Submitted by Ignatz on
in
Forums
Hi:
I have six (soon to be eight) directs on my team, with whom I meet 2, sometimes 3 times per week. I work in a call center for a federal lending agency, and right now our call volumes are through the roof. The push from upper management is to get all hands on the phones and keep them there.
I started doing O3s with my team in December, and they're going pretty well. I'm seeing some very positive responses from my team. I'd like to keep this going, but I also don't want to impair the department's functioning. If I keep someone off the phone for half an hour, then everybody else has to take up the slack and that's not fair.
Like I said, I meet with each person at least 2 times per week. There are weekly call statistics, quality reviews, call monitors etc that need to be discussed, so I use those as the reason for the discussion. But in order to keep the impact minimal, I tend to shorten the meeting. Instead of 1 30-minute session, everybody gets 2 10 or 15 minute sessions. Everybody still gets time, but it's not as in-depth as I might like.
Am I reducing the effectiveness of the O3 by breaking it up this way?
Thanks,
Vince
Sure it's fair.
>>If I keep someone off the phone for half an hour, then everybody else has to take up the slack and that's not fair.
It's fair if you are doing the same thing for each and every one of them. They cover for one another.
Why break it up?
The O3 builds the relationship, and the rapport builds over the 30 minutes. Short 10 or 15 minute bursts aren't the same.
It's fair (everyone gets an O3 and the rest cover...) so why is 30 minutes such a burden?
John
The driving statistic for
The driving statistic for the department is our rate of blocked and abandoned calls. Our goal is 5%. Our reality is somewhere between 11 and 15%. If a report is in my office talking with me, then he's not taking calls. That impacts the blocked and abandoned rate. Department management is under a lot of pressure to get that number down, which means cutting back on anything that pulls people off the phone for any length of time. I'm the only one in the department actively doing O3s, so my reps take more time off the phones than others. That's where the (potentially) negative impact comes in. My supervisor is all for improving employee relations, but not at the expense of serving our customers.
That being said, I've worked with most of my directs for a few years now, and we had a pretty good relationship before I started doing O3s. My taking an interest in their professional development and personal lives is just gravy. Still, I want to be as effective as possible.
retention
My Background - ICT Service Desk manager for the about 3 years.
Call Centres and Service Desks traditionally have a high turnover rate of staff. The MORE busy the call centre the more likely staff are going to burnout and leave.
Create and maintaining good relationships with your staff will improve retention. The cost to replace a staff member who leaves at that leave is probably about 150% of their wage when you include advertising the role, training them (both their time and the trainers time), loss of corporate knowledge, and loss of customer relationships.
You are actively maintianing positive relationships with your staff. They will feel valued and will probably be able to handle the stress for longer than other teams, and you will likely retain you staff longer.
I would do everything I could to avoid having to stop doing them. As a concession to management you could temporarily do them fortnightly with a date set of when you go back to weekly.
Regards
Douglas.
Yes You Are
Yes, you are reducing the effectiveness of O3s by breaking them up that way. They're really not O3s anymore. I can totally understand why you've done so - I've served in hundreds of call centers. But call centers are no different from everywhere else - there's pressure to have people "work" as opposed to "meet".
Fairness is an irrelevant measure here. Not only is Terri correct, but what you're doing is asking everyone to step up for a short period in return for the time you need to help them develop and produce. Completely reasonable, and arguably it would be unprofessional to not do so.
Keep at it, and keep us posted.
Mark
I would also add....
... that if your reality is 11 and 15%, eliminating the O3s is not going to get you to the goal of 5%. Plus, when you take someone off the phone, it takes time for them to get back into the rythm and get call rates up, so more frequent shorter meetings hurts you as well. Just something to consider.
*RNTT
I know this thread is old
I know this thread is old but thought I'd chime in...
I'm in a similar position as the original poster-- manage folks that answer phones, have scrutiny on metrics from execs, etc. Like others have mentioned, asking the rest of the team to step up production for a short time while one member has a meeting is completely reasonable. What would the team do if someone got the flu and called in sick for a week? They'd have to step up and get the job done. Same thing when people go on lunch... the rest of the team deals with the decrease in available reps to take a call. It also provides evidence to execs for you to turn around and say "The metric is 5%, we are at 10%, with x number of FTEs added to the team, we would increase service levels to exceed metric goals". I know you mentioned you're soon to have 2 more team members, and 2 team members should more than pick up the slack and lower the abandons down to a level where you want them.
A lot of misunderstanding...
Looking for some answers similar to the original author. In reading the responses, it does not appear that most folks understand the limitations within a contact centre. Especially one that bills by the minute, such as mine.
It is not a matter of 'picking up slack' or 'pitching in to help the void'. In a contact centre, schedules are created to cover off lunches, breaks, and to some degree, absenteeism. In my case, when billing a client by the minute, having someone off the phone is usually "non-billable" time. So to take appx 30 agents off the phones for 30 min/pp each week has a HUGE impact on service levels and metrics.
Believe it or not... our contact centre has not budgeted for that much O3 time in a month. Additionally, there is not any money available to hire more people just to increase the amount of non-billable time for agents. Only if we can effectively bill back to our clients can we then make a case for more people. We operate in a lean environment and right now, billing clients for that much more money would not happen at least until new contract talks are up.
So, I put it out there to all of you... if the above case is as it is, how would you suggest working out the O3's? Or, is it pointless to even attempt an O3 in this environment. If so, then is the whole Trinity model for not, since the O3 is the foundation of the process?
Your replies would be most welcome...
Darbish, it sounds like it
Darbish, it sounds like it is safe to say that your center is an outsourced center. Is that the case?
I have led large call center operations for years and can feel your pain. It all comes down to budgeted shrinkage. Does your client must allow (just through normal business) some shrinkage. My call center budgets 40% in shrinkage (for all types of shrinkage: breaks, absenteeism, meetings, etc.). Based on what your normal shrinkage is, is there an opportunity to re-allocate some to one-on-ones?
After managing in call centers for more than 15 years I can absolutely say that you'll earn your time back that your leaders give your agents. In 2006, I had my agents scheduled for 30 minutes each month for one-on-ones. After learning about the power of one-on-ones from Mark and Mike, I moved that to 30 minutes every-other-week. It wasn't perfect (not 30 minutes each week) but it was a lot better than what we had before. I had to do it without any increase in staff (at first) so I re-allocated shrinkage time from team meetings.
Again, assuming your in a contracted call center, I would also look at occupancy. In my experience with vendors, most run at a higher occupancy than internal centers. If that's not the case, there might also be some opportunity there.
Lastly, you may want to see what the client is doing with their internal call centers, if they have any. If they don't. Of course, I know nothing about your circumstance other than your post, but it would seem that your client needs to understand the importance of agents having one-on-one time with their leaders.