Contextual elements: Matching people and tasks

Interviews and observations revealed that certain contextual elements were important to understand performance drivers in this call center context. More specifically, elements based on the workplace and the nature of the call center work in regard to the strategy utilized for matching people and work tasks was important to further our knowledge of performance drivers. Contextual elements primarily manifested through the strategy of enabling group-based knowledge to spur overall performance. Within this interpersonal element, the company, workplace, and work group primarily mattered for performance.

Group-based knowledge strategy

Knowledge, experience, and skills among agents at Eon CS must be organized to ensure that all customer errands and tasks carried out in this organization can be resolved as effectively as possible. Management selected a strategy of organizing work groups to hold the knowledge, experience, and skills needed to solve all tasks within the group. These work groups were mostly isolated units with a low level of collaboration between them. Operating through this group-based knowledge strategy is particularly based on two elements. First, the company utilizes a skills strategy that is primarily aimed at enabling agents to possess a large set of general skills that are initially learned during a short training period when hired, but also through carrying out the work over time. General skills are used for solving a range of various issues on customers’ requests (descriptions of tasks and issues are further presented in Chapter 5.2.2).

150

Eon [CS] has begun to make more use of skills in recent years, although perhaps more in the direction toward that as many people as possible should have as many skills as possible. It might get cheaper [for the organization], I don’t know, instead of having pure specialist groups I mean (Agent, Case Gamma, April 2012).

We know a little about a lot of things, but not much about anything really (Agent, Case Gamma, December 2012).

This group-based knowledge strategy also implies that new agents generally lack specialized skills required for solving more complex problems, such as helping customers regarding questions about renewable energy, technical support, and compensation for power damage. However, it was necessary in this type of organization to also operate with agents with longer experience at various types of call center work or certain specialized skills who can contribute with more knowledge of how to solve problems between individuals and within the work group.

Those [agents] who have been here [at Eon CS] for a long time are probably more problem-solvers and skilled in those kinds of issues, more advanced things, they know a lot (Agent, Case Delta, November 2014).

If one has worked here for a while, one has an ease of resolving more difficult or tricky issues, and is more likely to be fast at admin. errands. I remember it myself, when I was new, everything took a lot longer time to solve, one was uncertain and had to ask others (Agent, Case Beta, November 2014).

Second, knowledge must be shared among agents in a work group to take full advantage of the diversity of knowledge, experiences and skills to enable resolution of all errands and problems within a group. This group-based knowledge strategy requires colleagues to help each other when a less knowledgeable agent needed support (especially since the operational support was often not perceived as present), which was mainly carried out on an informal basis (the coping strategy of knowledge sharing; Chapter 7.1.1).

We get a lot of assignments and we have a broad range of skills within the group. It’s not a severe thing to go to someone [in the group] and ask. We help each other quite much within the group and take advantage of each other’s knowledge (Agent, Case Delta, December 2012).

One [the agents] generally will find the skills and competencies [to solve various tasks] in the group and does therefore not have the need, from a

competency perspective, to search for support beyond the group. They are helping each other out. It’s a low level of cooperation with others (Middle manager, Case Beta, December 2012).

In addition, less experienced agents knew which specific agent to turn to for help to get answers, which facilitated the sharing of knowledge in terms of the time spent on helping.

All of us are skilled at different things, you know pretty well, now it’s this kind of problem and she is good at that, you go to her. We have specialists in the group even though they don’t have any titles, kind of informal specialists (Agent, Case Delta, November 2014).

One should try to help each other as much as possible because we have different skills. You know exactly who to turn to, everyone knows something specific such as credit issues, technical stuff… we learn a lot from each other (Agent, Case Beta, November 2014).

This group-based knowledge strategy also compensated for performance variations in each work group. This contextual element was important for performing well within each of the utilized metrics at the group level.

Agents in my group have everything. I think those who perform weak in terms of efficiency instead are very good at something else, like admin. or to satisfy customers. These agents’ output is also compensated by the hyper-efficient ones, which in turn might perform weaker on the other side. I have many high-performers, but two or three agents will never be efficient or reach their targets regardless of how we work, and the others [in the group] need to compensate in order to make the big picture look good (Middle manager, Case Beta, November 2014).

More specifically, middle managers and agents clearly understood that newly hired agents possessing (only) general overall skills performed well within sales, while keeping high levels of on-phone efficiency. On the other hand, they were generally not as skilled or fast at solving complex errands or making customers satisfied.

New agents are good at sales and efficiency because they are so triggered at this new job. But if one has been here [at Eon CS] during a short period of time, then it’s usually the Customer Satisfaction Index that you need to improve in the beginning, it’s not always that you reach the highest score directly, it requires a lot and that may take time to grasp, because the customer has to feel confidence (Agent, Case Delta, November 2014).

152

The younger ones are so much more alert. And they have a requirement to sell so darn much and that helps. And they are faster, the maybe risk more;

it’s supposed to go fast. The younger ones clearly win when it comes to on-phone, wrap-up time and sales performance (Agent, Case Beta, November 2014).

Managers and agents also clearly understood that employees with more experience, who generally possessed more specialized skills within certain areas of call center work, were efficient and proficient at solving complex errands and more skilled at making customers satisfied, given their experience of interacting with various customers. On the other hand, these agents were generally less skilled at performing well within sales and being efficient when solving regular customer errands on-phone.

I’m more like “it will take the time it takes”, and I check, after the call, during the wrap-up, if things fit together and if I really got it right rather than to just let it be. You feel secure in your work if you know what you are doing. So I’m not fast on phone or reach short errand times. But I know a lot (Agent, Case Gamma, November 2014).

A new agent has difficulties is solving more tricky issues, such as administrative errands, since they don’t have the knowledge or experience, you need to work for a few years (Agent, Case Beta, November 2014).

Based on this description, organizing work groups with agents possessing complementary skills and knowledge bases implied beneficial conditions for performing well at the group level within several performance metrics.

However, this strategy did not always succeed at a group level, nor did it spur performance among all individuals in the group. For example, knowledge-sharing individuals’ short-term efficiency levels on-phone were impaired at the expense of efficiency among the knowledge-seeking agents (Chapter 7.1.1). This performance impact could not be compensated for in all work groups (the coping strategy of resignation;

Chapter 7.1.3).

I have three new agents that ask me [for help] all the time, I can’t work especially efficient then. Since I’ve been working here [at Eon CS] so long and they sit close to me, they rather ask me than calling the operational support. Of course it takes time. It’s devastating during the salary discussion because I know that I maybe would have had better statistic otherwise. They [the managers] only follow the statistics, not really if I am proficient or not. That I help others a lot is nothing that can be measured

so I don’t receive anything for that, rather the opposite (Agent, Case Epsilon, November 2014).

An additional example that the company’s knowledge strategy did not always benefit certain individuals’ performance levels could be explained in relation to an organizational change implemented during 2013/early 2014. The general understanding of how experience, and the amount and level of knowledge influenced performance in this organizational setting was further strengthened after Eon CS changed from primarily a caring customer service organization into a selling customer support one. This change was implemented as a response to a reduced number of incoming customer calls. The nature of the work not only placed a considerably higher emphasis on sales (which also changed the company’s recruitment profile), but also focused less on customer satisfaction (yet was contested by some managers). This impact was further verified in empirical manifestations, since managers prioritized certain targets above others (further described in relation to control; Chapter 7.2.2.). Many experienced agents considered that previously desirable service and advisory skills were downplayed in favor of sales skills that were more in line with the current business. However, the company’s knowledge strategy for the work groups remained the same. Given that agents tended to remain with Eon CS for approximately six years (Chapter 5.2.2), the opinion that two types of agents working in the organization existed were strengthened. One camp comprised agents employed on the former work emphasis, whereas the other comprised agents recruited for the current focus. Both middle managers and agents shared perceptions that the first camp might not longer fit into the business. This not only downplayed the importance of experience and knowledge, but also the abilities to solve complex issues.

We do have a great experience from customer care but we also start getting a category of people who have experience of what we want to do now: being proactive, efficient, good at sales, that work a little bit faster.

You could say that we have two camps (Middle manager, Case Epsilon, November 2014).

The main challenge for all managers here [at Eon CS] is that we have many agents who have been here for a long time and that don’t quite fit into the organization. Especially after the summer [of 2014] it has become much more focus on sales (Middle manager, Case Beta, November 2014).

154

Selling is something you have to work with all the time because that did not exist here before. When I started working here, and that’s not so long ago, it didn’t exist. Sales have increased more recently, and it’s something that those who have worked here for a long time need to struggle with.

Back then it was more of a customer service and now we are a sales support. It’s clear on what the company chooses to prioritize. I think the focus on sales will increase even more (Agent, Case Delta, November 2014).

The perception that one camp of agents suddenly did not fit into the company was also based on a difficulty of learning how to succeed with sales in relation to the call center work.

We need to find a selling side within all agents. But we also need to reduce the errand times, it’s like a part of our DNA, and to be able to succeed with that while reaching more sales. And that takes a really long time to change. You could say that about 50–60 percent of our agents basically are not sales people, and of which perhaps 25 percent might improve, but where 30 percent are totally off track. They are recruited on completely different criteria so they can never be good salespersons (Middle manager, November 2014).

Before we should satisfy the customers, and today selling is the main priority. Me and a couple of the other old foxes would never have a chance of getting a job here today because they search for sales skills. They can never teach us old dogs to sit, we don’t have the same kind of thinking and can therefore not sell equally well (Agent, Case Beta, November 2014).

The organizational change enlarged the distinction between categories of agents, which did not favor experienced agents, their performance (since it influenced the coping strategy of pausing; Chapter 7.1.2), or their level of compensation (Chapter 7.2.2) if they didn’t learn how succeed at sales.

A final impact on performance by organizing people according to group-based knowledge concerns the negative influence of increasing sick leave rates among experienced agents, as a result of not being able to handle new performance requirements (see inward and physical escape; Chapter 7.1.2).

It’s more stress and controlling activities now, there are so many of us that are stressed, it wasn’t like that two years ago. It [the rate of sick leave] has increased really fast and it’s still increasing in line with the enhanced demands on sales. You shall do it, you must, there are no other choices.

It’s dangerous to have such high demands overall (Agent, Case Gamma, November 2014).

Also I have agents in my group that are employed on premises when we had a completely different organization, the caring operations, and it’s still quite difficult to make them apply a permanent selling approach. You have to be there and poke all the time. You can’t get away with not offering things anymore, you have to do it in each call, and some find it really hard and can’t handle it (Middle manager, November 2014).

Summary of contextual elements

Matching people and tasks according to a strategy in which each work group held appropriate skills, knowledge, and experience to solve all types of issues in the group benefited problem-solving at the individual and group levels, given that new agents learned from more experienced ones.

This strategy generated a larger knowledge base within the group of how to deal with various issues and problems in these call centers. This contextual element also implied a positive influence on group-based performance regarding sales and customer satisfaction, based on the logic that individuals within a work group compensated for each other’s performance levels (with some variations).

However, matching people and tasks according to this strategy also generated lower (or higher) efficiency levels on-phone at the individual level, given varying implications from informally and internally sharing knowledge in the work group (Chapter 7.1.1). The negative impact regarding efficiency was not always compensated for in the work group, resulting in lower group-based on-phone efficiency. In addition, the changing nature of work while keeping the same knowledge-strategy in the work groups also resulted in a higher rate of sick leave among agents who could not manage these new requirements (Chapter 7.1.2, inward and physical escape). The degree of impact on both individual- and group-based performance in each type and category of performance was group-based on the specific organization of knowledge, skills, and experience in each work group. It was very rare that agents were skilled within all parts of their work. The rate of experienced agents versus less experienced ones working in each group, and their abilities to compensate for each other’s performance, influenced group-based performance. This notion further emphasizes the different challenges regarding experience, skills, knowledge, and performance that each middle manager faced and was required to handle in the respective work groups. Although they were not hired for sales skills, experienced agents were still required to reach sales

156

targets to receive certain monetary rewards based on overall performance levels. The middle managers’ role was complex, given the importance of spurring performance yet avoiding pushing agents too hard, leading them into sick leave or escaping behavior.

Moreover, given the requirement and encouragement for informal knowledge-sharing activities (even though helpfulness was not rewarded or accounted for at evaluation meetings, since it was not measured), this organizational strategy for composing work groups appeared to reach moderate/high group-based performance levels significantly above individual performance levels (that might have been reached by organizing pure skills groups that can motivate significantly higher achievements among colleagues within that skills area). The empirical findings revealed that the contextual element influenced the individual element of coping in terms of which coping strategy agents adopted.

7.2.2 Functional or dysfunctional control: Appropriate means to