Plan requirement
| Subscription | Any plan |
| Also required | Quality Assurance or Workforce Engagement Management |
| Access | Admin |
The settings inside a single workspace, and the three that decide whether reviewing feels fair.
Where to find them
In the workspace, under its settings. They apply to everybody in it and not to other workspaces.
One: whether agents can dispute
Allow it. Reviewers make mistakes, and a process with no way to say so produces silent resentment rather than a correction.
Disputes also tell you which scorecard categories are ambiguous, which is information you cannot get any other way.
Two: whether agents see who reviewed them
Named reviewers make feedback a conversation between two people. Anonymous reviews make it a judgement from the system.
Named is almost always better, and it also makes reviewers more careful.
Three: whether self-review is allowed
Worth switching on. An agent scoring their own conversation before the reviewer does produces a much better discussion, because both have thought about the same questions.
Review volume
How many conversations per agent, per period. Set it to what your reviewers can actually sustain, not to what would be statistically ideal.
A programme that stops after two months because reviewing was too heavy has produced nothing.
Changes affect everybody
A setting changed mid-quarter changes how that quarter reads. Announce anything that affects what agents see or how they are scored.
Comments
0 comments
Article is closed for comments.