Measuring and evaluating performance at Eon CS

To further our knowledge of how to manage performance in a call center context, this second empirical chapter will move forward from insights gained in Chapter 5 to provide a detailed presentation of how performance is conceptualized at Eon CS. This chapter is divided into two parts. The first part (Chapter 6.1) describes how performance is measured and evaluated at Eon CS, which reflects how the actors understand performance. The second part (Chapter 6.2) reflects my analytical interpretation of how performance is conceptualized at Eon CS. This part of the chapter presents an analytical categorization of performance (the three performance categories), which will be used to highlight various performance levels at the group level within the four chosen subcases for this study. I will also present a ranking between the four subcases based upon performance levels over time. This is followed by examples highlighting individual performance differences within these subcases, including distinguishing performance trends.

6.1 Measuring and evaluating performance at Eon CS

A basic introduction of how performance is measured and evaluated at Eon CS will allow further understanding of how performance is regarded and used in the case company. This will serve as a guideline for grasping what good and poor performance is associated with in this specific organization.

114

6.1.1 Performance measurement at Eon CS

Management at Eon CS operates with various performance metrics (KPIs) for measuring various outcomes of agents’ actions at work, which are also aggregated at the group and organizational levels. Some performance metrics measure internal activities within the two call centers, such as the duration of handling customer errands (such as talk time, wrap-up time, and errand times for various requests), and efficiency in handling sales activities and administrative tasks. Other types of performance metrics reflect outcomes related to personnel management (absence, employee turnover, and personal attitudes). Eon CS also operates with performance metrics that measure internal activities from an external view, which emphasize customers’ views of the company’s service delivery (such as Net Promoter Score [NPS] and Customer Satisfaction Index). A complete list of performance metrics utilized at Eon CS is described in detail in Appendix 3 (Table 22). All operations are measured through the company’s integrated IT systems that log agents’ activities when following their individual schedules (the ruler, described in Chapter 5.2.3) that, in turn, generate individual statistics. These statistics, referred to in this study as performance data, are then evaluated.

6.1.2 Performance evaluation at Eon CS

Performance data is continuously evaluated by middle managers through the use of two interconnected tools: Pre-determined targets, and behavior-based performance evaluation. These tools form the underlying components for the actual evaluation tool to set agents’ bonuses and salaries at Eon CS.

Pre-determined targets

Middle managers set pre-determined targets for each agent within all utilized metrics at Eon CS, which are derived from the operational targets that the division manager sets for the work groups in the call centers. Pre-determined targets are a yardstick for evaluating how well an agent and a work group perform according to expected levels. This is calculated by whether or not agents met the targets, and how much above or below they (on average) performed, during a month or/and a year. Targets at Eon CS are jointly set at the individual level between the middle manager and the agent. During my study period, agents suggest a target and level toward which they are willing to work during the year. However, this practice

was not always successful, given that agents’ interest in setting up their own goals was occasionally low (this did vary within and between work groups). In these cases, middle managers set yearly, monthly, or even weekly targets for agents. Appendix 3 (Table 22) shows actual targets for each performance metric.

Although the main aim was to meet pre-determined targets, company documents showed that middle managers were also supposed to take personal circumstances (such as illness or absence) and other extenuating circumstances (such as change of tasks during the year) into account during performance evaluations. Company documents also noted that 60 percent of the performance evaluation for determining agents’ salaries and bonuses should be based on actual performance (rather than on behaviors, see below).

Behavior-based performance evaluation

Agents’ overall behaviors at work were also evaluated as performance, in terms of their attitudes towards work (such as RMA) and their level of willingness to help colleagues. This type of performance (referred to as soft metrics) is evaluated by middle managers through their subjective opinion of whether or not each agent’s behavior is in line with set targets (preferred behaviors). Company documents highlighted that 40 percent of the performance evaluation for determining salaries and bonuses should be based on this behavior-based performance evaluation.

Evaluation tool for performance appraisals

Table 14 shows the actual evaluation tool middle managers use to evaluate individual performance. This tool, which includes the ones presented above, is based upon a five-point performance scale, wherein each scale is calculated and determined by a percentage of expected level of performance (a scale from 0 percent to 200 percent).

116

Table 14: The evaluation tool for bonus and salary, five-point performance scale, Eon CS⁵⁴

Type of performance/

Scale Description of the performance level

Percentage of expected level of performance

Extraordinary performance

Fantastic performance, clearly above expectations. Helps others to understand the reason for change. Responsive to other people’s unwillingness to change, supports and motivates them to accept and to adapt to change. Possesses an extraordinary co-creative approach and is a good ambassador for Eon.

151%–200%

Very good performance

A considerably good performance, in which targets were exceeded. Acts with drive and commitment in relation to change.

Learns from their own and others’ successes and mistakes to test new paths. Works with great determination and focus to achieve company goals.

116%–150%

Good performance

A good performance that is somewhat over or under the expected performance level. Willing to try new things and takes is business risks. Open to new ideas and adapts quickly to change. Takes the initiative to change and develop their own work and tries to influence others to do the same.

85%–115%

(target level)

Performance that partly meet expectations

A performance that does not fully meet expectations. A smaller gap to the target level. Holds onto old methods. Often requires a long time to adjust to changes, often keeps old accustomed track.

50%–84%

Performance clearly below expected levels

A performance that is well below expected levels. Does not reach targets. Focuses on problems and obstacles to change.

Avoids risks and new approaches to solve problems. Quickly blames others for mistakes and problems. Consuming behavior.

0%–49%

This evaluation tool is the basis for discussion between the middle manager and each agent during the formal, individual performance appraisals that take place at least twice a year. Apart from these structured, planned meetings, frequent informal follow-up meetings are also carried out between the agent and the middle manager during the year. These meetings keep the middle manager updated regarding the status of the agents’ performance and proximity of reaching targets. In addition, how individuals perform is communicated to the division manager on a general level. However, agents’ work behaviors and performance levels are more often discussed among the middle managers working at the same call center site. Table 15 summarizes the structure and content of the performance appraisals.

54 Information received from an Eon CS presentation for follow-up, payroll, and performance in the case organization for 2011/2012. Based on company documents, it should also be noted that this evaluation tool does not seem to be based upon an aim to become a world-class call center.

Table 15: Performance appraisals at Eon CS⁵⁵ Structure

/Content Included actors/structure Content

Performance appraisal 1

The agent and the middle manager; occurring at the end of January each year, lasting for two hours

Salary and bonus dialogue. Middle manager explains decision for the level of salary and bonus for the agent based upon performance during previous year. New targets are set for the agent for the upcoming year:

Suggestions from agent of motivating targets and from middle manager of suitable targets.

Performance appraisal 2

The agent and the middle manager; occurring in August each year, lasting for two hours

Follow-up dialogue of salary and bonus. Discussing target achievement, performance and skill-development so far during that year.

Informal follow-up meetings

Informal meetings continuously during the year, monthly

Keeping middle manager updated of the agent’s status, changes and challenges.

Total Individual meetings, covering the entire year

Middle manager evaluates agents in all parts of their work and tries to have constructive dialogue about what is required by both parties to make them reach set targets, for individual and group. Establishing actions of how to improve agents’ results and work satisfaction in relation to commitment and development, and to increase engagement for the group and the company.