Tina Mary, TECO Kimberly Mitchell, InterWeave. InterWeave, All Rights Reserved

Transcription

1 Tina Mary, TECO Kimberly Mitchell, InterWeave 1

2 Call monitoring pros and cons. TECO s journey with call monitoring behaviors in 2007, and then in Process overview. Results of embarking on this journey. Moral of this story. 2

3 Headquartered in Tampa, FL 1 million customers in 33 counties 677,000 Electric customers 340,000 Gas customers 5.75 million calls last year 4,725,100 Electric total 1,026,708 Gas total 3 Call Centers (Tampa, Plant City, Miami) 3

4 Headquartered in Tampa, FL. Privately held by owner and president Kimberly Mitchell. Primary Focus: Identifying, coaching and holding people accountable for specific behaviors that create WOW results for your employees, customers and your overall business. 4

5 Started career in contact centers in1983. Progressively advanced through senior levels of leadership. Passion for purposeful solutions that will reap high return on investment. Driven to obtain results while building relationships and inclusive communities. Educational background in leadership. (BA in Organizational Psychology, MA in Servant Leadership, PhD studies in Organizational Leadership) 5

6 Valid and reliable source data due to recordings. Leadership recognizes the potential so resources are allocated. Advanced technology that enables advanced usages. 6

7 Business application is different than the sales pitch. Need alignment. Monitoring forms become the focus rather than the relationship. Transactional rather than transformational. 7

8 ROI as promised?? Need to look deep. Used as a gotcha tool. Not fully utilized, so opportunities are missed. Causes fragmentation within the organization rather than community building. The focus becomes the task of monitoring rather than the result of performance change. 8

9 Similar to most other organizations- Teach my supervisors how to coach and give us the monitoring standards to use. That s all we need. 1 day of coaching training was facilitated and the monitoring standards were provided to TECO. 9

10 The structure did not support coaching. The focus was not on supervisors behaviors. No written documentation of the Range of Tolerance for the behaviors. Mental Range of Tolerance not changed. Standards were not owned by the organization. 10

11 The supervisors did not change their coaching behaviors. The behavioral standards were not owned by the organization and were seen as InterWeave s standards. Quality Assurance and Supervisors were not on the same page. Most significantly Performance did not change. 11

12 Process-based not task-based. Treated like a culture change not a system implementation. Changed ways of thinking and looking at performance. Involved the entire organization. Listened to the conversations and the relationship. The focus was NOT the monitoring form. 12

13 Identify root causes for not coaching and removed those obstacles. Focus on the supervisors behaviors. Accountability is on supervisors to change behaviors. Changed the monitoring scoring. It became about behaviors not a score. 13

14 Basic training on behaviors and perceptions. Brought QA and Supervisors together to uncover perceptions and behaviors. The right behaviors were uncovered from within and were owned. Documentation was developed as tools to further define and understand the behaviors and the desired perceptions. 14

15 Additional training on structure and behaviors that create a coaching culture. A trusting environment in which transparent feedback is a natural and sought after engagement that promotes the celebration of genuine successes and proactively seeks out opportunities for mutual personal and corporate growth which ultimately enriches the entire culture and achieves higher performance. 15

16 Observation and feedback provided to supervisors regarding their coaching. Calibration sessions to ensure consistency. Additional modeling of desired coaching methods to dig deeper. 16

17 Created categories that capture Our Range of Tolerance. Trend by team and agent. Are we Wowing Our Customers? Identify calls where customers are grateful and thankful for the CSP s assistance and happy with their customer experience. 17

18 Prove our hypothesis If we WOW, will it make a difference in our bottom line results? Determine the correlation of CSP s behaviors with decreased hold time, hold occurrences, decreased in escalated calls and decrease in repeat calls. 18

19 19

20 20

21 21

22 22

23 Since we ve been focusing on how we share information with customers, focusing on specific behaviors, we don t come across as robotic to the customers as we may have before. You can tell a difference in how the customer feels just by the number of compliments we have received since we ve changed our behaviors. It s not easy and is taking time, change doesn t happen overnight. However, the compliments are proof in the pudding that the new verbiage is working I even got a compliment by changing my behaviors. It s realizing that kind words go a long way. 23

24 Constantly remembering that it is not about checking off boxes. Changing the methods of hiring, training, and performance reviews. It is an ongoing process not a flavor of the month. It is becoming intrinsic due to reinforcement and focus. 24

25 The final product is not the form, it is the process of changing mindsets about the desired behaviors that are on the form. The goal is to change behaviors, not change a score. The focus is on relationships, not getting the right boxes checked off. This is a culture change initiative, not a monitoring or quality initiative. In order to change representatives behaviors, we must first change leaders behaviors! 25

26 Tina Mary Kimberly Mitchell