes non-compliance with company procedures and

guidelines or departmental standards and goals • Behavior Issues

o This category includes a variety of negative behavioral issues including poor customer interaction, morale and lack of motivation

• Performance o Performance was listed as an event when agent performance was

lacking and goals were not being met • Sales

o Low sales numbers o Monitoring o Errors


21


2. What are the top 3-5 events that trigger supervisor coaching opportunities?

According to executives, the top 3-5 events that trigger supervisor coaching opportunities are listed below. The responses are listed in order of those that occur most frequently to those that occur less frequently in the Pre-Focus Group Surveys:

• Call Monitoring o This category includes reviewing reports

• Feedback o Supervisors are coached when negative feedback is received from

agents • Performance

o Coaching occurs when a team does not meet monthly goals • Call Escalations

o Coaching occurs when a sampling of escalations is reviewed • Observation


22


�)�� ! "��

1. Please describe how you follow-up with coaching interactions

Several methods of follow-up were identified during the Pre-Focus Group Surveys. The timing of the follow-up varied from daily to monthly, and was nearly always manually tracked and managed by supervisors. The following represents how most supervisors indicated they follow-up with coaching interactions:

• One-on-one • Continual coaching and follow-up regarding progress • Review goals with agent and follow-up • Verbally • Written Log Review


23


)�� ! "��*��

1. Which of the following do supervisors regularly consult prior to a coaching activity? Choose all that apply.

Supervisors stated they rely heavily on their managers and other supervisors for coaching consultation, and do not consult Human Resources or Training as frequently as executives perceived.

Which of the following do supervisors regularly consult prior to a coaching activity?

31% 31%

8% 9%

19%

0%6%

11%4% 6%

25%25%

19%

6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Other S

upervi

sors

Super

visor'

s Man

ager

Manage

rs ou

tside

the g

roup

Human Res

ource

s

Training

/Dev

elopm

ent

Quality

Mon

itorin

gOthe

r

Supervisors

Executives


24


2. In reference to the previous question, which of these resources do supervisors use most frequently?

Supervisors indicated they consult other supervisors more often than their managers, and rarely consult other departments.

In reference to the previous question, which of these resources do supervisors use most frequently?

7% 7%

41%

5%3%3%

34%

0%0%0%

25%

0%

50%

25%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%

Other S

upervi

sors

Super

visor'

s Man

ager

Manage

rs ou

tside

the g

roup

Human Res

ource

s

Training

/Dev

elopm

ent

Quality

Mon

itorin

gOthe

r

Supervisors

Executives


25


3. My company has a clear coaching process for supervisors

There were a wide variety of responses on this topic. Of note is that executives were less convinced there is a clear coaching process in place than were supervisors.

My company has a clear coaching process for supervisors to follow

5%

20% 17%

39%

20%

0%

40%

0%

40%

20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

StronglyDisagree


Supervisors

Executives


26


4. My company has a dedicated program for training supervisors on how to be an effective coach

There were a wide range of responses regarding whether companies have dedicated programs to train coaches. Even within the same company, respondents were widely varied on this topic. Executives were split as to whether there was a program, and only 44% of supervisors believed a program existed. Of the seven centers we visited as part of this research, only 2 had a formal program for training coaches.

My company has a dedicated program for training supervisors on how to be an effective coach

7%

20%

0%

60%

0%

40%

0%

29%12%

32%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

StronglyDisagree


Supervisors

Executives


27


5. My company has a clearly defined coaching role

There were a wide range of responses regarding whether companies have a clearly defined coach role. Responses to this topic were very similar to the previous topic regarding training coaches. Only 20% of executives stated that the role was clearly defined, and only 44% of supervisors concurred.

My company has a clearly defined coach role

7%

27%22%

0%

60%

0%

29%15%20%20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

StronglyDisagree


Supervisors

Executives


28


6. Supervisors have all the right tools to be an effective coach

Most supervisors indicated that they have all the right tools to coach, but executives disagreed. Although the majority of supervisor respondents stated they had all the tools necessary to be an effective coach, a majority (75%) of executives disagreed.

Supervisors have all the right tools to be an effective coach

7%

27%

7%

27%20%

60%

0% 0%

32%

20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

StronglyDisagree


Supervisors

Executives


29


7. Supervisors have all the right skills to be an effective coach

Supervisors said they have the right skills to be an effective coach, but executives disagreed. The overwhelming majority of supervisors (87%) stated they had all the right skills to be an effective coach. Only 7% disagreed with this statement, yet 75% of executives stated that supervisors do not have the right skills to be an effective coach.

Supervisors have all the right skills to be an effective coach

2% 5% 5%

41%46%

20%

60%

0% 0%

20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

StronglyDisagree


Supervisors

Executives


30


�

)�� ,�� -"��"� ��

1. What are the KPIs for your call center?

It was interesting to observe that supervisors and call center executives did not always agree on the Key Performance Metrics for their center. For example, while 17% of supervisor participants indicated that First Call Resolution was a KPI, no executives indicated that as a key metric.

What are the key KPIs for your call center?

15% 15%

0%

21% 21%

12%

24%

17%17%14%

29%

14%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

First CallResolution

AHT CustomerRetention

QualityScores

Revenue Other

Supervisors

Executives


31


2. Please rate your performance against First Call Resolution metrics

There appears to be confusion regarding this metric. The majority of executive respondents did not indicate that First Call Resolution metrics are applicable, yet 71% of supervisors indicated that they are meeting or exceeding their goal.

Rate your performance: First Call Resolution

0%

40%

0%

60%

24%16%

55%

5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Not Meeting Goal Meeting Goal Exceeding Goal N/A

Supervisors

Executives


32


3. Please rate your performance against AHT metrics

The majority of executives indicate that they are not meeting AHT goals, yet only 19% of supervisors agreed with the executive assessment. Additionally, 32% of supervisors indicated AHT was Not Applicable, but no executives did so.

Rate your performance: AHT

19%

38%

11%

32%

60%

40%

0% 0%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


Supervisors

Executives


33


2. Please rate your performance against Revenue metrics

Of the supervisors responsible for revenue metrics, the majority said they were meeting or exceeding their goals.

Rate your performance: Revenue

11%

32%

20%

60%

0%

20%

43%

14%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


Supervisors

Executives


34


3. Please rate your performance against Customer Retention metrics

The majority of supervisors stated they were meeting or exceeding customer goals in this area. An interesting note is that 40% of executives did not state this as a key metric.

Rate your performance: Customer Retention

62%

8%

20% 20% 20%

40%

3%

27%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


Supervisors

Executives


35


4. Please rate your performance against Quality Score metrics

The majority of supervisors indicated they were meeting or exceeding customer goals in this area. The executives were not as optimistic.

Rate your performance: Quality Scores

49%

0%

40%

60%

0% 0%

24%27%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


Supervisors

Executives


36


�

)��.�- ��"��

1. How long have you been a supervisor? (Supervisors only)

Coachpalooza participants were top performers in their companies and had a fairly even distribution of experience. Interesting to note is that 31% of the supervisors had more than 5 years experience and 54% had more than 3 years experience.

How long have you been a supervisor or coach?

23%

23%

23%

31%

Less than 1 Year

1-3 Years

3-5 Years

More than 5 years


37


2. How long were you an agent before becoming a supervisor? (Supervisors only)

75% of Coachpalooza ’05 participants became supervisors after less than three years as agents, while only 6% became supervisors after more than five years.

How long were you an agent before becoming a supervisor?

16%

59%

19%

6%

Less than 1 Year

1-3 Years

3-5 Years

More than 5 years


38


�

3. How many supervisors are in your call center? (Executive responses only)

The Coachpalooza ’05 was held at single centers within organizations with multiple centers. The numbers below reflect the size of the individual center, not the entire company.

How many Supervisors are in your call center?

11

26

35

15


39


4. How many agents are in your call center? (Executive responses only)

The Coachpalooza ’05 was held at single centers within organizations with multiple centers. The numbers below reflect the size of the individual center, not the entire company.

How many agents are in your call center?

290

425

400

240


40


��

,��"��"��"��

The 18 Key Findings from Coachpalooza ’05 fall into four primary categories: • Time • Information • Process • People

Time

1. Supervisors as a whole spend a tremendous amount of time on activities that do not directly interact with agents such as report compilation, data analysis, administrative functions, and special projects that leave little time for coaching.

2. Every supervisor expressed a desire for more time to coach agents.

3. The time lag between the event that triggers a coaching activity and the opportunity to deliver coaching is often long, sometimes up to one month, which reduces the effectiveness of the coaching when delivered.

Information

4. Supervisors act as “information integrators”.

5. Agents generally do not always have timely access to information regarding their performance, and also do not always receive information necessary to improve performance in a timely manner.

6. Coaching is not typically a metric in the call center.

Process

7. There is great variability regarding the clarity of coaching roles and coaching processes.

8. There is little consistency or formal methodology in the way that supervisors follow-up on coaching activities.

9. Managers have little visibility regarding what coaching is taking place in the call center, and how that activity is impacting agent performance.

10. Executives, managers and supervisors all agree that more coaching would have a positive impact on performance.


41


11. There appears to be little or no distinction between managing and coaching in the call center.

12. The coaching that is delivered in the call center is generally targeted toward low performers, while mid and higher level performers receive little or no coaching.

13. There are no documented ROI analyses on coaching

People

14. Supervisors are extremely self-confident in their coaching skills yet most executives feel that supervisors need further skill development.

15. Although nearly every supervisor participant saw the value of coaching, very few supervisors said they needed coaching themselves.

16. Supervisors have a genuine desire to develop their team members and are frustrated that they do not have enough time to do so despite working long hours and weekends.

17. Supervisors seem to believe that most agents can handle more accountability for their performance, but only if given the appropriate environment.

18. Although executives claim to see the value of coaching, supervisors are rarely trained to be managers or coaches.

�


42


�

,��.��"��

��

1. Supervisors as a whole spend a tremendous amount of time on activities that do not directly interact with agents such as report compilation, data analysis, administrative functions, and special projects that leave little time for coaching.

With every Focus Group we facilitated, we discerned from supervisor comments that they appear to spend a tremendous amount of time on activities that do not directly interact with agents such as report compilation, data analysis, administrative functions, and special projects that leave little time for coaching. It appears that the supervisor role encompasses many different administrative hats making it difficult for them to find time for their coaching role.

This “administrative clutter” we observed in all the centers is a major source of stress for both the agents and the coaches, but especially the coaches. For example, we noted that many of the Focus Group participants work long hours and weekends on a regular basis attempting to cover all of their obligations. One participant stated they do not take vacation because they are too overwhelmed with work upon their return.

2. Every supervisor expressed a desire for more time to coach agents.

The good news is that supervisors actually want to be able to spend more time coaching agents! We observed a firmly held belief that coaching helps to improve performance and that coaching was one of the highest impact activities that the supervisor could do. We also observed a high degree of frustration that they could not spend more time coaching agents.

At the beginning of each Focus Group, the supervisor team was asked, “If you could change one thing about your coaching environment, what would it be?” The unanimous response was they all wanted more time to coach agents. This sentiment was constantly reinforced during the Focus Group activities.


43


3. The time lag between the event that triggers a coaching activity and the opportunity to deliver coaching is often long, sometimes up to one month, which reduces the effectiveness of the coaching when delivered.

Supervisors consistently reported that significant time may pass between the occurrence of an agent action that requires coaching, and the time that the supervisor delivers the coaching required. In some cases this was due to lack of timely information such as performance reports, but some cases were due to low prioritization of agent coaching. For example, many supervisors admitted to using Sundays to catch up on quality monitoring calls, which calls into question the effectiveness of monitoring given the gap between the call and the opportunity to coach.

“It could take us a week from the time we know to the time to coach. The supervisors have to find the call, listen to the call, and review the information.”



44


�

��

4. Supervisors act as “information integrators”.

Each day supervisors are deluged with data and charged with filtering the appropriate information to make decisions for how to effectively manage and coach their teams. Many participants said they had to manipulate, print and hand-out reports to help the team and individual agents view metrics and performance numbers. These activities take a lot of time and as a result, are not always performed completely or in a timely manner to help optimally impact center and agent performance.

Further, because dissemination of key information to agents is often left to supervisors, supervisors can become a bottleneck to communication. We observed that this type of information integration and resulting bottleneck places a huge strain on the supervisor and seems to lessen the active participation and accountability of agents in their own performance.

5. Agents generally do not always have timely access to information regarding their performance, and also do not always receive information necessary to do their improve performance in a timely manner.

Many participants pointed out that agents do not have direct access to some of the information for which they are accountable. In some cases, we noted that supervisors printed and distributed daily reports to the agents, dropping them in chairs, posting on the supervisor wall, etc. In centers where this was prevalent, we often heard supervisors express a belief that agents could and should be assuming more accountability for their own performance. In the absence of optimal information flow, the agents had to rely heavily on supervisors to point out and help with any performance issues.

6. Coaching is not typically a metric in the call center.

In the call center, what gets measured gets done. Supervisors and managers are metric-driven and will adjust their actions as necessary to hit performance goals that are top-of-mind. In the seven centers we visited, we did not see any metrics around coaching. This lack of coaching metrics may be a primary reason for why more coaching does not happen.

At the same time, it is surprising that given the amount of verbal attention around the topic of coaching, it is not yet a metric in the call center. We did not see any attempts to measure how many coaching interactions happen on a daily basis, what topics are being coached, or if the coaching was effective. Considering the metric driven nature of call center performance, it is not surprising that coaching is often dropped to the bottom of the supervisor “to do” list.


45


��

7. There is great variability regarding the clarity of coaching roles and coaching processes.

We first observed this through the Pre-Focus Group survey in which 60% of executives perceived their centers did not have a clearly defined coaching role and 20% had no opinion on this question. Additionally, 40% of executives perceived that their center did not have a clear coaching process for supervisors to follow and 20% had no opinion on this question. Supervisor responses varied tremendously on both of these questions and ranged fairly equally between strongly agree to strongly disagree.

This finding was further highlighted during the various Focus Group activities in which we observed great variability in how coaching was done and when coaching was delivered. For example, in the same team and coaching to the identical event, we observed supervisors taking drastically different coaching approaches that varied from sending an e-mail, to a coaching “fly-by”, to a scheduled coaching session.

We also observed variability in timing of coaching delivery. For example, one team member would coach immediately while another team member would wait up to two weeks before coaching on the same topic.

8. There is little consistency or formal methodology in the way that supervisors follow-up on coaching activities.

We observed that supervisors generally rely on memory, paper notes, or spreadsheets to track required follow-up actions including tracking the effectiveness of the coaching interaction. This was uncovered in the group exercises in which participants were asked to identify the preparation, delivery and follow-up for specific coaching activities. Each group and even each supervisor had a slightly different method for handling the interaction, and there was no method mentioned for tracking the interaction for subsequent follow-up.

One center had an on-line coaching log and one used large binders to keep up with coaching notes. In both cases, the methods were manually intensive and provided insight only for supervisors.

9. Managers have little visibility regarding what coaching is taking place in the call center, and how that activity is impacting agent performance.

Our research indicates that executives place a high value on coaching as a performance enhancing activity for the supervisor, agent and the business. Conversely, we also observed that these executives have little to no visibility into what coaching is happening, why it is happening, how often it happens, and what impact it is having. During all of our debrief sessions with call center executives, this was the most asked question, “How can I get visibility into coaching in my center?”


46


10. Executives, managers and supervisors all agree that more coaching would have a positive impact on performance.

We observed a very strong consensus of opinion on this topic during the on-site Focus Groups. Almost every participant expressed a belief that coaching makes a huge difference in performance.

For example, during one particular Focus Group activity, we asked participants to identify their key activities each day and the impact that activity had on the business. Coaching was consistently rated as the highest impact activity.

11. There appears to be little or no distinction between managing and coaching in the call center.

We intentionally did not supply a definition of coaching or a distinction between coaching and managing for the Focus Groups. Rather, we let the groups draw their own conclusions and express coaching in any way that made sense to their business. As a result of this, we observed that the supervisors perceive any interaction with an agent as coaching. They did not seem to draw a distinction between coaching and managing. As a result, the coaching bucket seems large.

12. The coaching that is delivered in the call center is generally targeted toward low performers, while mid and higher level performers receive little or no coaching.

We observed that the 80/20 rule is definitely in place in the call center. Up to 80% of supervisor’s coaching time is spent with low performers on punitive issues. While this is not a surprising key finding, it does indicate what is not being done and how much is yet to be leveraged. It also raises questions like – “What is happening to these mid and high performers?” and “How much could center performance improve with dedicated coaching time spent with the mid and high level performers?”

�� !��"

#��


47


13. There are no documented ROI analyses on coaching

We observed a strong belief that coaching helps improve the performance of agents, of supervisors and ultimately, positively impacts the business. This belief was evident from the answers to the Pre-Focus Group Surveys, comments captured during the Focus Groups, and was consistent across both the supervisor and management participants. At the same time, we did not see any documented ROI analysis on the value that coaching delivers. Nor did we hear anyone asking for such documentation. This could be for a variety of reasons including:

- The “value” of coaching seems to be such a fundamental belief that no one seems compelled to validate that value.

- There may be the belief that coaching cannot be measured in such a way as to create an ROI analysis.


48


�

��

14. Supervisors are extremely self-confident in their coaching skills yet most executives feel that supervisors need further skill development.

Virtually every supervisor in this study said they had all the required skills to be a supervisor and were very comfortable coaching. They expressed this both in the Pre-Focus Group survey and then again during the Focus Groups sessions. Ironically, 75% of executives disagreed and indicated that supervisors needed to further develop their coaching skills.

15. Although nearly every supervisor participant saw the value of coaching, very few supervisors said they needed coaching themselves.

Despite a consistent belief in the value of coaching, we observed that supervisors receive little coaching themselves. Most participants during the Focus Group sessions indicated they received less than one hour per week of coaching from their managers, and there were no indications of a desire for more attention. As one supervisor stated:

“My manager lets me know if something needs improvement. I like the fact that they seem to trust me.”


In contrast, executives perceived that supervisors were receiving considerably more coaching than what was actually occurring and seemed to place high value on the coaching of supervisors.

16. Supervisors have a genuine desire to develop their team members and are frustrated that they do not have enough time to do so despite working long hours and weekends.

The commitment to developing team members was evident in every Focus Group Session. Supervisor participants were asked “What do you like most about your job?” Every response was around developing team members and watching them grow. At the same time, the participants’ biggest frustration was not having enough time to do so.


49


17. Supervisors seem to believe that most agents can handle more accountability for their performance, but only if given the appropriate environment.

This key finding emerged as supervisors were discussing the issue of the agents relying too much on the supervisors for guidance. This reliance was created by the current processes and data flows that form the center operating environment. The result is many supervisors indicated that agents do not have enough timely information and skills to be fully accountable. At the same time, the supervisors expressed a strong belief that their agents wanted more accountability, could accept more accountability and this would make a big impact on center performance.

“Make the agent more responsible for their performance and they will have to take responsibility for their behavior. Now they wait on us to tell them what to do.”


One call center executive noted that this kind of responsibility is the first step towards “professionalizing” the role of the call center agent.

18. Although executives claim to see the value of coaching, supervisors are rarely trained to be managers or coaches.

During Coachpalooza ’05, we found that only 2 centers actually had any formal training on how to be an effective coach. The majority of the centers we visited used an “on-the-job” approach in which new supervisors would shadow more tenured peers. We observed some friction between new and tenured supervisors solely based on time constraints. When asked more detailed questions around how much shadowing was actually done, the answer was “very little”.

Because few supervisors have been trained on how to manage or coach personnel, they are left to draw on personal experience. Ironically, previous experience has proven to have little value, as most supervisors were top-performing agents and thus received little coaching prior to promotion.


50


�� !��"��#�� $�

As this paper has indicated, there are a number of environmental, cultural, and technology driven inhibitors that reduce the amount and frequency of coaching as well as obscure its effectiveness when delivered. We generally observed that coaching is an activity that falls squarely on the shoulders of supervisors alone with little regard to helping the supervisor juggle all the day to day realities of their job. The following graphic, “Call Center Coaching Today” illustrates the situation.


51


Based on our extensive research and findings from Coachpalooza ’05, a model emerged that addresses these inadequacies and provides the structure for a multi-dimensional approach to ensure coaching delivers the value “promised” to the agent, the customer, and to the business.

We call it the Value-Driven Coaching Model for the Call Center™. Our research clearly indicates a strong belief in the value of coaching and the strong impact it can make on the business. At the same time, we saw little action behind the words. This model recognizes and enables the value coaching can bring. Our expectation is that with the right structure, call centers can begin to put coaching into action to its maximum effectiveness. Based on our Key Findings, this model addresses four dimensions for creating coaching value.


52


The following set of questions can be used to help you apply the model to your coaching environment.

�

/�-��1��

�� Are you challenged with finding time to deliver coaching?

�� Are you challenged with finding time for agents to receive coaching?

�� Do you have too many time delays in delivering coaching?

�� Does this impact the effectiveness of the coaching that gets delivered?

/�-��2��"��

1. Make time for supervisors to coach.

Supervisors desperately want to coach, agents want to be coached, and everyone agrees that coaching is a high value activity. Companies must clear away the “noise” that prevents supervisors from spending more time with their agents. For example, either automate or re-evaluate the need for the administrative tasks they perform and the “special projects” on which they work.

2. Make time for agents to receive coaching.

Even if supervisors have the time available to coach, it won’t matter if agents can’t take a few minutes to be coached. Companies need to find time for agents to be coached.

3. To optimize the coaching that does occur, deliver it as close as possible to the “most coach-able moment.”

The more time elapses from an event, the less effective coaching becomes. To minimize the time gaps, coaches need to know about triggering events as soon as possible. And they need to act on this information as soon as possible.


53


�� -"�� 1��

�� Are your supervisors on “information overload”?

�� Is the information they work with timely and relevant?

�� Have you established coaching metrics?

�� Are these coaching metrics tracked and monitored?

�� -"�� 2��"��

4. Clean up the data clutter to free up more time for coaching.

Take a hard look at what supervisors are doing to compile and distribute data. Much of the information may be easily re-packaged to reduce time required. Other information’s useful life may have passed and it is no longer relevant, so confirm with the appropriate stakeholders that the information is still needed.

5. Provide call center coaches with timely and relevant information that helps them make decisions that improve performance.

If a metric is real-time or almost real-time, the information required to coach that metric should be available real-time. Determine the information that supervisors need and the timeliness with which they need it, then match the delivery to the need.

6. Make coaching a metric.

What gets measured gets done. Implement a tracking and monitoring program for coaching activities. Call centers run off metrics, so if there is not a metric established for an activity, it automatically slips down the priority list. By establishing methods to measure coaching and institutionalizing those metrics, centers will see a rise in coaching.

�


54


�� 1��

�� Do you have a clearly defined coaching process for all metrics – both traditional (ex. AHT) and non-traditional (ex. revenue)?

�� Have you clearly defined the role of the coach in your center?

�� What other work processes will need to change based on a value-driven coaching process?

�� 2��"��

7. Formalize and institutionalize Coaching Best Practices.

The entire team can benefit by documenting and sharing best practices learned over time. To do so, follow these steps:

�� Review all of your current coaching practices.

�� Look for what is formal and company mandated versus informal and dependent upon the experience of the individual supervisor.

�� Create, document and communicate a complete set of coaching best practices.

�� Ensure that your coaches are skilled enough to work with these best practices.

8. Use technology to help institutionalize coaching best practices and the associated tracking and monitoring of coaching metrics.

Just as knowledge bases and job aids are used to capture the best practices for product and customer issues, technology can be leveraged to institutionalize coaching as well. By building a set of best practices to specific situations, the knowledge gained with each experience is leveraged throughout the coaching team.

Tracking coaching brings visibility to the topic and sends the message that it is a key activity in your center. By implementing a technology solution to track coaching, you will reduce the manual effort required by supervisors and create a solution that can be shared by the entire center.


55


9. Define the difference between managing and coaching.

We intentionally did not supply a definition of coaching or a distinction between coaching and managing for the Focus Groups. Rather, we let the groups draw their own conclusions and express coaching in any way that made sense to their business. As a result of this, we observed that the supervisors perceive any interaction with an agent is coaching. They did not seem to draw a distinction between coaching and managing. As a result, the coaching bucket seems very large.

As a company defines all of their coaching best practices as stated above, the natural difference between coaching and managing should become apparent.


56


�� 1��

�� Are your supervisors prepared to coach?

�� Are your supervisors and agents ready for a new coaching relationship?

�� Are your agents ready for a new level of accountability and responsibility?

�� Are your supervisors ready for a new level of accountability and responsibility?

�

�� 2��"��

10. Supervisors need training even if they don’t think they do.

The executives in our survey indicated supervisors had more to learn about coaching, and they are correct. Supervisors need training on how to be a complete coach including expanding their skills to include coaching on less traditional metrics like revenue, customer loyalty and career goals.

11. Create shared accountability for agent performance.

Supervisors believe that good coaching creates shared accountability for agent performance. Create programs that allow agents to take a more aggressive role in their own performance improvement. Provide the supporting information and processes to empower them to take responsibility for their own performance. Then provide them time to be coached when needed.


57


"��

Our research indicates that most call center executives agree that coaching is a high value activity, yet few agree that coaching is happening at the rate or level of effectiveness they need for their business.

So, why isn’t coaching happening – as much or as effectively – as it should?

While the Knowlagent team did not begin Coachpalooza ’05 with the specific intent of answering this question, it emerged as THE significant and pervasive issue. During the course of all of our interviews and the follow-up with each company to present their Key Findings, this was the question everyone wanted answered. At the most basic level, our research indicates that many companies are addressing the complex, multi-dimensional issue of coaching with a simple, one dimensional approach and are achieving less than desired results.

Our research indicates that unless supervisors are provided with the appropriate supporting environment to find time and are empowered to prioritize coaching, the amount and effectiveness of coaching in the call center will continue to lag. Additionally, until coaching becomes a metric that is tracked, monitored and coached-to like AHT, adherence, quality, revenue, etc, it will be pushed to the bottom of the “to do” list.

11/10/2005 58

�

�

%&��

Knowlagent is an innovative software company with a strategic solution that drives revenue and customer loyalty initiatives in forward-thinking call centers.

Our clients believe coaching is one of the critical elements to this kind of success and turn to us for solutions that include tools and methodologies to build and sustain a multi-dimensional coaching environment.

• Knowlagent gives your call center management visibility into what is really happening with coaching in your business.

• Knowlagent “finds time” for coaching to occur allowing your center to experience more coaching interactions.

• Knowlagent empowers the supervisor to become a better coach with real-time information, coaching prescriptions and performance tracking and trending.

• Knowlagent empowers the agent to take responsibility and accountability for their performance.

For more information about the wide variety of solutions Knowlagent provides to the call center, including coaching, visit us at www.knowlagent.com or call 1-888-566-9457.

3157 Royal Drive, Suite 100 Alpharetta, GA 30022 888-566-9457 www.knowlagent.com

3157 Royal Drive, Suite 100 Alpharetta, GA 30022 888-566-9457 www.knowlagent.com

coachpalooza summary report

Business