10 Considerations for Successful Contact Center Culture Shifts-Part 1

In this series of 3 postings, we will cover 10 considerations for creating successful cultures shifts in support contact centers.  Although not a complete or exhaustive list, it calls attention to areas often overlooked or of critical importance.  These considerations can apply to other types of organizations and contact centers.

These postings will shortly be compiled into a whitepaper available on our website.  If you’d like to receive a FREE copy, please click hereand we’ll email you a copy once compiled, or click here to be notified of updates.

Introduction
Contact Centers form very specific kinds of cultures, which can present challenges not usually seen elsewhere in the organization.  The proactive management of cultures is often avoided because it is seen as a difficult and even dangerous long-term endeavor.  This does not have to be the case, in fact, the proactive management of cultures increases the likelihood of success and is rewarding to all those involved.

Bob Greenberg, CMO of Panasonic, a dear friend and mentor, once said to me: “left alone, disarray and lack of grace always prevails.  If we want to maintain grace and beauty in our systems, we must be involved”.  An example is: A house left alone will deteriorate faster than one that is lived-in and cared for.  For the same reason, we need to nurture cultures over time.  Left alone, the forces of everyday business as well as changes in management and staff can move cultures away from the desired focus.

Through experience, we can list a few guidelines for initial thoughts:

-        Cultures require management ownership
-        Cultures are not the employees.
-        Cultures are usually the effect, not the cause.
-        Cultures cannot be changed; they are either shifted or damaged.
-        Culture shifts cannot be mandated.  Mandate = Damage
-        Cultures must be seen as a labor of love.

We feel very strongly about these factoids forming a foundation for success.  If you disagree, we love your comments.

1. Definition

Although there is room for interpretation, an over-simplified definition of a corporate culture is offered as:

“The  generally accepted norms and values of an organization that result in a behavioral or operational paradigm”

In short, an organization adopts certain norms and values that result in certain consistencies in the way it thinks, feels and acts.

Considering the definition we are tempted to equate “culture” to “workforce”.  But that is an incomplete view.  The culture is not simply the sum of the workforce, but is instead, the result of what can be considered a “chemical” reaction between People, Purpose and Environment.

This interaction results in the set of values and norms that allow us to predict organizational behavior under certain conditions.  To the extent that these norms and values magnify or support the core purpose of the organization, we can say we have a satisfactorily aligned culture.

Let’s cover the components briefly:

People:
As mentioned, the people component is not limited to employees but include all those in the interaction: management, customers, vendors as well as employees.  Some organizational behaviorists may include special external influencers such as labor unions or immediate family.

The importance of managing the people component is obvious, but the reason often eludes us.  We must manage the people component because it is “the people” that set the stage for the purpose, the environment and the chemical reaction and it is in “the people” that the chemical reaction takes place.

People are the most important asset of the culture, nothing happens without people.

Purpose:
In today’s experience economy (“The Experience Economy“, Pine and Gilmore), products and services are no longer considered long-term brand differentiators.  The market differentiators have now become “experiences”.  Experiences are a broader output and are driven by the organization’s intention or purpose.

The purpose of the contact center goes beyond the pragmatic “job” to be done, it reaches for the “WHY” or essence for which the contact center stands. (see “Start with Why”, Sinek)

By aligning our departments, employees, policies, processes, etc., to this “WHY”, we can create consistent and repeatable experiences for our customers across the organization.  A clearly defined purpose simplifies decisions, facilitates empowerment, promotes employee engagement and creates focus.

The purpose defines the culture.

Environment
The environment is the sum of the all other variables creating the conditions for the chemical reaction.  It is comprised of processes, policies, systems, tools, expectations, metrics, etc.  The variables we normally manipulate to improve our performance are most often part of the environment.

In Short
The Purpose defines the Culture, while the People and Environment make it possible.
By managing People, Purpose and Environment we can shift cultures.

Next Posting:

2. Management Ownership
3. Ensuring a Need for a Culture Shift
4. Clarifying the “Purpose”
5. Identifying Needed Cultural Qualities
6. Employee Engagement

Rudy Vidal
Committed to XCL

Average Handle Time – A Good Metric? For Whom?

Two things drive me to a posting on Average Handle Time (AHT).

1. A previous posting on Average Speed of Answer (ASA) remains the most popular posting on the blog, so I thought another Contact Center metric may be welcomed by our visitors.
2. A recent discussion with a group of the Contact Center managers clearly showed AHT to be a point of interest.

Metrics can be a subjective bunch, and as such, definitive answers about their use may be ilusive, so please be ready for some generalizations based mostly on my personal experience – which by no means is definitive.

AHT is an often misunderstood metric because on the surface it looks like a problem to be managed, while if we look deeper, it tends to act more like a symptom.

AHT Definition: The average length of time it take agents to handle a customer, wrap-up and become available for the next customers? (This differs from Average Talk Time (ATT), which excludes wrap-up and other ancillary activities such as research).

The obvious benefit of a short AHT is that agents can take care of more customers in a set time and therefore, less agens are required to handle the incoming load. Expectedly, management, usually upper management, feels very comfortable placing attention on AHT as a way to control the largest cost of a contact center, people. Likewise, many Contact Center managers concentrate on AHT ensuring agent efficiency, at times incenting agents to achieve lower an lower AHT levels.

In my experience, the control-point for AHT is not the agent. In stead, AHT is more directly affected by our ability to provide the appropriate environment, knowledge, tools and expectations.

Here are the areas I believe contribute most to AHT.

Appropriate Staffing Levels
Staffing can become a vicious cycle. “If we had more staff we would not have this problem, but, if we were more efficient we would not need so much staff”. Although this posting is too general to address this important balance, we do know that bad Average Speed of Answer, Service Levels and excessive hold times which are greatly affected by staffing levels, can add 30 to 60 seconds to your AHT. Primarily, in the time it takes to calm down irate customers and the composure time for agent stress. Irate customers have a great effect on agent morale and the efficient flow of the call. It’s amazing how much more efficient we can be when our customers are cooperative and our agents are not stressed out.

Training
It goes without saying that knowledgeable agents have lower AHT than new agents. But technical and product training only take us so far. Our agents must also know how to quickly assess a customer’s needs, troubleshoot and create an interactive flow that is conducive to quick resolution. They must also know when to escalate. An simple analysis of call length within a queue can show us the tipping point of AHT. Passed a certain call length, we can see calls have a higher likelihood of reaching astronomical AHTs. That is the point at which to intervene and ask your agents if they need help. I know of a team that calls this the 12 minute rule – at 12 minutes a lead agent or supervisor would simply ask “need help?”. Less stress for the agent, lower AHT.

Processes
How many screens do your agents need to manage in order to manage an interaction? Do they need to get up from their station and send faxes, pull manuals, etc? Inefficient processes can add considerably to handle time.

Empowerment
An empowered agent is a less stressed agent who knows he/she has some decision-making power to do the right thing for the customer. Less time is spent working towards an unlikely solution while giving the agent more ownership of the outcome and more perceived value as an employee.
Of course, empowerment is not for every agent and requires proper training and clear guidelines, but we would do well to push as much empowerment as possible to the front lines of our customer touch-points. Surprisingly, empowerment can be easier to manage than the policies and processed designed to ensure customer satisfaction through escalations.

Attrition
Attrition is an indicator to most, if not all agent inefficiencies. It is the single most costly event in a contact center, mostly occurring within 90 days of hire and costing up to $8,000 per agent.
When we have high attrition, our average newbie rate on the floor is high, which means knowledge and efficiency is low (just think what happens to your stats -including AHT – when you have a new team nesting? uhgg!).

Also, high attrition floors have more challenges in agent dynamics which make empowerment, quality, and employee participation less likely and more difficult.
Average Handle Time is therefore, greatly affected by our ability to hire and keep the right employees. If you have an attrition rate of more than 50%, don’t worry about AHT. You’ve got bigger problems.

Perhaps most controversial, is the topic of agent relations.
At times, we can enter into contentious cycles with our agent community. Usually driven by frustration in our inability to improve operations, we’ll begin to feel a disconnect and a difficulty sharing the same side of the fence with those who directly manage the customer.

As long as it’s acceptable for us not to share the same side of the fence with our agents, AHT will remain difficult to manage and, unfortunately, we will continue to press the wrong button, expecting different results.  AHT is not a measure of agents approach or willingness to follow direction, but a measure of management’s ability to Train, Hire and Empower.

I believe AHT is not the best indicator of agent efficiency but a greater indicator of management effectiveness.

Rudy Vidal
Committed to XCS!