Monitoring - Performance

Author: CCa2z

Date: 8th October 2004

Although the productivity of typical office workers is measured, it is often in fairly gross and subjective terms such as all the enquiries needing a response have been answered or all the photocopying has been completed.  In comparison, the productivity, both quantity and quality, of call handlers is assessed in a more objective manner by electronic performance monitoring (EPM), an almost universal working practice in call centres.  Monitoring is used as a basis for training, improving customer service and determining performance-related pay.

Quantitative Monitoring: Often referred to as 'stats' by those in the industry, quantitative monitoring is the minute-by-minute collection of quantitative data automatically by computer.  This includes: the percentage of a specified period that a call handler is on the telephone; the average duration of a call handler's calls; and the average time spent in 'wrap up' after a call.  The length of time call handlers are logged off on breaks is also recorded.  The data yielded are analysed to provide statistical information for individual call handlers, for teams and also for the call centre as a whole.  Additional information monitored for the call centre as a whole includes the average length of time a caller has to wait before he or she is put through to a call handler; and the abandonment rate, i.e.  the number of callers who ring off before they are put through to a call handler.

Qualitative Monitoring:  There is also qualitative monitoring.  Team leaders listen to call handlers on the telephone both in real time and also from recordings.  This type of monitoring is done to check that call handlers are giving customers correct information, as  there are legal implications if information is incorrect.  Team leaders also assess whether call handlers have achieved a variety of criteria including whether the call handler follows the script closely, listens to the caller, speaks appropriately, uses their knowledge of the products effectively, and exploits sales opportunities.

Targets: Targets are set for each statistic that call handlers are required to achieve.   For example, some companies aim for their call handlers to be on the telephone for as much as 80% of their shift (despite some industry specialists arguing that 60-70% utilisation is optimal); call duration in some call centres should be no longer than 2 minutes 15 seconds but others are shorter than this; and 'wrap up' (the time after a call to complete the business in connection with that call) should be as fast as possible.  The longer callers have to wait before speaking to a call handler, the higher the probability that they abandon the call before doing so and not give their custom to the company.  Companies, therefore, aim for as short a wait as possible and to answer as many calls as possible to keep their abandonment rate low.  Many call centres have an overhead LED display showing the number of calls waiting and the longest time waited.

Feedback: Team leaders feedback the information collected by the quantitative and qualitative performance monitoring to call handlers.  This can either be immediate if the team leader has been actively listening to a call or later in a one-to-one session. 

Although relatively few workplace studies have examined the effects of long-term EPM on employee physical or mental health, monitored employees have reported higher levels of stress than unmonitored employees.  However, the relationship between EPM and stress is not straightforward.  Some argue that being monitored threatens privacy, increases the pressure on productivity and is an inherently negative and, therefore, stressful experience.  Others argue that the stress does not arise from monitoring per se but from poor job design which is commonly associated with electronically monitored tasks.  Call handlers may also be under additional stress, as, invariably, EPM assesses whether predetermined targets have been reached.  If targets are consistently too high, call handlers will consistently receive negative feedback about not achieving productivity demands, and this may become stressful. 

EPM does, however, have potential benefits.  Feedback is acknowledged as a positive element of job design, and EPM is a means of collecting more objective information about a call handler's productivity on which to base feedback.  EPM enables call handlers to improve their performance as poor performance is identified, and it also highlights good performance.  For these benefits to be reaped, though, it is essential for team leaders to be trained how to give feedback in a constructive rather than punitive manner, particularly if targets have not been achieved.  A supportive line manager has been shown to be associated with lower levels of stress in a monitored workplace.  The relationship between call handlers and team leaders will obviously influence how feedback is both given and received, but training should enable team leaders to be more objective in their assessments and the style of their feedback.  Practical arrangements are also important: feedback should be given one-to-one in private.

Legal requirements and recommendations: DSER states that workers should be kept informed about the introduction and operation of performance monitoring facilities, including any proposed changes in the monitoring system or targets.  Call handlers or their representatives should also be consulted about EPM, as it may affect call handlers' health and safety.  The setting of targets should be included in this consultation process, and call handlers should clearly understand that targets take into account time for breaks.

User Comments: There were few comments written about quantitative monitoring, but there were many specific comments about qualitative monitoring.  Call handlers felt that the relatively small number of calls that were monitored, particularly if they were difficult, gave their team leaders very distorted impressions of their ability to handle a very diverse range of calls under pressure over an extended period.  Many also felt their performance could be detrimentally affected as they found eavesdropping disconcerting.  For both quantitative and qualitative monitoring, call handlers wanted management to explain what monitoring they were doing, why they were doing it and how it affected them.

Targets: Targets were highlighted as a major source of stress in the written comments.  Many were seen as unrealistic and set, and frequently changed, without explanation.  Call handlers said that this put them under pressure, as the targets did not allow for difficult calls taking longer.  Neither did they allow for system crashes or quiet periods.  Call handlers also felt that whether they achieved their qualitative performance targets was too strongly influenced  by the personal opinion and judgment of team leaders rather than based on more objective criteria, and team leaders did not necessarily have personal experience of handling calls.  Consequently, marks were inconsistent, particularly between team leaders, and this increased the rivalry between members of the same team and also between different teams.  Call handlers highlighted a constant tension between meeting targets, and the penalties missed targets had on performance-related pay and bonuses, yet also trying to give good customer service within the allocated time.

Feedback: For some call handlers, feedback was a useful means of maintaining standards and quality, and achieving consistency as well as improving customer service.  Call handlers liked to know if they were reaching their target and also acknowledged that training requirements could be identified during feedback.  For the majority of those who had made written comments, though, feedback on their performance was a source of stress: Some had feedback too often whilst others did not receive it often enough.  Many felt the depth of the feedback discussions was too variable, and team leaders focussed too much on relatively minor discrepancies and did not give enough praise.

Good practice:

  • Give call handlers a mechanism for commenting on EPM and respond to those comments.
  • Consult call handlers about how often they would like feedback.
  • Introduce a clear set of criteria against which qualitative monitoring is marked and train team leaders so they are consistent.
  • Give team leaders adequate time to give feedback. (HSE)

Share this
email this page to a friend print this page