Supervisor Objectivity In Monitoring

[cjw17]

I run the quality assurance function in a 100 CSR call center. I have limited dedicated resources to do the monitoring. However it is critical the evaluations be objective, particularly since CSRs receive, as part of their compensation package, a quarterly incentive payment which is based on their monitoring scores my group provides, and a few other productivity, aht, etc metrics.
A proposal is on the table right now to allow the supervisors to perform 1/2 of the monitoring which is used for the quarterly incentive. My group would be responsible for administering the quality assurance function. We would schedule out the sessions so that CSRs receive feedback regularly (rather than all bunched together), and we would be responsible for calibration. I want to pursue this, but I've been managing in call centers for many years, and I've seen many supervisors who have great difficulty being objective, and will in fact "overlook" bad calls.
Any suggestions out there to insure that call selection is objective? Also, how do you conduct your calibration meetings?

[pmcwilliams]

I am the QA Manager of our call center and we do monitoring also.
However, the Quality Assurance department does the monitoring for evaluations. The supervisors also do monitoring but they use the same evaluation forms as do the monitors. On the evaluation forms are questions that are answered as either yes or no. There are no gray areas. Either the CSR did or did not do as is required from the client. Of course being that we have both Inbound and Outbound calls the evaluations are different for each department but they still go by what the client wishes as far as scripting goes.
in no way can a bad call be overlooked.

[tomriver]

I agree - objectivity is ensured by narrow margins. When I created our monitoring system, I created a list of criteria and made sure the scoring was 'tight' to ensure objectivity:
0 = wasnt done at all
1 = was done, but sloppily, or too late in the conversation, or
someother 'below standards' way
2 = was done as expected
3 = was done, and done in a way that brings added value to the conversation.


By using a score of 1-3 instead of 1-10 (for example), there is less of a chance of inconsistency with scoring. In my eyes, you either did it, did it really well, did it poorly, or didnt do it at all...

[RickB]

Interesting thoughts by all, here are a few of mine to add to the stew:

Not meaning to sound negative, but I would suppose that your supervisors are rated in some form or other by the performance of their associates. That being the case, the temptation (motivation?) for inflating scores would be great. Such situations (i.e. using QM as incentive rather than as a coaching tool) are only exacerbated when you ask those responsible for the performance gains to do the evaluations.

As the old axiom goes (twisted a bit) - "If you measure it you will get the results - valid or not."

By the way, I know this doesn't address the political side of your question. If you agree with any of the above you might want to defer to some of Dr. W. E. Deming's thoughts on the topic ("Out of the Crisis" is a must read) to sway sr. mgt.

Best Regards,

Rick

[sfallon]

I was a Supervisor for a number of years and had to complete montiers as well. I agree with the last post to avoid gray areas. I also feel that calabration sessions with QA and Supervisors are very helpful to get everyone on the same page