Coachpalooza Summary Report

Coachpalooza
A Call Center Focus Group Series
Summary Report

A Coaching Report from Knowlagent
By: Debbie Qaqish and Dwight Lucas

Dr i v i n g v a lu e a t th e f r on t l i ne of b us in es s .

Knowlagent® is a registered trademark of Knowlagent, Inc. Value-Driven Coaching Model for the Call
Center™ and Value-Driven Coaching Model™ are trademarks of Knowlagent, Inc. All other trademarks
used in this document are the property of their respective owners.
The information contained in this document is proprietary to Knowlagent, Inc. Unless you are the intended
recipient (or authorized to receive for the intended recipient), you may not read, print, retain, use, copy,
distribute or disclose any information contained in this document.
©
Copyright 2005 Knowlagent, Inc.
All Rights Reserved

Knowlagent® Inc.

2

Fall 2005 ©Knowlagent. All rights reserved. 2


Table of Contents

!" # $

!" %&

' " !" &(

) !" &&

) !" * &+

) , -" " +(

) .- " +
, - (

, "" " (

, . " &

/ )" . !" 0 (

/- 1 &

/- 2 " &

-" 1 +

-" 2 " +

1

2 "

1

2 "
! $

3



“We recognize the value of coaching…we just don’t have time to do it.”
- Coachpalooza ’05 participant

Coaching is one of the highest impact, yet overlooked, ways to achieve company goals
in the call center. The best centers know this, and are attempting to develop coaching
models, tools and initiatives to drive coaching, yet even the best are struggling with how
to deliver enough quality coaching in the unique call center environment.

To better understand the call center coaching environment, Knowlagent conducted
Coachpalooza ’05, a Focus Group series with seven large call center groups that
included 53 supervisor and manager level participants. This strategic initiative allowed
us to better understand:

• the attitudes towards and the perceived value of coaching
• how coaching is conducted and measured
• what gets coached
• the challenges to coaching in the dynamic call center environment

Participants in the Focus Group series included leading companies from a variety of
industries including financial services, insurance, retail, telecom, and travel, with agent
populations ranging from 450 to 12,000.

This Coachpalooza ’05 Summary Report is the compilation of data and insights gathered
from all activities associated with these Focus Groups.

Coachpalooza ’05 was an intense Focus Group series designed to gather quantitative
and qualitative data. There were several methods used including:
• Pre-Focus Group Surveys administered on-line for executives and supervisors
• On-site, ½ day Supervisor Focus Groups that included team and individual activities
and discussions

Following the completion of each Focus Group, the Knowlagent team prepared a
detailed Coachpalooza ’05 Report of Findings for the participating organization that
highlighted key coaching findings for that group. As a conclusion to the Coachpalooza
’05 program, Knowlagent has prepared this Summary Report to present the common
themes from all groups.

4



Section I: Pre-Focus Group Surveys

The Pre-Focus Group Surveys were designed to give the Focus Group team an early
indication of the coaching environment of the center. Specifically, the survey looked for:
• attitudes towards coaching
• metrics of coaching
• what is being coached
• coaching resources
• similarities and differences between executive response and supervisor responses

Section II: Key Findings

The Key Findings Section is based on all information from all sources and the findings
are categorized into four distinct groupings:
• Time
• Information
• Process
• People

Section III: The Value-Driven Coaching Model & Recommended Best Practices

All call centers in the Coachpalooza ’05 event, say they strongly believe in the value of
coaching, yet few of them seem to be able to convert that belief into action. There
appear to be a number of environmental, cultural, and technology driven inhibitors that
restrict coaching from occurring and that obscure the effectiveness of coaching. The
Value-Driven Coaching Model was developed based on findings from the
Coachpalooza ’05 to provide a simple structure for addressing these inhibitors and for
providing a sense of priority and synergy among key elements.

5



The Pre-Focus Group Surveys were designed to give the Focus Group team an early
indication of the coaching environment of the center. Specifically, the surveys looked
for:
• attitudes towards coaching
• metrics of coaching
• what is being coached
• coaching resources
• similarities and differences between executive response and supervisor responses

The Pre-Focus Group Surveys were administered on-line to both the call center
executive sponsor and the group of supervisors who were to be in the on-site Focus
Group.

The surveys for each group were almost identical, although there were a few questions
that were unique to each group. Supervisors answered 30 questions including two
questions regarding experience that executives did not. Executives answered 31
questions, including 3 questions not asked of supervisors regarding center headcount
and company perception regarding the coaching of supervisors.

The following section captures the responses to each question for each group and
discusses the similarities or differences in each group’s set of responses.

There are 7 sections of responses from the Pre-Focus Group Surveys:
1. Coaching Attitudes
2. Coaching Metrics
3. What Gets Coached
4. Coaching Follow Up
5. Coaching Resources
6. Key Performance Indicators
7. Coachpalooza ’05 Demographics

6



!" #
1. My company understands the value of coaching agents

While all executives said their company understands the value of coaching agents,
22% of supervisors disagreed or had No Opinion.

My company understands the value of coaching agents

100%
80%
80%

60%
Supervisors
39% 39% Executives
40%

12% 20%
20%
5% 5%
0% 0% 0%
0%
Strongly Disagree No Opinion Agree Strongly Agree
Disagree

7



2. My company understands the value of coaching supervisors
(Executive Responses)

All Executives said their company understands the value of coaching Supervisors. This
question was not on the Supervisor survey.

My company understands the value of coaching
supervisors (Executive Responses)
100%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0% 0% 0% 0%
0%
Strongly Disagree No Opinion Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

8



3. The agents understand the value of coaching

There was general agreement on this topic between executives and supervisors.

The agents understand the value of coaching

100%
80%
80%
68%

60%
Supervisors
Executives
40%
20% 22%
20%
7%
2% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0%
Disagree

9



4. The supervisors understand the value of coaching

Although supervisors were more emphatic, there was general agreement on this
topic between executives and supervisors.

The supervisors understand the value of coaching

100%
80%
80% 76%

60%
Supervisors
Executives
40%
22% 20%
20%
2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0%
Disagree

10



5. Supervisors are comfortable coaching

Supervisors indicated they are comfortable coaching, but executives did not
express the same belief. The large majority (93%) of supervisors indicated they
were comfortable coaching, but only 50% of executives stated their supervisors
were comfortable doing so. Supervisor responses on this item were consistent
with other questions that indicate very high confidence in their ability to do their
jobs.

I (supervisors) are comfortable coaching

100%

80%
71%

60%
Supervisors
40%
40% Executives

20% 20% 20% 22%
20%
2% 2% 2% 0%
0%
Disagree

11



!"
1. On average, how much time is spent coaching each agent per day?

Both executives and supervisors believe that agents receive a small amount of
coaching on a daily basis. Only 22% of supervisors indicated that they coach each
agent more than 20 minutes per day. In contrast, 44% of supervisors say agents
receive less than 10 minutes of coaching per day, as do 100% of executive
respondents.

On average, how much time is spent coaching each
agent per day?

100%
100%
90%
80%
70%
60% Supervisors
50% 44%
34% Executives
40%
30% 22%
20%
10% 0 0
0%
1-10 minutes 11-20 minutes Over 20 minutes

12



2. On average, how much time does each supervisor spend on overall
coaching activities per day?

Supervisors appear to spend a small percentage of their day involved in overall
coaching activities. While 20% of executive respondents perceived that
supervisors delivered over three hours of coaching per day, 80% of supervisors
indicated that they actually spent less than two hours per day on coaching
activities.

On average, how much time do you (Supervisors ) spend
in all coaching activities per day?

50%

40%
40%
34%

30%
22%
20% 20% 20% 20%
20%
15%
7%
10%
2%
0% 0%
0%
rs

rs
es

es

es

es

u

u
ut

ut

ut

ut

ho

ho
in

in

in

in

2

4
m

m

m

m

Supervisors
1-

3-
10

0

0

0
-2

-3

-6
1-

11

21

31

Executives

13



3. On average, how much time is spent coaching supervisors on a
monthly basis?

Despite a consistent and strong belief that companies understand the value of
coaching in general, most supervisors said they receive little on-going coaching.
The dispersion of responses on this topic was quite varied, but 57% of supervisors
stated they receive less than one hour of coaching per month.

In contrast, 75% of the executives perceived that supervisors were receiving over
2 hours of coaching per month.

On average, how much time is spent coaching you
(Supervisors) on a monthly basis?

70%
60%
50%
50%
40%
30% 25% 25%
20% 20% 23% 20%
20% 17% 14%
10% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0%
0%
s
e

es

es
es

s

es

ie
on

te

r
ut

ut
ut

ut

Va
u
N

in
in

in

in

in

m
m

m

m

m

40
30

0

20

0

Supervisors
-6

24
1-

>2
-1
31

1-
61

Executives
12

14



4. On average, how much time do supervisors spend each day
preparing for a coaching event?

The overwhelming majority of supervisors spend less than 60 minutes per day
preparing for all coaching activity. This was supported by 100% of executives
who indicated that supervisors spend less than 30 minutes on prep time each day.
This finding further substantiates that coaching typically occurs in an informal
manner.

On average, how much time do supervisors spend each day
preparing for a coaching event?
100%
100%

69%
75%

Supervisors
50%
Executives
26%
25%
0% 3% 0% 3% 0%
0%
0-30 minutes 31-60 1-3 hours 3-5 hours
minutes

15



5. On average, how much time do your supervisors spend each day
conferring with peers on coaching?

One group of supervisor participants spent over 30 minutes per day conferring with
peers, but the overwhelming majority of supervisors do not.

On average, how much time do your supervisors spend
each day conferring with peers on coaching?
100%
100%
86%
75%

Supervisors
50%
Executives

25% 14%

0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0%
0-30 minutes 31-60 1-3 hours 3-5 hours
minutes

16



6. Please indicate the percentage of total coaching devoted to positive
coaching (improving performance, congratulations, career growth,
etc.)

A slight majority (52%) of supervisors said they spend 60% or more of their
coaching time on positive coaching. Executives perceived that supervisors spend
less time than they indicated on this topic, with only 25% of executives responding
that more than 60% of coaching was positive. Also of note is that 25% of
executives were not sure on this topic.

Please indicate the percentage of total coaching devoted to positive
coaching.

35%
28%
30%
25% 25% 24% 25% 25%
25%
21%
20% Supervisors
15%
15% Executives
12%
10%

5%
0% 0% 0%
0%
0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100% Not Sure

17



7. Please indicate the percentage of total coaching devoted to negative
coaching (attendance, compliance, low motivation, etc.)

Only 6% of supervisor participants indicated that in excess of 60% of their
coaching is negative.

Please indicate the percentage of total coaching devoted to negative
coaching.

50%
44%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% Supervisors
25%
20% Executives
15%
10%
3% 3%
5%
0% 0% 0%
0%
0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100% Not Sure

18



8. Supervisors have sufficient time to coach each day

71% of supervisors stated they do not have enough time to coach. This belief was
further supported during the Focus Group sessions in which every supervisor
indicated they did not have enough time to coach.

Supervisors have sufficient time to coach each day

100%

80%

60%
Supervisors
32% 39% 40% Executives
40%
20% 20% 20% 20%
20%
5% 5%
0%
0%
Disagree

19



' " !"
1. What are the events that trigger coaching in your center?

The following list represents the top ten events that trigger coaching in the call
center. Responses are listed in order of those that occur most frequently to those
that occur less frequently in the Pre-Focus Group Surveys. Unsatisfactory metrics,
low attendance, and poor quality scores are the top three events that trigger
coaching in the call center.

• Metrics
o Calls per hour, AHT and statistics were listed most frequently in this
category
• Attendance
o Poor attendance and tardiness issues
• Quality Scores
o Unsatisfactory Quality Scores trigger coaching in the call center
• Communications/Questions
o This category includes relaying departmental and company
information to agents and answering various questions and requests
from agents
• Compliance
o This category includes non-compliance with company procedures and
guidelines or departmental standards and goals
• Behavior Issues
o This category includes a variety of negative behavioral issues
including poor customer interaction, morale and lack of motivation
• Performance
o Performance was listed as an event when agent performance was
lacking and goals were not being met
• Sales
o Low sales numbers
o Monitoring
o Errors

20



2. What are the top 3-5 events that trigger supervisor coaching
opportunities?

According to executives, the top 3-5 events that trigger supervisor coaching
opportunities are listed below. The responses are listed in order of those that occur
most frequently to those that occur less frequently in the Pre-Focus Group
Surveys:
• Call Monitoring
o This category includes reviewing reports
• Feedback
o Supervisors are coached when negative feedback is received from
agents
• Performance
o Coaching occurs when a team does not meet monthly goals
• Call Escalations
o Coaching occurs when a sampling of escalations is reviewed
• Observation

21



) !"
1. Please describe how you follow-up with coaching interactions

Several methods of follow-up were identified during the Pre-Focus Group Surveys.
The timing of the follow-up varied from daily to monthly, and was nearly always
manually tracked and managed by supervisors. The following represents how
most supervisors indicated they follow-up with coaching interactions:
• One-on-one
• Continual coaching and follow-up regarding progress
• Review goals with agent and follow-up
• Verbally
• Written Log Review

22



) !" *
1. Which of the following do supervisors regularly consult prior to a
coaching activity? Choose all that apply.

Supervisors stated they rely heavily on their managers and other supervisors for
coaching consultation, and do not consult Human Resources or Training as
frequently as executives perceived.

Which of the following do supervisors regularly consult prior to a coaching
activity?
50%

40%
31% 31%
25% 25%
30%
19% 19%
20%
8% 11% 9%
10% 4% 6% 6% 6%
0%
0%
t
er
s

p

g
en
s

er
or

ou

ce

r in
ag

th
m
vis

ur
gr

it o

O
an

op
so
er

on
e
M

el
th
up

Re

ev

M
's

e
S

or

/D

ity
id

an
er

vis

ts

ng

l
m

ua
th

ou
r

ni

Supervisors
Hu
pe
O

Q
ai
s
Su

er

Tr

Executives
ag
an
M

23



2. In reference to the previous question, which of these resources do
supervisors use most frequently?

Supervisors indicated they consult other supervisors more often than their
managers, and rarely consult other departments.

In reference to the previous question, which of these resources do supervisors
use most frequently?
70%
60%
50%
50%
41% 34%
40%
25% 25%
30%
20%
3% 3% 5% 7% 7%
10% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0%
t
er
s

p

g
en
s

er
or

ou

ce

r in
ag

th
m
vis

ur
gr

ito

O
an

op
so
er

on
e
M

el
th
up

Re

ev

M
's

e
S

or

/D

lity
id

an
er

vis

ts

ng
m

ua
th

ou
r

ni
Hu
pe
O

Q

Supervisors
ai
s
Su

er

Tr
ag

Executives
an
M

24



3. My company has a clear coaching process for supervisors

There were a wide variety of responses on this topic. Of note is that executives
were less convinced there is a clear coaching process in place than were
supervisors.

My company has a clear coaching process for supervisors to follow

100%

80%

60%
Supervisors
40% 39% 40% Executives
40%
20% 17% 20% 20%
20%
5%
0% 0%
0%
Disagree

25



4. My company has a dedicated program for training supervisors on
how to be an effective coach

There were a wide range of responses regarding whether companies have
dedicated programs to train coaches. Even within the same company,
respondents were widely varied on this topic. Executives were split as to whether
there was a program, and only 44% of supervisors believed a program existed. Of
the seven centers we visited as part of this research, only 2 had a formal program
for training coaches.

My company has a dedicated program for training supervisors on how to be
an effective coach

100%

80%
60%
60% Supervisors
32% 40% Executives
40%
29%
20% 12%
20%
7%
0% 0% 0%
0%
Disagree

26



5. My company has a clearly defined coaching role

There were a wide range of responses regarding whether companies have a
clearly defined coach role. Responses to this topic were very similar to the
previous topic regarding training coaches. Only 20% of executives stated that the
role was clearly defined, and only 44% of supervisors concurred.

My company has a clearly defined coach role

100%

80%
60%
60%
Supervisors
Executives
40%
27% 29%
22% 20% 20% 15%
20%
7%
0% 0%
0%
Disagree

27



6. Supervisors have all the right tools to be an effective coach

Most supervisors indicated that they have all the right tools to coach, but
executives disagreed. Although the majority of supervisor respondents stated they
had all the tools necessary to be an effective coach, a majority (75%) of executives
disagreed.

Supervisors have all the right tools to be an effective coach

100%

80%
60%
60%
Supervisors
32% Executives
40%
27% 27%
20% 20%
20%
7% 7%
0% 0%
0%
Disagree

28



7. Supervisors have all the right skills to be an effective coach

Supervisors said they have the right skills to be an effective coach, but executives
disagreed. The overwhelming majority of supervisors (87%) stated they had all
the right skills to be an effective coach. Only 7% disagreed with this statement, yet
75% of executives stated that supervisors do not have the right skills to be an
effective coach.

Supervisors have all the right skills to be an effective coach

100%

80%
60%
60%
46% Supervisors
41%
Executives
40%
20% 20%
20%
2% 5% 5%
0% 0%
0%
Disagree

29



) , -" "
1. What are the KPIs for your call center?

It was interesting to observe that supervisors and call center executives did not
always agree on the Key Performance Metrics for their center. For example, while
17% of supervisor participants indicated that First Call Resolution was a KPI, no
executives indicated that as a key metric.

What are the key KPIs for your call center?

35%

29%
30%

24%
25%
21% 21%
20%
17% 17% Supervisors
15% 15% 14%
14% Executives
15%
12%

10%

5%
0%
0%
First Call AHT Customer Quality Revenue Other
Resolution Retention Scores

30



2. Please rate your performance against First Call Resolution metrics

There appears to be confusion regarding this metric. The majority of executive
respondents did not indicate that First Call Resolution metrics are applicable, yet
71% of supervisors indicated that they are meeting or exceeding their goal.

Rate your performance: First Call Resolution

70%
55% 60%
60%

50%
40%
40% Supervisors
30% Executives
24%
16%
20%
5%
10%
0% 0%
0%
Not Meeting Goal Meeting Goal Exceeding Goal N/A

31



3. Please rate your performance against AHT metrics

The majority of executives indicate that they are not meeting AHT goals, yet only
19% of supervisors agreed with the executive assessment. Additionally, 32% of
supervisors indicated AHT was Not Applicable, but no executives did so.

Rate your performance: AHT

70%
60%
60%

50%
38% 40%
40% Supervisors
32%
30% Executives
19%
20%
11%
10%
0% 0%
0%

32



2. Please rate your performance against Revenue metrics

Of the supervisors responsible for revenue metrics, the majority said they were
meeting or exceeding their goals.

Rate your performance: Revenue

70%
60%
60%

50%
43%
40% Supervisors
32%
30% Executives
20% 20%
20%
11% 14%
10%
0%
0%

33



3. Please rate your performance against Customer Retention metrics

The majority of supervisors stated they were meeting or exceeding customer goals
in this area. An interesting note is that 40% of executives did not state this as a
key metric.

Rate your performance: Customer Retention

70%
62%
60%

50%
40%
40% Supervisors
27% Executives
30%
20% 20% 20%
20%
8%
10%
3%
0%

34



4. Please rate your performance against Quality Score metrics

The majority of supervisors indicated they were meeting or exceeding customer
goals in this area. The executives were not as optimistic.

Rate your performance: Quality Scores

70%
60%
60%
49%
50%
40%
40% Supervisors
30% 27% Executives
24%
20%

10%
0% 0% 0%
0%

35



) .- "
1. How long have you been a supervisor? (Supervisors only)

Coachpalooza participants were top performers in their companies and had a fairly
even distribution of experience. Interesting to note is that 31% of the supervisors
had more than 5 years experience and 54% had more than 3 years experience.

How long have you been a supervisor or coach?

23%

31%

Less than 1 Year
1-3 Years
3-5 Years
More than 5 years

23%

23%

36



2. How long were you an agent before becoming a supervisor?
(Supervisors only)

75% of Coachpalooza ’05 participants became supervisors after less than three
years as agents, while only 6% became supervisors after more than five years.

How long were you an agent before becoming a supervisor?

6%
16%

19%

Less than 1 Year
1-3 Years
3-5 Years
More than 5 years

59%

37



3. How many supervisors are in your call center? (Executive responses
only)

The Coachpalooza ’05 was held at single centers within organizations with multiple
centers. The numbers below reflect the size of the individual center, not the entire
company.

How many Supervisors are in your call center?

11
15

26

35

38



4. How many agents are in your call center? (Executive responses only)

The Coachpalooza ’05 was held at single centers within organizations with multiple
centers. The numbers below reflect the size of the individual center, not the entire
company.

How many agents are in your call center?

240
290

400

425

39



, "" "
The 18 Key Findings from Coachpalooza ’05 fall into four primary categories:
• Time
• Information
• Process
• People

Time

1. Supervisors as a whole spend a tremendous amount of time on activities that do
not directly interact with agents such as report compilation, data analysis,
administrative functions, and special projects that leave little time for coaching.

2. Every supervisor expressed a desire for more time to coach agents.

3. The time lag between the event that triggers a coaching activity and the opportunity
to deliver coaching is often long, sometimes up to one month, which reduces the
effectiveness of the coaching when delivered.

Information

4. Supervisors act as “information integrators”.

5. Agents generally do not always have timely access to information regarding their
performance, and also do not always receive information necessary to improve
performance in a timely manner.

6. Coaching is not typically a metric in the call center.

Process

7. There is great variability regarding the clarity of coaching roles and coaching
processes.

8. There is little consistency or formal methodology in the way that supervisors follow-
up on coaching activities.

9. Managers have little visibility regarding what coaching is taking place in the call
center, and how that activity is impacting agent performance.

10. Executives, managers and supervisors all agree that more coaching would have a
positive impact on performance.

40



11. There appears to be little or no distinction between managing and coaching in the
call center.

12. The coaching that is delivered in the call center is generally targeted toward low
performers, while mid and higher level performers receive little or no coaching.

13. There are no documented ROI analyses on coaching

People

14. Supervisors are extremely self-confident in their coaching skills yet most
executives feel that supervisors need further skill development.

15. Although nearly every supervisor participant saw the value of coaching, very few
supervisors said they needed coaching themselves.

16. Supervisors have a genuine desire to develop their team members and are
frustrated that they do not have enough time to do so despite working long hours
and weekends.

17. Supervisors seem to believe that most agents can handle more accountability for
their performance, but only if given the appropriate environment.

18. Although executives claim to see the value of coaching, supervisors are rarely
trained to be managers or coaches.

41



, . "

1. Supervisors as a whole spend a tremendous amount of time on activities that
do not directly interact with agents such as report compilation, data analysis,
administrative functions, and special projects that leave little time for
coaching.

With every Focus Group we facilitated, we discerned from supervisor comments
that they appear to spend a tremendous amount of time on activities that do not
directly interact with agents such as report compilation, data analysis,
administrative functions, and special projects that leave little time for coaching. It
appears that the supervisor role encompasses many different administrative hats
making it difficult for them to find time for their coaching role.

This “administrative clutter” we observed in all the centers is a major source of
stress for both the agents and the coaches, but especially the coaches. For
example, we noted that many of the Focus Group participants work long hours and
weekends on a regular basis attempting to cover all of their obligations. One
participant stated they do not take vacation because they are too overwhelmed
with work upon their return.

2. Every supervisor expressed a desire for more time to coach agents.

The good news is that supervisors actually want to be able to spend more time
coaching agents! We observed a firmly held belief that coaching helps to improve
performance and that coaching was one of the highest impact activities that the
supervisor could do. We also observed a high degree of frustration that they could
not spend more time coaching agents.

At the beginning of each Focus Group, the supervisor team was asked, “If you
could change one thing about your coaching environment, what would it be?” The
unanimous response was they all wanted more time to coach agents. This
sentiment was constantly reinforced during the Focus Group activities.

42



3. The time lag between the event that triggers a coaching activity and the
opportunity to deliver coaching is often long, sometimes up to one month,
which reduces the effectiveness of the coaching when delivered.

Supervisors consistently reported that significant time may pass between the
occurrence of an agent action that requires coaching, and the time that the
supervisor delivers the coaching required. In some cases this was due to lack of
timely information such as performance reports, but some cases were due to low
prioritization of agent coaching. For example, many supervisors admitted to using
Sundays to catch up on quality monitoring calls, which calls into question the
effectiveness of monitoring given the gap between the call and the opportunity to
coach.

“It could take us a week from the time we know to the time to coach. The
supervisors have to find the call, listen to the call, and review the information.”

43



4. Supervisors act as “information integrators”.

Each day supervisors are deluged with data and charged with filtering the
appropriate information to make decisions for how to effectively manage and
coach their teams. Many participants said they had to manipulate, print and hand-
out reports to help the team and individual agents view metrics and performance
numbers. These activities take a lot of time and as a result, are not always
performed completely or in a timely manner to help optimally impact center and
agent performance.

Further, because dissemination of key information to agents is often left to
supervisors, supervisors can become a bottleneck to communication. We
observed that this type of information integration and resulting bottleneck places a
huge strain on the supervisor and seems to lessen the active participation and
accountability of agents in their own performance.

5. Agents generally do not always have timely access to information regarding
their performance, and also do not always receive information necessary to
do their improve performance in a timely manner.

Many participants pointed out that agents do not have direct access to some of the
information for which they are accountable. In some cases, we noted that
supervisors printed and distributed daily reports to the agents, dropping them in
chairs, posting on the supervisor wall, etc. In centers where this was prevalent, we
often heard supervisors express a belief that agents could and should be
assuming more accountability for their own performance. In the absence of
optimal information flow, the agents had to rely heavily on supervisors to point out
and help with any performance issues.

6. Coaching is not typically a metric in the call center.

In the call center, what gets measured gets done. Supervisors and managers are
metric-driven and will adjust their actions as necessary to hit performance goals
that are top-of-mind. In the seven centers we visited, we did not see any metrics
around coaching. This lack of coaching metrics may be a primary reason for why
more coaching does not happen.

At the same time, it is surprising that given the amount of verbal attention around
the topic of coaching, it is not yet a metric in the call center. We did not see any
attempts to measure how many coaching interactions happen on a daily basis,
what topics are being coached, or if the coaching was effective. Considering the
metric driven nature of call center performance, it is not surprising that coaching is
often dropped to the bottom of the supervisor “to do” list.

44



7. There is great variability regarding the clarity of coaching roles and coaching
processes.

We first observed this through the Pre-Focus Group survey in which 60% of
executives perceived their centers did not have a clearly defined coaching role and
20% had no opinion on this question. Additionally, 40% of executives perceived
that their center did not have a clear coaching process for supervisors to follow
and 20% had no opinion on this question. Supervisor responses varied
tremendously on both of these questions and ranged fairly equally between
strongly agree to strongly disagree.

This finding was further highlighted during the various Focus Group activities in
which we observed great variability in how coaching was done and when coaching
was delivered. For example, in the same team and coaching to the identical event,
we observed supervisors taking drastically different coaching approaches that
varied from sending an e-mail, to a coaching “fly-by”, to a scheduled coaching
session.

We also observed variability in timing of coaching delivery. For example, one team
member would coach immediately while another team member would wait up to
two weeks before coaching on the same topic.

8. There is little consistency or formal methodology in the way that supervisors
follow-up on coaching activities.

We observed that supervisors generally rely on memory, paper notes, or
spreadsheets to track required follow-up actions including tracking the
effectiveness of the coaching interaction. This was uncovered in the group
exercises in which participants were asked to identify the preparation, delivery and
follow-up for specific coaching activities. Each group and even each supervisor
had a slightly different method for handling the interaction, and there was no
method mentioned for tracking the interaction for subsequent follow-up.

One center had an on-line coaching log and one used large binders to keep up
with coaching notes. In both cases, the methods were manually intensive and
provided insight only for supervisors.

9. Managers have little visibility regarding what coaching is taking place in the
call center, and how that activity is impacting agent performance.

Our research indicates that executives place a high value on coaching as a
performance enhancing activity for the supervisor, agent and the business.
Conversely, we also observed that these executives have little to no visibility into
what coaching is happening, why it is happening, how often it happens, and what
impact it is having. During all of our debrief sessions with call center executives,
this was the most asked question, “How can I get visibility into coaching in my
center?”

45



10. Executives, managers and supervisors all agree that more coaching would
have a positive impact on performance.

We observed a very strong consensus of opinion on this topic during the on-site
Focus Groups. Almost every participant expressed a belief that coaching makes a
huge difference in performance.

For example, during one particular Focus Group activity, we asked participants to
identify their key activities each day and the impact that activity had on the
business. Coaching was consistently rated as the highest impact activity.

11. There appears to be little or no distinction between managing and coaching
in the call center.

We intentionally did not supply a definition of coaching or a distinction between
coaching and managing for the Focus Groups. Rather, we let the groups draw
their own conclusions and express coaching in any way that made sense to their
business. As a result of this, we observed that the supervisors perceive any
interaction with an agent as coaching. They did not seem to draw a distinction
between coaching and managing. As a result, the coaching bucket seems large.

12. The coaching that is delivered in the call center is generally targeted toward
low performers, while mid and higher level performers receive little or no
coaching.

We observed that the 80/20 rule is definitely in place in the call center. Up to 80%
of supervisor’s coaching time is spent with low performers on punitive issues.
While this is not a surprising key finding, it does indicate what is not being done
and how much is yet to be leveraged. It also raises questions like – “What is
happening to these mid and high performers?” and “How much could center
performance improve with dedicated coaching time spent with the mid and high
level performers?”

! "
#

46



13. There are no documented ROI analyses on coaching

We observed a strong belief that coaching helps improve the performance of
agents, of supervisors and ultimately, positively impacts the business. This belief
was evident from the answers to the Pre-Focus Group Surveys, comments
captured during the Focus Groups, and was consistent across both the supervisor
and management participants. At the same time, we did not see any documented
ROI analysis on the value that coaching delivers. Nor did we hear anyone asking
for such documentation. This could be for a variety of reasons including:

- The “value” of coaching seems to be such a fundamental belief that no one
seems compelled to validate that value.

- There may be the belief that coaching cannot be measured in such a way
as to create an ROI analysis.

47



14. Supervisors are extremely self-confident in their coaching skills yet most
executives feel that supervisors need further skill development.

Virtually every supervisor in this study said they had all the required skills to be a
supervisor and were very comfortable coaching. They expressed this both in the
Pre-Focus Group survey and then again during the Focus Groups sessions.
Ironically, 75% of executives disagreed and indicated that supervisors needed to
further develop their coaching skills.

15. Although nearly every supervisor participant saw the value of coaching, very
few supervisors said they needed coaching themselves.

Despite a consistent belief in the value of coaching, we observed that supervisors
receive little coaching themselves. Most participants during the Focus Group
sessions indicated they received less than one hour per week of coaching from
their managers, and there were no indications of a desire for more attention. As
one supervisor stated:

“My manager lets me know if something needs improvement. I like the fact that
they seem to trust me.”

In contrast, executives perceived that supervisors were receiving considerably
more coaching than what was actually occurring and seemed to place high value
on the coaching of supervisors.

16. Supervisors have a genuine desire to develop their team members and are
frustrated that they do not have enough time to do so despite working long
hours and weekends.

The commitment to developing team members was evident in every Focus Group
Session. Supervisor participants were asked “What do you like most about your
job?” Every response was around developing team members and watching them
grow. At the same time, the participants’ biggest frustration was not having
enough time to do so.

48



17. Supervisors seem to believe that most agents can handle more
accountability for their performance, but only if given the appropriate
environment.

This key finding emerged as supervisors were discussing the issue of the agents
relying too much on the supervisors for guidance. This reliance was created by
the current processes and data flows that form the center operating environment.
The result is many supervisors indicated that agents do not have enough timely
information and skills to be fully accountable. At the same time, the supervisors
expressed a strong belief that their agents wanted more accountability, could
accept more accountability and this would make a big impact on center
performance.

“Make the agent more responsible for their performance and they will have to
take responsibility for their behavior. Now they wait on us to tell them what to
do.”

One call center executive noted that this kind of responsibility is the first step
towards “professionalizing” the role of the call center agent.

18. Although executives claim to see the value of coaching, supervisors are
rarely trained to be managers or coaches.

During Coachpalooza ’05, we found that only 2 centers actually had any formal
training on how to be an effective coach. The majority of the centers we visited
used an “on-the-job” approach in which new supervisors would shadow more
tenured peers. We observed some friction between new and tenured supervisors
solely based on time constraints. When asked more detailed questions around
how much shadowing was actually done, the answer was “very little”.

Because few supervisors have been trained on how to manage or coach
personnel, they are left to draw on personal experience. Ironically, previous
experience has proven to have little value, as most supervisors were top-
performing agents and thus received little coaching prior to promotion.

49



! " # $
As this paper has indicated, there are a number of environmental, cultural, and
technology driven inhibitors that reduce the amount and frequency of coaching as well
as obscure its effectiveness when delivered. We generally observed that coaching is an
activity that falls squarely on the shoulders of supervisors alone with little regard to
helping the supervisor juggle all the day to day realities of their job. The following
graphic, “Call Center Coaching Today” illustrates the situation.

50



Based on our extensive research and findings from Coachpalooza ’05, a model emerged
that addresses these inadequacies and provides the structure for a multi-dimensional
approach to ensure coaching delivers the value “promised” to the agent, the customer,
and to the business.

We call it the Value-Driven Coaching Model for the Call Center™. Our research
clearly indicates a strong belief in the value of coaching and the strong impact it can
make on the business. At the same time, we saw little action behind the words. This
model recognizes and enables the value coaching can bring. Our expectation is that
with the right structure, call centers can begin to put coaching into action to its maximum
effectiveness. Based on our Key Findings, this model addresses four dimensions for
creating coaching value.

51


Coachpalooza Summary Report

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Coachpalooza Summary Report

Similar to Coachpalooza Summary Report (20)

More from Knowlagent

More from Knowlagent (10)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Coachpalooza Summary Report