Coachpalooza Summary Report: Call Center Coaching Benchmark

’05 all Center Focus Group Series

y Report

Coachpalooza A C Summar

A Coaching Report from Knowlagent By: Debbie Qaqish and Dwight Lucas

Fall 2005

Dr iv ing value at the front l ine of business.

Fall 2005 ©Knowlagent. All rights reserved. 2

2

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

cument 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.

Knowlagent® is

used in this do



3

Table of Contents Overview ...........................................................................................................................4

....................4

Sections of this report ......................................................................................................5 6

I. Coaching Attitudes....................................................................................................7

Coaching Metrics .................................................................................................... 12

.................. 20

. .................. 22

.................. 23

VI. Key Performance Indicators.................................................................................. 30

36 Section II: Key Findings from Coachpalooza ‘05 .................................................................... 40

.................. 40

.................. 42

.................. 42

Information............................................................................................................... 44

Process..................................................................................................................... 45

.................. 48 50

.................. 52

.................. 52

.................. 53

53

Process Questions.......................................................................................................... 54

Process Best Practices .................................................................................................... 54

People Questions ........................................................................................................... 56

People Best Practices...................................................................................................... 56 Conclusion........................................................................................................................ 57

Methodology ...............................................................................................

Section I: Pre-Focus Group Surveys ......................................................................................

II.

III. What Gets Coached...........................................................................

IV Coaching Follow-up ...........................................................................

V. Coaching Resources ..........................................................................

VII. Coachpalooza ’05 Demographics ...........................................................................

Key Findings at a Glance...............................................................................

Key Findings Detail ......................................................................................

Time ......................................................................................................

People ....................................................................................................

Section III: The Value-Driven Coaching Model™....................................................................

Time Questions ...........................................................................................

Time Best Practices......................................................................................

Information Questions ..................................................................................

Information Best Practices ..............................................................................................



4

Overview

“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 coin the call center. The best centers know this, and are attempt

mpany goals ing to develop coaching

truggling with how nt.

d the call center coaching environment, Knowlagent conducted Coachpalooza ’05, a Focus Group series with seven large call center groups that

This strategic initiative allowed

g in the dynamic call center environment

d leading companies from a variety of industries including financial services, insurance, retail, telecom, and travel, with agent populations ranging from 450 to 12,000.

05 Summary Report is the compilation of data and insights gathered

ather quantitative

pervisors

upervisor 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.

models, tools and initiatives to drive coaching, yet even the best are sto deliver enough quality coaching in the unique call center environme

To better understan

included 53 supervisor and manager level participants.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 coachin

Participants in the Focus Group series include

This Coachpalooza ’from all activities associated with these Focus Groups.

Methodology

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

• Pre-Focus Group Surveys administered online for executives and su

• On-site, ½ day S



5

Sections of this report

Section I: Pre-Focus Group Surveys

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

coaching

ing

s

or responses

II: Key Findings

ings Section is based on all information from all sources and the findings rized into four distinct groupings:

nded Best Practices

y 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.

indication of the coa

• attitudes towards

• metrics of coach

• what is being coached

• coaching resource

• similarities and differences between executive response and supervis

Section

The Key Findare catego

• Time

• Information

• Process

• People

Section III: The Value-Driven Coaching Model & Recomme

All call centers in the Coachpalooza ’05 event say the



6

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 surveys looked for:

coaching

visor responses

-site Focus

ugh there were a few questions ding two

swered 31 er headcount

sors.

ptures the responses to each question for each group and ties or differences in each group’s set of responses.

responses from the Pre-Focus Group Surveys:

es

4. Coaching Follow Up

5. Coaching Resources

6. Key Performance Indicators

7. Coachpalooza ’05 Demographics

• attitudes towards

• metrics of coaching

• what is being coached

• coaching resources

• similarities and differences between executive response and super

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

The surveys for each group were almost identical, althothat were unique to each group. Supervisors answered 30 questions incluquestions regarding experience that executives did not. Executives anquestions, including 3 questions not asked of supervisors regarding centand company perception regarding the coaching of supervi

The following section cadiscusses the similari

There are 7 sections of

1. Coaching Attitud

2. Coaching Metrics

3. What Gets Coached



7

I. Coaching Attitudes

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

SupervisorsExecutives



8

2. My company understands the value of coaching supervisors

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

(Executive Responses)

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





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





11

5. Supervisors are comfortable coaching

Supervisors indicated they are comfortable coaching, but executivexpress the same belief. The large majority (93%) of supervisors indiwere comfortable coaching, but only 50% of executives stated thei

es did not cated they

r 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





12

II. Coaching Metrics

1. On average, how much time is spent coaching each ag

Both executives and supervisors believe that agents receive a smacoaching on a daily basis. Only 22% of supervisors indicated tagent more than 20 minutes per day. In contrast,

ent per day?

ll amount of hat they coach each

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

ved in overall eived that

isors 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.

coaching activities per day?

Supervisors appear to spend a small percentage of their day involcoaching activities. While 20% of executive respondents percsuperv

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 m

inutes

11-20

minu

tes

21-30

minu

tes

31-60

minu

tes

1-2 ho

urs

3-4 ho

urs

Supervisors Executives



14

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

e value of eive little on-going coaching.

of supervisors

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

monthly basis?

Despite a consistent and strong belief that companies understand thcoaching in general, most supervisors said they recThe dispersion of responses on this topic was quite varied, but 57%stated they receive less than one hour 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 m

inutes

31-60

minu

tes

61-12

0 minu

tes

121-2

40 m

inutes

>240

minu

tesVari

es

Supervisors

Executives



15

4. On average, how much time do supervisors spend each day

utes per day of executives who

ated that supervisors spend less than 30 minutes on prep time each day. This finding further substantiates that coaching typically occurs in an informal manner.

preparing for a coaching event?

The overwhelming majority of supervisors spend less than 60 minpreparing for all coaching activity. This was supported by 100% indic

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




16

5. On average, how much time do your supervisors spend each day

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

conferring with peers on coaching?

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




17

6. Please indicate the percentage of total coaching devotecoaching (improving performance,

d to positive congratulations, career growth,

of their at supervisors spend

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.

etc.)

A slight majority (52%) of supervisors said they spend 60% or more coaching time on positive coaching. Executives perceived thless time than they indicated on this topic, with

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




18

7. Please indicate the percentage of total coaching devoted to negative etc.)

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

coaching (attendance, compliance, low motivation,

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




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





20

III. What Gets Coached

1. What are the events that trigger coaching in your cent

The following list represents the top ten events that trigger coaching center. Responses are listed in order of those that occur most fthat occur less frequently in the Pre-Focus Group Surveys.

er?

in the call requently to those

Unsatisfactory metrics, low attendance, and poor quality scores are the top three events that trigger

n the call center.

ics were listed most frequently in this

sfactory Quality Scores trigger coaching in the call center

any ation to agents and answering various questions and requests

procedures and

includes a variety of negative behavioral issues ng poor customer interaction, morale and lack of motivation

e 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

coaching i

• Metrics

s per hour, AHT and statisto Callcategory

• Attendance o Poor attendance and tardiness issues

• Quality Scores Unsatio

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

informfrom agents

• ompliance Co This category includes non-compliance with company

guidelines or departmental standards and goals avior Issues • Beho This category

includi• Performanc



21

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

d below. The responses are listed in order of those that occur uently in the Pre-Focus Group

is category includes reviewing reports

ck is received from

o team does not meet monthly goals • Call Escalations

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

opportunities?

According to executives, the top 3-5 events that trigger supervisor coaching opportunities are listemos ret f quently to those that occur less freqSurveys: • Call Monitoring

o Th• Feedback

o Supervisors are coached when negative feedbaagents

nce • Performa Coaching occurs when a



22

IV. Coaching Follow-up

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

Several methods of follow-up were identified during the Pre-Focuhe he follow-up varied from daily to monthly, and w

ions

s Group Surveys. as nearly always

he following represents how ollow-up with coaching interactions:

-on-one ching and follow-up regarding progress

• Review goals with agent and follow-up • Verbally • Written Log Review

T timing of tmanually tracked and managed by supervisors. Tmost supervisors indicated that they f

• One• Continual coa



23

V. Coaching Resources

1. Which of the following do supervisors regularly consult prior to a

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

coaching activity? Choose all that apply.

Supervisors stated they rely

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

Superv

isor's

Man

ager

Manage

rs ou

tside

the g

roup

Human Res

ource

s

Training/D

evelo

pmen

t

Quality

Mon

itorin

gOthe

r




24

2. In reference to the previous question, which of these resources do

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

supervisors use most frequently?

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

Superv

isor's

Man

ager

Manage

rs ou

tside

the g

roup

Human Res

ource

s

Training/D

evelo

pmen

t

Quality

Mon

itorin

gOthe

r




25

3. My company has a clear coaching process for supervis

There w

ors

ere 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





26

4. My company has a dedicated program for training supervisors on

es have , respondents there was a

rs believed a program existed. Of the seven centers we visited as part of this research, only 2 had a formal program for training coaches.

how to be an effective coach

There were a wide range of responses regarding whether companidedicated programs to train coaches. Even within the same companywere widely varied on this topic. Executives were split as to whether program, and only 44% of superviso

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





27

5. My company has a clearly defined coaching role

There were a wide range of responses regarding whether companieclearly defined coach role. Responses to this topic we

s have a re 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





28

6. Supervisors have all the right tools to be an effect

Most supervisors indicated that they have all the right tools to coach,executiv

ive coach

but es 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





29

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

Supervisors said they have the right skills to be an effective coachdisagreed. The overwhelming majority of supervisors (87%) statright skills to

ch

, but executives ed they had all the

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





30

VI. Key Performance Indicators

tives did not nce 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.

1. What are the KPIs for your call center?

It was interesting to observe that supervisors and call center execualways agree on the Key Performa

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




31

2. Please rate your performance against First Call Resolu

There appears to be confusion regarding this metric. The majo

tion metrics

rity 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




32

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.

3. Please rate your performance against AHT metrics

The majority of executives indicate that they are not meeting

Rate your performance: AHT

19%

38%

11%

32%

60%

40%

0% 0%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%





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%





34

metrics

jority 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.

Please rate your performance against Customer Retention

The ma

Rate your performance: Customer Retention

62%

8%

20% 20% 20%

40%

3%

27%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%





35

trics

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

Please rate your performance against Quality Score me

Rate your performance: Quality Scores

49%

0%

40%

60%

0% 0%

24%27%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%





36

)

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.

VII. Coachpalooza ’05 Demographics

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

Coachpalooza participants were top performers in their companies

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

How long were you an agent before becoming a supervisor?

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

(Supervisors only)

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

2. How many supervisors are in your call center? (Executive responses

oachpalooza ’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.

only)

The C

How many Supervisors are in your call center?

11

26

35

15



39

3. How many agents are in your call center? (Executive resp

The C

onses only)

oachpalooza ’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

Section II: Key Findings from Coachpalooza ‘05

dings from Coachpalooza ’05 fall into four primary categories:

• Process • People

time on activities that do not directly interact with agents such as report compilation, data analysis,

oaching.

time lag between the event that triggers a coaching activity and the opportunity metimes up to one month, which reduces the

effectiveness of the coaching when delivered.

s.”

mation regarding their

Process

aching roles and coaching

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.

Key Findings at a Glance

The 18 Keye Fin

• Tim• Information

Time

1. Supervisors as a whole spend a tremendous amount of

administrative functions, and special projects that leave little time for c

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

3. Theto deliver coaching is often long, so

Information

4. Supervisors act as “information integrator

5. Agents generally do not always have timely access to inforperformance, 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.

7. There is great variability regarding the clarity of coprocesses.

8. There is little consistency or formal



41

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

rmers receive little or no coaching.

There are no documented ROI analyses on coaching

most r skill development.

ing, very few

and are despite working long hours

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.

call center.

12. The coaching that is delivered in the call center is generally targeted toward low performers, while mid and higher level perfo

13.

People

14. Supervisors are extremely self-confident in their coaching skills yetexecutives feel that supervisors need furthe

15. Although nearly every supervisor participant saw the value of coachsupervisors said they needed coaching themselves.

16. Supervisors have a genuine desire to develop their team members frustrated that they do not have enough time to do soand weekends.

17. Supervisors seem to believe



42

Key Findings Detail

e on activities that directly interact with agents such as report compilation, data analysis,

ime for

or comments s that do not

tion, data analysis, for coaching. It

administrative hats

jor source of nts and the coaches, but especially the coaches. For

ts work long hours and s. One

overwhelmed

2 nts.

nd more time ps to improve

activities that the ustration 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.

Time

1. Supervisors as a whole spend a tremendous amount of timdo notadministrative functions, and special projects that leave little tcoaching.

With every Focus Group we facilitated, we discerned from supervisthat they appear to spend a tremendous amount of time on activitiedirectly interact with agents such as report compilaadministrative functions, and special projects that leave little timeappears that the supervisor role encompasses many different making it difficult for them to find time for their coaching role.

This “administrative clutter” we observed in all the centers is a mastress for both the ageexample, we noted that many of the Focus Group participanweekends on a regular basis attempting to cover all of their obligationparticipant stated they do not take vacation because they are too with work upon their return.

. Every supervisor expressed a desire for more time to coach age

The good news is that supervisors actually want to be able to specoaching agents! We observed a firmly held belief that coaching helperformance and that coaching was one of the highest impactsupervisor could do. We also observed a high degree of fr



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,

ered.

tween the hat the ue to lack of re due to low

ritization of agent coaching. For example, many supervisors admitted to using Sundays to catch up on quality monitoring calls, which calls into question the

d the opportunity to

which reduces the effectiveness of the coaching when deliv

Supervisors consistently reported that significant time may pass beoccurrence of an agent action that requires coaching, and the time tsupervisor delivers the coaching required. In some cases this was dtimely information such as performance reports, but some cases weprio

effectiveness of monitoring given the gap between the call ancoach.

“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

Information

4. Supervisors act as “information integrators.”

Each day supervisors are deluged with data and charged with filteriappropriate information to make decisions for how to effectively macoach their teams. Many participants said they had to manipulate,out reports to he

ng the nage and

print and hand-lp the team and individual agents view metrics and performance

numbers. These activities take a lot of time and as a result, are not always mpact center and

left to supervisors, supervisors can become a bottleneck to communication. We

neck places a ipation and

ance.

n regarding necessary to

me of the ted that

aily reports to the agents, dropping them in centers where this was prevalent, we

often heard supervisors express a belief that agents could and should be ence of optimal

oint out and

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

managers are rmance goals

any metrics 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.

performed completely or in a timely manner to help optimally iagent performance.

Further, because dissemination of key information to agents is often

observed that this type of information integration and resulting bottlehuge strain on the supervisor and seems to lessen the active particaccountability of agents in their own perform

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

Many participants pointed out that agents do not have direct access to soinformation for which they are accountable. In some cases, we nosupervisors printed and distributed dchairs, posting on the supervisor wall, etc. In

assuming more accountability for their own performance. In the absinformation flow, the agents had to rely heavily on supervisors to phelp with any performance issues.

In the call center, what gets measured gets done. Supervisors andmetric-driven and will adjust their actions as necessary to hit perfothat are top-of-mind. In the seven centers we visited, we did not see around coaching. This lack of coaching metrics may be a primary reason



45

Process

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

h 60% of oaching role and

utives perceived rvisors to follow

stion. Supervisor responses varied between

up activities in d when coaching

nd coaching to the identical event, ches that

d coaching

ple, one team while another team member would wait up to

8

notes, or acking the

group , delivery and

aching activities. Each group and even each supervisor was no

ders to keep up with e and provided

9 g place in the enter, 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?”

processes.

We first observed this through the Pre-Focus Group survey in whicexecutives perceived their centers did not have a clearly defined c20% had no opinion on this question. Additionally, 40% of execthat their center did not have a clear coaching process for supeand 20% had no opinion on this quetremendously on both of these questions and ranged fairly equallystrongly agree to strongly disagree.

This finding was further highlighted during the various Focus Growhich we observed great variability in how coaching was done anwas delivered. For example, in the same team awe observed supervisors taking drastically different coaching approavaried from sending an e-mail, to a coaching “fly-by,” to a schedulesession.

We also observed variability in timing of coaching delivery. For exammember would coach immediately two weeks before coaching on the same topic.

. 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, paperspreadsheets to track required follow-up actions including treffectiveness of the coaching interaction. This was uncovered in the exercises in which participants were asked to identify the preparationfollow-up for specific cohad a slightly different method for handling the interaction, and theremethod mentioned for tracking the interaction for subsequent follow-up.

One center had an online coaching log and one used large bincoaching notes. In both cases, the methods were manually intensivinsight only for supervisors.

. Managers have little visibility regarding what coaching is takincall c



46

10. Executives, managers and supervisors all agree that more coaching would

g consensus of opinion on this topic during the on-site g makes a

on the aching was consistently rated as the highest impact activity.

1 and coaching

ction between roups draw

their own conclusions and express coaching in any way that made sense to their ive any

a distinction n coaching and managing. As a result, the coaching bucket seems large.

1 d toward little or no

p to 80% of supervisors’ coaching time is spent with low performers on punitive issues.

t is not being done tions like – “What is

high performers?” and “How much could center performance improve with dedicated coaching time spent with the mid and high level performers?”

have a positive impact on performance.

We observed a very stronFocus Groups. Almost every participant expressed a belief that coachinhuge 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 hadbusiness. Co

1. There appears to be little or no distinction between managingin the call center.

We intentionally did not supply a definition of coaching or a distincoaching and managing for the Focus Groups. Rather, we let the g

business. As a result of this, we observed that the supervisors perceinteraction with an agent as coaching. They did not seem to drawbetwee

2. The coaching that is delivered in the call center is generally targetelow performers, while mid and higher level performers receivecoaching.

We observed that the 80/20 rule is definitely in place in the call center. U

While this is not a surprising key finding, it does indicate whaand how much is yet to be leveraged. It also raises queshappening to these mid and

“The time we do have to coach has to go to low performers.”




47

13. There are no documented ROI analyses on coaching.

We observed a strong belief that coaching helps improve the pagents, of supervisors and ultimately, positively impacts the businesswas evident from the answers to the Pre-Focus Group Surveys, comcaptured during the Focus Groups, and was consistent across both and management participants. At the same time, we did not see any documented

erformance of . This belief ments

the supervisor

yone asking or a variety of reasons including:

lief that no one alidate that value.

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

ROI analysis on the value that coaching delivers. Nor did we hear anfor such documentation. This could be f

- The “value” of coaching seems to be such a fundamental beseems compelled to v



48

People

14. Supervisors are extremely self-confident in their coaching skills yet most .

skills to be a h in the

Pre-Focus Group survey and then again during the Focus Groups sessions. s needed to

1 oaching, very

tent belief in the value of coaching, we observed that supervisors receive little coaching themselves. Most participants during the Focus Group

from re attention. As

executives feel that supervisors need further skill development

Virtually every supervisor in this study said they had all the requiredsupervisor and were very comfortable coaching. They expressed this bot

Ironically, 75% of executives disagreed and indicated that supervisorfurther develop their coaching skills.

5. Although nearly every supervisor participant saw the value of cfew supervisors said they needed coaching themselves.

Despite a consis

sessions indicated they received less than one hour per week of coaching their managers, and there were no indications of a desire for moone 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

1 bers and are hey 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.

on the coaching of supervisors.

6. Supervisors have a genuine desire to develop their team memfrustrated that t



49

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

f the agents s created by the

nvironment. The e enough timely

n and skills to be fully accountable. At the same time, the supervisors expressed a strong belief that their agents wanted more accountability, could

environment.

This key finding emerged as supervisors were discussing the issue orelying too much on the supervisors for guidance. This reliance wacurrent processes and data flows that form the center operating eresult is many supervisors indicated that agents do not havinformatio

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

1 visors are

lly had any formal centers we visited

shadow more tenured supervisors

d 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.

towards “professionalizing” the role of the call center agent.

8. Although executives claim to see the value of coaching, superrarely trained to be managers or coaches.

During Coachpalooza ’05, we found that only 2 centers actuatraining on how to be an effective coach. The majority of theused an “on-the-job” approach in which new supervisors wouldtenured peers. We observed some friction between new andsolely based on time constraints. When asked more detaile



50

Section III: The Value-Driven Coaching M

As this paper has indicated, there are a number of environmental, culturaltechnology driven inhibitors that reduce the amount and frequency of as obscure its effectiveness when delivered. We generally observedactivity that falls squarely on the shoulders of superv

odel™

, and coaching as well

that coaching is an isors 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 that addresses these inadequacies and provides the structure for a multi-dimensional

model emerged

approach to ensure coaching delivers the value “promised” to the agent, the customer,

act it can words. This

d 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.

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 impmake on the business. At the same time, we saw little action behind themodel recognizes an



52

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

eliver

r agents to coaching?

coaching?

Does this impact the effectiveness of the coaching ed?

Ti

1.

be coached, and everyone agrees that coaching is ust clear away the

uate the need on which they

er if agents can’t gents to be

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.

Time Questions

Are you challenged with finding time to dcoaching?

Are you challenged with finding time foreceive

Do you have too many time delays in delivering

that gets deliver

me Best Practices

Make time for supervisors to coach.

Supervisors desperately want to coach, agents want to a high value activity. Companies m“noise” that prevents supervisors from spending more time with their agents. For example, either automate or re-evalfor the administrative tasks they perform and the “special projects” work.

2. Make time for agents to receive coaching.

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



53

Information Questions

ad?”

timely and relevant?

Are these coaching metrics tracked and monitored?

Information Best Practices

4.

Take a hard look at what supervisors are doing to compile and distribute data. e required. Other

and it is no longer relevant, so confirm d.

5. n that helps make decisions that improve performance.

If a metric is real-time or almost real-time, the information required to coach that vailable real-time. Determine the information that supervisors

very to the

6.

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.

Are your supervisors on “information overlo

Is the information they work with

Have you established coaching metrics?

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

Much of the information may be easily re-packaged to reduce timinformation’s useful life may have passedwith the appropriate stakeholders that the information is still neede

Provide call center coaches with timely and relevant informatiothem

metric should be aneed and the timeliness with which they need it, then match the delineed.

Make coaching a metric.



54

Process Questions

ics – both traditional

r?

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

Process Best Practices

7. oaching Best Practices.

informal and

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

h these best practices.

8. s and the ciated tracking and monitoring of coaching metrics.

practices for tutionalize

est 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.

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

Have you clearly defined the role of the coach in your cente

Formalize and institutionalize C

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 dependent upon the experience of the individual supervisor.

Ensure that your coaches are skilled enough to work wit

Use technology to help institutionalize coaching best practiceasso

Just as knowledge bases and job aids are used to capture the bestproduct and customer issues, technology can be leveraged to insticoaching as well. By building a set of b



55

9.

ion between he groups draw

e sense to their rceive any

eraction with an agent as coaching. They did not seem to draw a distinction et seems very

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

Define the difference between managing and coaching.

We intentionally did not supply a definition of coaching or a distinctcoaching and managing for the Focus Groups. Rather, we let ttheir own conclusions and express coaching in any way that madbusiness. As a result of this, we observed that the supervisors peintbetween coaching and managing. As a result, the coaching bucklarge.



56

People Questions

lationship?

lity?

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

People Best Practices

10

out coaching, and they are correct. Supervisors need training on how to be a complete

de coaching on less traditional

11

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.

Are your supervisors prepared to coach?

Are your supervisors and agents ready for a new coaching re

Are your agents ready for a new level of accountability and responsibi

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

The executives in our survey indicated supervisors had more to learn ab

coach including expanding their skills to inclumetrics like revenue, customer loyalty and career goals.

. Create shared accountability for agent performance.


57

Driv ing value at the front l ine of business.

Conclusion

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

ld?

ific intent of e. During the sent their Key

was the question everyone wanted answered. At the most basic level, our

chieving less than

ppropriate 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.

effectiveness they need for their business.

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

While the Knowlagent team did not begin Coachpalooza ’05 with the specanswering this question, it emerged as THE significant and pervasive issucourse of all of our interviews and the follow-up with each company to preFindings, thisresearch indicates that many companies are addressing the complex, multi-dimensional issue of coaching with a simple, one dimensional approach and are adesired results.

Our research indicates that unless supervisors are provided with the a

9/1/2009 58

About Knowlagent

ement processes, solutions for

tributed to off-phone activities while improving the key metrics that matter most

the amount, frequency and effectiveness of coaching, ultimately improving key

all agent productivity.

lution, you can:

tools to diagnose reate individualized solutions.

aches and agents to nce gaps.

• Dramatically increase the amount, frequency and

coaching.

ervisors and

With Knowlagent, you can optimize frontline performance faster and more affordably than ever before. You can spend less and get better. For more information about Knowlagent Coaching and our other on-demand agent management solutions, visit us at www.knowlagent.com

By automating traditional call center managKnowlagent’s on-demand agent managementtraining, coaching and hiring reduce spending at

to you.

Knowlagent Coaching™ helps you increase

metrics such as sales conversions and over

With Knowlagent’s on-demand Coaching so

• Increase supervisor span of control by as much as 20%.

• Provide supervisors with easy-to-useagent problems and c

• Automatically schedule time for comeet to review performa

effectiveness of coaching.

• Measure the impact and effectiveness of

• Create shared accountability between supagents.

.

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

11800 Amberpark Drive Suite 200 Alpharetta, GA 30009 Main: (678) 356-3500 Toll Free: (888) 566-9457 www.knowlagent.com

Coachpalooza Summary Report: Call Center Coaching Benchmark

Documents

Transcript of Coachpalooza Summary Report: Call Center Coaching Benchmark