Plan requirement
| Subscription | Any plan |
| Also required | Quality Assurance or Workforce Engagement Management |
| Access | Admin |
Six things that decide whether a team treats reviewing as coaching or as something done to them.
One: the team helped write it
Ask agents what good looks like before drafting. A scorecard the team shaped is argued about during the drafting and accepted afterwards; one that arrives finished is argued about forever.
Two: every category is evidenced
If a reviewer cannot point at the line in the transcript, the score is an opinion. Agents can tell the difference immediately, and one unevidenced category discredits the whole scorecard.
Three: root causes include things that are not the agent
Missing documentation, unclear process, a tool limitation. Without those, every low score is a personal failing, and people stop engaging honestly.
Four: disputes are allowed and answered
Reviewers are sometimes wrong. A process with no way to say so does not produce agreement; it produces silence and resentment.
Five: reviewers are named
Feedback from a person is a conversation. Feedback from an anonymous system is a verdict, and it is much harder to learn from.
Six: scores are not tied to pay or ranking
The moment they are, people write to the scorecard rather than to the customer, and reviewers face pressure on every score. The measurement stops describing anything real.
This is the single decision that determines whether the programme works.
The test
Would you be comfortable if an agent read every review of their own work, including the comments? If not, the problem is the reviewing rather than the agent.
Comments
0 comments
Article is closed for comments.