How Helpful is the Quality Scoring Process in Identifying Gaps in Agents’ Communication Skills?

Normally, QA processes make use of a scorecard that measures agent performance by counting the incidences of errors committed.  This method of assessing for quality is very useful when it comes to making sure that agents follow mandatory  processes and provide correct solutions to customer issues.  In such cases, the logic is a simple case of right versus wrong.  There is seldom a grey area in this respect. This may not necessarily be the case when assessing for communication skills wherein the reverse is true. When it comes to communication, there is little to speak of in terms of right or wrong, save for technicalities in the use of language i.e. pronunciation, sentence structure, verb forms, etc.  (This explains why most performance reports often churn out the same findings: ‘mispros’, ‘wrong S-V agreement’, ‘stuttering’, and the consistent chart-topper ‘use of fillers’.).  Seemingly unbeknownst to many quality analysts, communication skills cannot (and should not) be assessed simply by measuring the frequency of technical language errors.  The only conclusions one can generalize out of such method are those having to do with just that — technicalities of language use.  Whatever findings are produced by this do not always necessarily equate to a conclusive evaluation of an agent’s communication skills.  Quality Analysts must to be able to make a distinction between technical language skills and functional communication skills. Inability or unwillingness to do such results in highly inaccurate generalizations which, in turn, will likely cause the account  to stray from the objective of assuring quality communication performance by its agents.

It is very important for Quality Analysts to have a good grasp of the concept of communication as opposed to language. The relationship between these two concepts are often misunderstood by many. Unless a Quality Analyst fully understands what the concept of  human communication really is about, he will not be able to to come up with correct analyses of an agent’s communication skills.  Furthermore, BPOs, if they are truly earnest in wanting to improve the communication process that occurs between agent and customer, would do well to re-think the processes by which they analyze communication performance and the tools they use for the same.

English Training Should Come After Product Training; Not Before

The common practice is for most BPOs to let their newly hired agents undergo English Training before Product Training.  This is done primarily  because of the following reasons:

1.Filtering. English Training is usually followed by an assessment to test the trainees’ level of proficiency. For some companies, determining the trainees’ proficiency after an english class helps filter out those whose proficiency levels are insufficient.

2.Readiness. English training is seen as  easier than product training. Placing it first gives trainees time to break-in into an environment that is relatively more relaxed before being sent to a more serious product training.

3.Time. Often, especially when there is agressive ramp, schedules can get loopy. Seats need to be filled asap but kinks develop along the way which affect account scheduling.  Having English training up in front of the hiring process buys the account some time to figure out how to juggle client-driven schedules.

One the one hand, the rationale seems to make some sense.  However, there are significant drawbacks to this type of order.  The most significant of which is that the learning potential for the English class cannot be not reached.  Apart from templated lines (such as the opening and closing spiels), the application of most of what was learned in English training is hardly ever transferred or remembered for that matter.  Save for the function of filtering new hires, this chronology renders English training impotent.

It is for this reason that that English training should be placed after Product training, wherein English trainers can make use of product specific verbiage.  If done this way, scenarios where both product knowledge and communication skills can be applied at the same time would allow for more holistic learning. Call simulations would be much closer to the actual call as well, thereby making the transfer of learning much easier for trainees.  This makes English training  more effective and even more efficient.

Some would point out disadvantages of implementing such a change, given that: 1. most call centers have a shortage of English trainers and 2. English Trainers would have to  be immersed in every account in order to become effective at this method. However, there are remedies for these.

1. Generic Culture and Geography training can be handled by a training group other than English Training, preferably the ones who handle new employee orientation.  Ideally, HR should do this.

2. Generic English Classes covering topics such as basic grammar (i.e. Subject-Verb Agreement, etc),  and accent reduction should be done away with.  The presumption is that trainees were deemed competent in basic English skills prior to being hired.  There should be no need for this kind of training anymore.

3. Focus on Customized TNA-based English training.  An English Trainer’s usefulness would be optimized if the content of his training is based on actual opportunity areas of current new hires.  This way, time and resources are maximized.

To put in in perspective, here’s how the process should look like:

1. Applicants are assessed on basic English skills using generic assessment tools.  This can be handled by Recruitment.

2. Successful applicants are hired and sent to new employee orientation.  Training will cover: Company Orientation, Client Account Orientation, Geography and Culture, etc.  This can be handled by HR T&D division.

3. New hires are sent straight to their respective accounts for product training.  This should be handled by account-based trainers.

4. Successful passers will then undergo a brief (1-2 day) Communication Training handled by an English Trainer.  This should focus only on the most common account verbiage and call situations.

5. Agents then go through a nesting period wherein the English Trainer studies each agent’s language performance and assesses them for performance gaps via side-by-side or call barging process.  After which, one-on-one coaching would be conducted.

This alternative method would not only make things a little easier for the English Trainer despite the need for account immersion, it would also allow for earlier dispatch of new agents from the training period to the operations floor and ultimately save the company from needless costs.  Doing  so also increases the value and effectiveness of English training.

Posted from WordPress for Android