Unhealthy Adherence Goals

There are many practices that exist to make adherence scores look good. We’ve seen these practices, and the problems they produce. A seemingly good adherence score will not mask discrepancies in levels of services, and certainly won’t keep dissatisfied customers at bay. What are some of the traps organizations are falling into?

No Adherence Goal

One practice that has proven to be ineffective is not having an adherence goal to begin with. According to the Society of Workforce Planning Professionals, 14% of respondents in a 2011 survey indicated having no such goal. It’s never too late to measure adherence. We must note however, that the goal you set must not be too aggressive. Start small, based on the average adherence scores of agents, and slowly raise the goal over time to encourage improvement.

Wrong Adherence Goal

Having the wrong adherence goal is just as ineffective as having no goal at all. For example, many organizations settle on a one-size-fits-all adherence goal, but such goals end up being too low for some groups, and too high for others. Adherence goals should differ between groups and be determined in a specific manner:


Exceptions for Long Calls

There are many operations that try to take the sneaky route by adjusting breaks and lunches to compensate for lagging adherence. This quick fix doesn’t work out well in the long term. It leads to issues with morale when agents observe adjustments being made.

Workforce management systems can help clean up the mess when used in conjunction with effective schedule management processes. Adherence goals can be a source of productivity rather than pain! When adherence is properly measured and explicitly tied to customer satisfaction, you have results no one would want to mask.

There are four more practices that impede adherence goals across organizations. Learn more about them and simple solutions by downloading our free whitepaper.

Share this:
Twitter LinkedIn Facebook Email