Category: Call Center

Call center articles by Peter Lyle DeHaan, PhD

A Word is a Powerful Thing

Post author By Peter Lyle DeHaan
Post date June 1, 2005

By Peter Lyle DeHaan, PhD

A reader complained about our content in the May issue. In fact, he was downright mad over our coverage promoting outsourcing call centers. The ironic thing is that this reader actually works for an outsourcing call center! Yes, they go by a different label, but they are, by definition, an outsourcing call center – no more and no less.

The May issue had focused on explaining and advancing the cause of call center outsourcing, which would benefit this reader, but offense was taken and ire stirred. My response to this unexpected criticism ranged between bewilderment and anger, but has since settled down to be mere amusement. Yes, a word is a powerful thing.

It seems that “outsourcing” has been politicized. Once a word becomes politicized, as outsourcing was in the 2004 United States presidential campaign, all reasonable thinking stops and logic becomes, well, illogical. Rhetoric steps in and common sense is relegated to lesser important things.

Think of any major societal issue and it has likely been politicized by a one word rallying cry. Regardless of what the word is, or it’s original and true intent, proponents hold it up high as a emblem of virtue and all that is good, while opponents decry it as indicative of evil, being characteristic of what is wrong in the world today.

Twenty years ago, the word telemarketing was coined to put an apt and descriptive label on a nascent and promising industry; one that used the telephone to cost-effectively promote products, better service customers, and provide companies with a competitive advantage. But then that simple and benign word became politicized and now few people use it; in most circles we are reluctant to even utter it out loud.

Those who still do telemarketing, have long since adopted a less emotionally-laden label for fear of verbal retaliation or psychological retribution. While those who vehemently object to telemarketing’s practice, wield that word as an offensive slur to convey their frustration against all they find unacceptable relating to conducting business over the phone. In short, it is no longer politically correct to engage in telemarketing. A word is a powerful thing.

So, emotion and rhetoric aside, what is outsourcing? In it’s broadest, most general sense, outsourcing is having another company to do work for you that you could do yourself. This occurs at both the business level and a personal level – and more frequently then you might think.

Some common business outsourcing examples include: payroll, bookkeeping, human resources, building maintenance, cleaning services, telecommunications management, public relations, executive search, tax accounting, information technology, and, of course, call processing.

On the personal level, we outsource as well. Consider the dry cleaners, car washes, tax accountants, lawn services, car mechanics, maid services, pizza delivery, catering, and so forth. In fact, anyone who provides a service is actually an outsourcer and we are all, in one way or another, consumers of outsourcing services.

Does this imply that outsourcing is a manifestation of laziness? Although that may be the case in some limited instances, the far more common and general reasoning is that outsourcing can reduce costs, save time, or result in higher quality. Sometimes outsourcers can provide two of these results or maybe even all three.

Another oft-stated justification for outsourcing is that it allows organizations to offload nonessential tasks, thereby permitting them to focus limited resources (which is a reality for every organization) on their core competencies. Some organizations have found it beneficial to even outsource their core competencies. Why not if it can be done cheaper, better, or faster by a specialist?

Therefore, we can correctly conclude that the entire service sector provides outsourcing services, that we all use these outsourcing services, and that there are many wise and beneficial business reasons to do so. So why all the flap over something that is so common and so pervasive?

Although the word “outsourcing” is the moniker that has been villainized, this is a grossly unfair and ignorant generalization. What the focus and outcry is truly about is offshore call center outsourcing that is done badly. Offshoring is not outsourcing, but rather a small subset of it.

In fact, the majority of call center outsourcing today is reportedly intra-country, that is, it is companies located within the United States, outsourcing call processing work to call centers located within the United States.

Yes, there is an increasing trend towards offshore call center outsourcing, and it may one day represent the majority, but for the near future it embodies a minority of call center outsourcing, where it is projected to remain for the next several years.

This is in no way to imply that I am against offshore call center outsourcing per se. I am, in fact, a hard-core, free-market, laissez-faire idealist. At least until my phone call is answered by someone who I can’t understand, be it due to a heavy accent or words that are used in a way that simply doesn’t make sense.

While such a result may be indicative (but not necessarily so) that a call center is located outside the country, it is critical to point out that the converse should not be assumed either. That is, every agent who speaks with clear and comprehensible English, is not automatically US-based.

Just as lucid and concise communication can occur with agents in other countries, severe communication hurdles can exist with agents located within our borders. The original and true frustration was not with the location of the agent, but quite simply with their ability to effective communicate in understandable and conversational English.

Politicians saw this frustration as a safe and universally acceptable cause on which to campaign. They made the false assumption that it was a location issue, put a wrong label on it (outsourcing versus offshoring), vilified it, and promoted themselves as the ones who could solve the problem they defined. That’s politics!

The next step was to feed the fire by adding fuel to their argument. National security issues were brought into play, as was personal privacy concerns, since information was leaving the country to reside in a foreign-located database. The exporting of jobs was denounced, as was the harm that this was causing to the U.S. economy. By the time the politicians were done, “outsourcing” (or more correctly, offshore call center outsourcing) was portrayed as a threat to all that is near and dear to the hearts and minds of the people. It was the enemy and it had to be stopped. Rhetoric is persuasive and as such, a word becomes a powerful thing.

The results of all this are sad, but predictable. First, people learned that is was okay to be intolerant of agents who spoke with an accent or hadn’t yet fully mastered the English vernacular. Unfortunately, some people went beyond intolerance, with their attitudes spilling over into hatred, bigotry, and abhorrence.

Secondly, we were taught that any form of call center outsourcing – and to a degree, all outsourcing – is an increasingly unpatriotic and unacceptable act.

Lastly, and most dangerously for the industry, is a spate of bills that were introduced on the national, state, and local level to control, limit, or restrict the inbound call center industry.

Although the intent of these bills are ostensibly focused against the offshore call center, their broad and inclusive language is all-encompassing, covering all call center outsourcers (remember that U.S.-based call centers handle the majority of US outsourcing work) and has widespread ramifications for the in-house call center as well.

Less anyone misunderstand what I am saying or the way in which I communicated it:

Outsourcing is not synonymous with offshoring.
I support outsourcing as good, beneficial, and necessary and I am passionate about the importance and value of call center outsourcing.
Offshore outsourcing is here, it is real, and the marketplace should decide its position in the global economy.
The real enemy is legislation, which if left unchecked will forever and detrimentally change the entire call center industry, be it outbound or inbound, outsource or in-house, as well as offshore.
I love the United States of America – it’s the politicians that drive me crazy!

Yes, a word is a powerful thing – and I try to choose mine carefully.

Read more in Peter’s Sticky Series books: Sticky Leadership and Management, Sticky Sales and Marketing, and Sticky Customer Service featuring his compelling story-driven insights and tips.

Peter Lyle DeHaan, PhD, is the publisher and editor-in-chief of Connections Magazine, covering the call center teleservices industry. Read his latest book, Healthcare Call Center Essentials.

Tags From the Publisher, telemarketing

Call Center

The Art of Delegation

Post author By Peter Lyle DeHaan
Post date May 1, 2005

By Peter Lyle DeHaan, PhD

Two decades ago, as a first-time manager, I was green and had much to learn. Management had looked easy when viewed from the outside. Many times had I assured myself that, given the opportunity to lead, I would never make the same seemingly dim-witted, hasty, or unwise blunders that I had witnessed or been subjected to.

Yes, I would direct my future staff and conduct myself with enlightenment and common sense, never forgetting the negative examples I had witnessed over the years. Quite simply, I pledged to do a better job as a manager. It was a commendable yet lofty goal; one that I found much easier to proclaim than to perform.

I walked down the hall with my boss, a man whom I respected, yet feared; loyally loved, yet occasionally detested. Publicly I defended him, yet privately was confounded by his seemingly inexplicable demands and thoughtless pronouncements. He was the source of countless frustrations while offering inadequate praise and encouragement. He had just given me yet one more assignment, a task that I didn’t have time to do.

I protested at his directive, insisting that I already had too much on my plate. “Don’t worry,” he assured me. “Just delegate it.” I mentally reviewed the capabilities and level of expertise of my charges. Although a group of capable young technologists, none of them, I concluded, were ready for a project of this magnitude or capable of completing it in way that would meet my boss’s high standards and exacting expectations.

“But there is no one I can delegate it to,” I objected plaintively.

“Do you want to know the secret of delegation?” he inquired. There was a twinkle in his eye. I moved closer and held my breath, expecting the secret of managerial nirvana. My expecting eyes were all the encouragement he needed to continue. “It’s simple,” he instructed, “Just look for your busiest guy and give the project to him!” I was dumbfounded at the seemingly ridiculousness and unsound nature of his great “insight.” Wisely, I said nothing and he continued. “You see, the busiest guy is the guy who gets things done; that is always who you want to delegate to.”

Inside I was seething, but outwardly I kept quiet, giving a comprehending look, a respectful nod, and a faint smile. His deputation of me and dissemination of knowledge now complete, he strode down the hallway to his next victim, while I gratefully ducked into my office and closed the door.

His air of acumen angered me on multiple levels. First, I had yet another project to attend to. Second, it was illogical and unfair; delegating to the busiest employee would only serve to make them more busy, setting them up to be the leading candidate for the next project. Lastly, and on a grander level, I realized that as the busiest of those under his command, I was, and would forever be, his “go to guy.”

There had to be a better way. It took a while, some investigative reading, and a lot of trial and error, but I eventually came to understand the art of delegating. Delegation is something all managers need to do. Unfortunately it is easier said than done. Many who attempt it are unhappy with the results, often accepting sub-par outcomes or completely giving up. Sadly, successful delegation requires an initial investment of time, often more time than for you to do the work yourself. If that is the case, why bother? Quite simply because once you have taught your employees on how to receive and complete delegated tasks, you can realize a huge savings of time as you empower them, allowing them to grow as individuals and to contribute to your organization’s success. As such, delegation is well worth the extra effort to do it right. A five step procedure paves the way to successful delegation.

The first step is to select the right people. A person who has proven themselves in small things can be given greater responsibilities with increased latitude. However, until they have proven their ability to responsibly and effectively handle assignments, the scope of their tasks must be kept small and somewhat trivial. For example, if they can’t arrive at work on time, is there any reason to assume they can accomplish something more challenging? To give unproven employees a chance to substantiate themselves, start with small assignments (yes, the first one might be to arrive on time) such as sorting mail, stuffing envelopes, or making copies. Next, they can graduate to placing an office supply order (you select the items and quantities, they call it in), or processing UPS shipments. Each time they successfully complete a delegated assignment, they can be rewarded with additional responsibilities; each time they fail to properly or timely complete a task, they must be confronted. All employees should be trained to handle delegated projects at a basic level. If they are unable to handle even the most basic task, you should seriously ask yourself why you are still employing them. Some employees will advance to assignments of medium difficulty, while a few will be superstars, able to work independently and largely unsupervised. Therefore, match the task to the employee based on their record.

Once the correct employee has been selected, ensure they have the proper tools and knowledge to do the job. If the work requires a computer, is one available for them? If it requires a program, do they know how to use it? Next, consider whether they have the background knowledge to complete the project. It is easy to assume that key details are common knowledge or to oversimplify a project. Often, an employee needs instruction or training before they can successfully navigate an assignment. Not only do you need to ensure they have been given this information, but also to provide it in the ideal format for them. Some people learn best in written form, others want to be shown, and some need to do it; occasionally a combination is appropriate. Regardless, asking an employee to embark on a project without the proper resources is setting them up for failure.

Thirdly, give them a clear timetable for completion. Saying that a project is “urgent” means different things to different people. Saying “when you have time” can likewise be misinterpreted. When giving a deadline, you cannot be too specific. Examples include, “I require your written overview on my desk every Monday by 5 p.m.”, or “I need your preliminary work by the end of the day on Thursday, the 12^th.”

Next — and this is the hard part – hold them accountable. Follow-up needs to be consistent and expected; let them know ahead of time that you will be checking on their progress. Also assure them that you are available for questions. If they do unsatisfactory work or miss a deadline, there must be a reaction. This could be merely asking them to explain what happened. Perhaps, despite your best efforts, instructions were incomplete or training was insufficient; then shoulder the blame yourself and correct the oversight. Sometimes, they need to be made aware of the ramifications: “Because you did not complete this on time, we lost the client, which will cost us X hundred dollars.” If you correctly follow step one (select the right people and allow them to prove themselves) only in the rarest of cases will disciplinary action be required or even appropriate. The story is told of a loyal, responsible, and trusted employee who made an error costing his company $330,000 dollars. He submitted his resignation. “What!” his manager exclaimed, “You can’t quit now; we just invested a third of a million dollars in your training!” What confidence and assuredness this must have instilled in that employee.

Lastly, as they prove themselves in small things, begin giving them bigger and more important assignments. Now you can then begin to phase out much of your effort in the “accountability” step. Yes, they still need to be held accountable, but it gradually becomes ancillary to the process of delegation, instead of integral to it.

If you follow these steps consistently, all employees will become better at responding to delegation; some employees will even advance to the point of self-determination, where you no longer need to assign things to them, they take the initiative to do what needs to be done without your input or direction. This is delegation at its finest!

Read more in Peter’s Sticky Series books: Sticky Leadership and Management, Sticky Sales and Marketing, and Sticky Customer Service featuring his compelling story-driven insights and tips.

Peter Lyle DeHaan, PhD, is the publisher and editor-in-chief of Connections Magazine, covering the call center teleservices industry. Read his latest book, Healthcare Call Center Essentials.

Tags From the Publisher, leadership

Call Center

Perfection

Post author By Peter Lyle DeHaan
Post date April 1, 2005

By Peter Lyle DeHaan, PhD

Hello, my name is Peter and I’m…a perfectionist. Yes, I can now openly admit it, I am a perfectionist. I have amassed decades of experience fine-tuning my craft and learning more about it. Perfection, has many advantages but it has a dark side, too.

Over the years, I have learned how to tap into and celebrate the many strengths and benefits of pursuing excellence. At the same time, I have endeavored to guard against it’s limiting, self-defeating, and even paralyzing facets. As such, I consider myself to be an informed perfectionist, more to the point I am a recovering perfectionist.

[Star Trek fans may be anticipating an enlightened discourse on Seven of Nine’s unremitting pursuit of Borg-style perfection. Alas, this is not the case. If you are disappointed, I recommend watching, “The Omega Directive” (StarTrek Voyager, season 4, episode 19) and then consider the cost of perfection.]

In my early days at the helm of this magazine, I lamented to it’s founder and prior owner, Steve Michaels, about my frustration that I was yet to produce an error-free issue. He laughed at my angst, informing me that out of the 50 issues he had produced, there was only one, or perhaps two, in which an error was never discovered.

He helped me to realize that it is worthy to pursue quality, but that publication perfection would be largely unobtainable. In fact, I soon learned to take reasonable measures that everything was correct and then be content with the results. My track record for error-free results is closely matching Steve’s and I’m okay with that – for the most part.

Doing research on perfectionism reveals a host of ominous and debilitating traits: starting with compulsiveness and going downhill from there, but I won’t delve into them in this article. After all, I am a recovering perfectionist and they don’t pertain to me any more!

As a recovering perfectionist, I can tap into my natural tendencies when I need to, that is, when it is to my advantage to do so, but can usually avoid being handicapped by perfection’s unrelenting snares. As a perfectionist, there are several traits in which I relish:

Produce quality work: perfectionists tend to produce high quality work. I take pleasure in excellence and find satisfaction in a job well-done, more to the point, done to near perfection or at least better than anyone else.
Exceed expectations: if the boss expects a handwritten report, the perfectionist will type it; if achieving a 99% rating is admirable, the purist will aim for 99.9 – and then 100! Being above average is not good enough; being the best is a self-imposed requirement. In sports, this results in shooting free throws while the rest of the team showers or taking 30 minutes of extra batting practice – every day.
Go the extra mile: perfectionists often go the extra mile. If a report needs to be five pages long, they will turn in six; if a product needs to have three new features, they will add a fourth and maybe a fifth. If they set a record last month, they will strive to better it this month.
Set high standards: another trait is that perfectionists set high standards, both for themselves, as well as others. As long as the standards are reasonably attainable, it is acceptable, and even admirable, for the perfectionist to set the bar high – for him or herself. But foisting faultlessness on the others does little more than establish the groundwork for future frustration, disappointment, and conflict between the precision-minded and the rest of the world.

Of course, there are counterparts to these traits. One, which I still struggle with, is procrastination. This column is a case in point; it is the last item being written for this issue! I understand that the perfectionist subconsciously reasons that the results of their work will never be just right – no mater how much time is invested – so why start?

In fact, the project is often delayed until the last possible moment, so that at least there is a plausible excuse as to why it’s not perfect: “I didn’t have much time to work on it!” Taking this to an extreme, some perfectionists miss deadlines and blow past due dates — often stressing about or agonizing over some trivial or irrelevant detail. Fortunately, I rarely take my proclivity for fastidiousness past a deadline.

Another side-effect of perfectionism that I have yet to completely master, is making quick decisions. Most of the time, I can analyze the facts that are available and known, consider the risks, and make a speedy proclamation. Some times, I need to “sleep on it” to be assured of the correctness of my judgment.

Occasionally, however, decisions can be agonizingly difficult for me to reach. This, most likely, is because I fear making the wrong conclusion, that is, a less than perfect one. The urge is to delay a pronouncement, while awaiting more information, so that a proper and informed analysis can be considered. Unfortunately, this mental paralysis is seldom cured by amassing more data. Though it is possible for me to logically reason myself out of this conundrum and move forward, more likely than not, a hard deadline approaches, and realizing that not deciding is the same as deciding no, I render a verdict – hoping that it is correct.

Happily, being self-aware of these tendencies is the first step toward avoidance, allowing me to confidently and gladly call myself a recovering perfectionist. Over the years, I have often interviewed other perfectionists, particularly during job interviews. As it becomes more and more apparent that I am talking to one of my own kind, I segue into a special interview segment, just for them.

“So,” I inquire, “Do you consider yourself to be a perfectionist?” Their responses fall into one of three categories. The first one is shock or denial. If a person who has just professed several perfectionist traits is taken aback at the thought of being called one or disavows any connection whatsoever, I judge them to either be disingenuous or not too self-aware. Neither are characteristics that I seek in an employee.

The second type of response to my perfectionist query, is unabashed pride and total satisfaction in possessing this quality. To make sure I am not rushing to a snap judgment, I give them one last chance for redemption.

“What,” I ask, “do you see as the weaknesses of being a perfectionist?” Occasionally, they will comprehend the importance of that question, using an astute answer to move them from this category over to category three.

Usually, however, they give me a blank stare, as if my inquiry was nonsensical, responding that there is no downside or that they don’t understand what I am asking. In similar fashion, I don’t want to work with a perfectionist that has failed to realize the turmoil and trouble they can produce by their ignorance in this matter.

The third type of perfectionist applicant smiles at this question and begins to share their self-awareness about the limitations of how their version of perfectionism is manifested. They openly identify the less than admirable ways that it reveals itself in them and often proceed to communicate how they guard themselves and others against this tendency. This is a person I want on my team.

Yes, they may take a bit more management effort from time to time, but doing so is worth the extra energy as the results will be an employee who produces quality work, frequently exceeds expectations, goes the extra mile, and sets high standards for themselves. Isn’t that who you want to work in your call center, too?

Read more in Peter’s Sticky Series books: Sticky Leadership and Management, Sticky Sales and Marketing, and Sticky Customer Service featuring his compelling story-driven insights and tips.

Peter Lyle DeHaan, PhD, is the publisher and editor-in-chief of Connections Magazine, covering the call center teleservices industry. Read his latest book, Healthcare Call Center Essentials.

Tags From the Publisher

Call Center

Learning from History

Post author By Peter Lyle DeHaan
Post date March 1, 2005

By Peter Lyle DeHaan, PhD

One of the assignments I enjoyed most in college was analyzing case studies. I was, and continue to be, fascinated with learning what founders and their companies have done – both right and wrong. While the success stories are the more exciting and inspirational, it is the failures and missteps that are the more enlightening and educational.

It should not be surprising that I take most seriously the adage, “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” For those in business, the best histories to learn from are business case studies, especially those accounts of the downfall, demise, or defeat of once prosperous and successful businesses and entrepreneurs.

Of course, scrutinizing the steps taken in a remarkable turnaround are also instructive, as well as encouraging for anyone faced with a formidable uphill battle.

I consider the phenomenal success stories, which are uplifting, to be “light” reading and as much entertaining as educational. Success stories abound of the cash-strapped entrepreneur who by focused vision and through sheer determination, bootstraps a dream into a profitable and flourishing business.

In like fashion, there are many accounts of the big-business corporate executive who leads his or her company to the next revenue plateau, into a new line of business, or to revolutionize an industry.

Rare, however, is the entrepreneur who starts with nothing and using equal parts vision, moxie, and genius launches a business and is still at the helm as it reaches the Fortune 500. These individuals are a unique breed. They have the ability to grow, change, and mature as leaders, in parallel with the evolving entity they parented. These are the business superstars; three such examples come to mind.

The first is Steve Jobs who, with buddy Steve Wozniak, yearned to bring the power of computing to the masses. Financed by the sale of their only tangible assets, the pair began making computer kits in a parent’s garage. Apple computer was born, and though Jobs was for a season extricated from the company he co-founded, he is now back at the helm guiding this eight billion dollar a year company.

The next example is found in Bill Gates and Paul Allen who founded Microsoft. Starting in 1975, by providing operating systems and programming languages, they parlayed their fledging company into a 37 billion dollar a year juggernaut.

Then there is Michael Dell who started assembling PCs in his college dorm room, hence the humble beginnings of Dell Computer. Now a 41 billion dollar a year company and ranked number one in PC sales, Dell sets the business and operational standards to which the rest of the industry aspires.

Many, if not most, outsourcing call centers started with equally humble beginnings. Tales abound of founders sleeping next to the phone so that they could offer 24/7 coverage. Others answered their first call in their apartment, out of a converted warehouse, from their front porch, or even in a garage.

Fortunately, those call centers that survived soon left these inauspicious beginnings. In true entrepreneurial fashion, they grew their meager investment into viable, ongoing concerns, quickly moving to more suitable and appropriate environs.

While it is not realistic to expect a call center to grow into the multibillion-dollar size of Apple, Microsoft, or Dell, it is wise to consider their founders’ paths. Indeed, the very traits and characteristics that serve one well as an entrepreneur, can become a hindrance and counterproductive as a business grows and matures.

Although Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and Michael Dell all made this transition (and had books written about them as a result), few individuals can successfully transform their leadership style each time their enterprise metamorphoses into the next iteration of scale, scope, and complexity.

Case histories and business literature repeatedly shows that, all too often, the next plateau is met with disaster. Frequently, the entrepreneur turned reluctant CEO, micromanages his or her business and unconsciously reduces it back down to a more comfortable size that he or she can successfully handle; at worst, the miscast founder mismanages the business into insolvency.

The astute entrepreneur, well aware of this trap, can employ several strategies to avoid this. One technique is to form an advisory board, consisting of those owning and running larger concerns, to guide the founder’s nascent climb into management acuity. Some bring in an experienced and seasoned business manager to handle the day-to-day management, allowing the entrepreneurially focused founder to concentrate on visioning, planning, or innovating – whatever he or she does best and enjoys most.

One wise founder confided that he always hired management people who were over qualified and paid them accordingly – knowing that as the business continued to grow, they would easily rise to the occasion. Others go back to school and earn their MBA. Another approach is founders who send their kids to college, in anticipation that the next generation can guide the company to the next level and beyond. But that brings up a second caution for small businesses – passing the baton to the next generation.

Although studies differ by degree, they all confirm that the majority of small, family businesses are not successfully passed on to the second generation and only about 15 percent make it to the third generation. There are many theories as to why this is the case.

The leading supposition is that the second generation, not needing to make sacrifices to launch the business, lacks the requisite drive and wherewithal to persevere. Another is that problems occur when the business is handed over too quickly to adult children who are still too young or too inexperienced.

Some entrepreneur parents attempt to avoid these problems by making their successor children start at an entry-level position and work their way up the organization. But this fast-track status often backfires, engendering resentment from non-relatives who may be otherwise more qualified, better educated, and possessing greater tenure.

In attempts to avoid this pitfall, some founders add a stipulation for their children to earn a degree and put in time at another firm, gaining valuable experience and acumen before joining the family business. Although this final approach is the one that seems to offer the greatest chance for success, it is by no means a sure-fire strategy.

Other growth problems occur when a single location business adds a second location or acquires a geographically disparate competitor. Since most small business owners employ the simple, yet effective style of “management by walking around,” they find it impossible to successfully and simultaneously manage multiple locations – this is especially true for a service business, such as a call center.

Indeed, this common management style does not work for long if the manager is not physically present. As stated earlier, the results are usually disastrous, rooted in either micromanagement or mismanagement that thwarts growth, hampers quality, and limits profitability. The solution is simple, albeit difficult.

Quite simply a change in management style is required. Either the founder must adapt a new way of doing things or find someone else who can, giving them the leeway and latitude to do their job. However, neither approach is comfortable or painless for an entrepreneur used to putting his or her mark on everything that happens and in making all decisions.

A fourth problem faced by the entrepreneurial founder is addressing life-cycle changes. While some may have both the drive and ability to run a business for the remainder of their lives, most get to a point where they want to scale back, be it not handling the day-to-day issues, taking longer vacations, semi-retiring, or not working at all.

These are all various forms of letting go; it is hard, if not impossible, for someone who sacrificed to launch a business, makes every decision, and oversees all activities. The solutions to the first three entrepreneurial dangers all apply to this situation. If there is a son or daughter interested in taking over the business, this may be the best solution, providing there is time to do it properly and correctly.

Changing one’s management style is another option, just as is required for the growing or expanding enterprise. Still, all too many founders find themselves in a position where their kids don’t want the business but they can’t change their management style, so they opt for the only other solution; they sell the business.

Regardless of the situation or business dilemma one faces, rest assured that someone has encountered it before. Don’t struggle with a problem as though it is unique to you because in all likelihood it is not.

Do some research, read some business books and case studies, and whatever you do, learn from history so that you are not doomed to repeat it.

Read more in Peter’s Sticky Series books: Sticky Leadership and Management, Sticky Sales and Marketing, and Sticky Customer Service featuring his compelling story-driven insights and tips.

Peter Lyle DeHaan, PhD, is the publisher and editor-in-chief of Connections Magazine, covering the call center teleservices industry. Read his latest book, Healthcare Call Center Essentials.

Tags From the Publisher

Call Center

I Predict…

Post author By Peter Lyle DeHaan
Post date January 1, 2005

By Peter Lyle DeHaan, PhD

It seems that seldom a week goes by when I don’t receive a call from someone wanting to interview me. Sometimes it is a local newspaper, other times a specialty magazine. I was quite unnerved at my first interview request. I envisioned it being a hard-hitting, muckraking interrogation, intent on getting me to say something I didn’t mean. That was the best-case scenario. Worst-case, I feared a tabloid style grilling, twisting the truth, obliterating the context of my comments, or generating all out fabrications. As such, it is not surprising that I viewed each question with suspicion, searching to ascertain its hidden agenda, carefully constructing my response, and guardedly protecting my words. It took me a while, but I eventually came to realize that the vast majority of reporters merely want to get enough useful information to complete their piece. So now, I just answer their questions, as openly and honestly as possible — and then get back to the work in front of me.

Over time, I realized that the tenor of these interview requests fall into three categories. The first group is those who were trying to better comprehend the call center industry. I’ve tried, with only partial success, to educate the uninitiated in the distinction between inbound and outbound. I’ve tried to help them understand the call center industry is not necessarily synonymous with telemarketing (specifically, being interrupted during dinner), and the differences between in-house call centers and their outsourcing cousins. All too often, they want to skip this rudimentary instruction and go right to the main lesson – one that they are not yet prepared to adequately grasp.

The second category of questions revolves around outsourcing. Again, their level of understanding is simplistic. They assume that all call center outsourcing takes place offshore. They are surprised to learn that there are many viable outsource call centers onshore. They are incredulous when I tell them, in fact, that the majority of call center outsourcing occurs to call centers that are located, not at some third-world locale, but rather within the confines of their country’s borders. Then they go on to rant about accents and uncomprehending agents – as if accents equaled offshore. Yes, there may be a correlation, but there are plenty of local agents with accents and, indeed, offshore agents without accents. This, they cannot comprehend. Surely, they reason, if an agent has an accent, they must be offshore, won’t be able to effectively communicate, and must have a substandard intelligence. Such stereotypical attitudes will not easily be overcome.

The third group of questions revolves around the future. “What are the major call center trends that you see developing over the next 12 months?” Or, “How will technology impact the call center?” Other questions are less informed, such as “Will the Internet affect the call center industry?” Or “Do you think computers will ever be used in call centers?”

Sometimes the questions are nonsensical, along the lines of, “With the documented increase in demand for left-handed widgets in the Pacific Rim, how will the ongoing viability of the home-based agent in rural America be assured?” Okay, maybe I am being dense or perhaps they have an agenda, so I ignore the question and give a benign and generic reply, such as “We can be assured that technology will play an increasingly important role in tomorrow’s call center infrastructure.” That seems to make them happy. Plus, it is a valid, yet innocuous quote that they can slip anywhere into their article without me having any real concerns of being misrepresented.

In truth, I am reticent in making future prognostications. The reality is that sometimes my words come back to haunt me. In 1990, I wrote an article, proclaiming that advanced call forwarding features and stutter dial tone would be the “dynamic duo” of the decade for the telemessaging industry. As it turned out, advanced call-forwarding features did afford more connection opportunities and stutter dial tone could have been a powerfully effective message-waiting indicator, yet I failed to realize that telcos had no real interest or incentive to let call centers access their switches to turn on and off the stutter dial tone. At best, I batted 500.

Five years later, I gave a speech about home-based agents. My words about HR issues, training, and management are as relevant today as they were nine years ago. Yet I missed the mark on timing, as I envisioned this opportunity fully developing within a year or two. It wasn’t until the Internet became ubiquitous, that technology allowed home-based agents to become viable, practical, and cost-effective.

At another meeting around that time, I gave an informative primer on the Internet and impassionately urged attendees to begin learning and experiencing the Internet; indeed, their call centers’ future viability was at stake. My words were accurate and my advice was astute, but it almost didn’t happen. Some 12 years prior, in the early 1980s, I first heard about the Internet. I learned that it had limited accessibility (you needed to be at a major university or work for a defense contractor) and therefore I deemed it an anomaly with no practical business application. My understanding of the Internet remained frozen in a 1982 perspective until circumstances forced me to reexamine it. My how things had changed – and I almost missed it.

So, it is with great trepidation that I stick my neck out; I predict…

Offshore outsourcing will continue, grow, and succeed. True, there may be unaddressed quality issues and political ramifications today, but those will diminish. My good friend, Mike Leibowitz, succinctly summarized the situation, “Remember when ‘Made in China’ meant the products were of low quality? For that matter, ‘Made in Japan’ had the same stigma a generation ago. But they learned and improved and now Japan and China produce the highest quality items. So, don’t discount the Indians and Pakistanis just because they are having some issues with call center performance today. They are smart, they are motivated, and they will get better – much better.”

The Internet will become even more important. Lack of Internet acumen will relegate call centers to second-class existence – or worse. First, there are the basics.

Call centers must have a website. At minimum, it should be professional, be an effective marketing piece, and contain complete contact information. Too many small outsourcing call centers have put this off.
Key staff (preferably all staff) need to have their own business email address. Having one email address that everyone uses is, well, appalling and second rate.
Your email addresses must convey professionalism. Is blond4you@CheapEmail.com an email address that your call center can be proud to use?
Make sure that you actually test and check your email. In sending messages to the “contact us” email addresses on websites, I have found that about 15 percent are rejected and that about 65 percent are never answered.
Beyond these essentials, you need to be thinking about client services on your website, “talk-to-me” and chat options, remote agents, high-speed Internet access, VoIP, and hosted services. These are our future differentiators.

VoIP cannot be ignored. Sending voice calls over the Internet (VoIP) is an opportunity that every call center must consider. It allows home-based and remote agents to be cost-effective and viable and has the promise to lower telco costs. Your next switch (maybe even your current one) will likely be based on this premise. Be sure to choose your VoIP vendor with care; many will not survive.

Telco costs will go down. It was once postulated that the rate for long distance would converge at one cent per minute; rates will continue to move in that direction. However, with the aforementioned VoIP, the incremental cost of a long distance call could become zero!

Consolidation and mergers will continue. Consolidations and mergers will continue unabated. This will occur with phone companies, with equipment and software vendors, and among call centers. Regardless of which camp you are in, you must grow (either more market share or new markets) or find a niche (preferably multiple ones) in which you focus, excel, and lead. The status quo is not an option.

Government will be an increasing force. Expect new laws and policies to affect call centers, especially relating to privacy issues and outbound calling. The degree to which the FCC does or does not regulate telephone and related services will have far-reaching ramifications in terms of service availability, feature richness, pricing, and taxation. It is hard to predict what will happen, only that something will happen!

Adopt a mobile strategy. Did you know that half of all long distance calls are placed from mobile phones? Increasing numbers of consumers are jettisoning their landline phone in favor of a mobile phone, which affords them greater flexibility, “free” long distance, more features, and often lower rates. Our society is going mobile and the call center needs to strategize around that trend.

Some predictions will be wrong. This includes not only the preceding comments but those from everyone else, as well!

Read more in Peter’s Sticky Series books: Sticky Leadership and Management, Sticky Sales and Marketing, and Sticky Customer Service featuring his compelling story-driven insights and tips.

Peter Lyle DeHaan, PhD, is the publisher and editor-in-chief of Connections Magazine, covering the call center teleservices industry. Read his latest book, Healthcare Call Center Essentials.

Tags From the Publisher, offshoring, outbound calling, telemarketing, trends

Call Center

A Different Perspective on Health Insurance

Post author By Peter Lyle DeHaan
Post date December 1, 2004

By Peter Lyle DeHaan, PhD

It happened again. It shouldn’t surprise me but it does. In fact, it has been said so often that most people believe it to be true and accept it as fact. What am I talking about? Once again, a politician has stood up and impassionedly, emphatically, and convincingly asserted that we, as citizens of the United States of America, have a right to health care.

Wait a minute, we have a right to health care? Is it in the Constitution? Is it listed in the Bill of Rights? No, health care is not a right, but asserting that it is serves as an effective rallying cry for those who feel under-insured. People who do not enjoy this “right” imagine themselves as victims and in need of a champion to rescue them from their implied substandard existence. Who will rescue them? The very same politician who pointed out this grave injustice in the first place! Political rhetoric aside, there are several other misunderstandings about health insurance, as well.

According to Webster’s, insurance is the “coverage by contract whereby one party undertakes to indemnify or guarantee against loss by a specified contingency or peril.” The key words here are “contingency or peril.” Let’s look at some examples.

I have insurance on my house that will replace it if it is destroyed or suffers major damage. Without insurance, losing a home would be a financially devastating hardship. My homeowner’s policy doesn’t cover repairs or maintenance; those are things I can afford to pay myself.

My cars are insured as well. When they are new, I have full coverage in the event of a major accident. The thought of needing to unexpectedly shell out tens of thousands of dollars to replace a car is sufficient justification to pay for premiums with full coverage.

If people had the same expectations of their car insurance as they do for their medical insurance, here is how it might work. First, there would be a two dollar co-pay for gasoline. It wouldn’t matter if the tank were half-full or empty; the cost of a fill up would be two dollars. This would provide little incentive to buy fuel-efficient vehicles – we would merely want cars with bigger gas tanks! Oil changes would probably not be covered, but that’s okay. Just skip the oil changes and when the engine seizes up, there’s nothing to worry about, because it’s covered! If you hadn’t reached your deductible, you might need to pay twenty percent of the “reasonable and expected” charges for an engine rebuild, but that’s all. Then there are tires. Your policy would pay to have tires replaced every two years. It wouldn’t matter if you needed tires or not. So even though there is still usable tread on them, you have them replaced – insurance will pay for them. Of course, if one of these new tires has a blow out before the two years are up, then you’re out of luck – and you get mad at your insurance company. What about the cost to keep that old beloved car running? Not a problem, insurance covers it. Never mind that the parts are no longer being manufactured, hard to find, and expensive. Insurance will pick up the tab. The downsides to this incredulous scenario are that there will be lots of paperwork and you can only go to mechanics that are “part of the system.”

“Wait,” you say, “Cars are not people!” You’re right. They’re not. So, let’s talk life insurance. I want my family taken care of in the event I die unexpectedly. This sounds simple, but there is a decision to be made as to just how well I want them to be provided for. The first reaction is that my family should be totally and completely taken care of — forever. Let’s see, that will be a policy for a gazillion dollars and the monthly payment will be…slightly more than my take-home pay. Okay then, how about if they are partially taken care of but still need to work. Now the monthly insurance payment drops but is still too high. Okay, how much insurance can I get for fifty bucks a month? I’ll take it!

So insuring our lives is reduced to an economic decision, a cost-benefit calculation. If the tendency is to focus on the expense of life insurance, rather then the benefit, why not do the same for medical insurance?

Back when companies paid all their employees’ health insurance premiums, we, the insured, didn’t care about – or even consider – the cost of that benefit. But as premiums skyrocketed, companies began shifting some of that cost to employees. This should have driven home the financial cost of company-provided health insurance, but for far too many employees it didn’t. Over the years, I’ve had call center agents come to me with this common lament about their health insurance: “I didn’t even get back as much as I put in!”

Health insurance isn’t like the lottery. The expectation of receiving more than you paid is simply ludicrous. Yet, for some reason, many people view their health insurance with such a mindset. I submit they don’t think that way about their auto or home insurance, and certainly not their life insurance. Personally, each time that I write a check from the premium for my car, house, or life insurance, I am thankful that I didn’t need to use it!

What many workers don’t realize is that insurance companies are in the business to make money. Even non-profit insurance companies have to have this attitude. How do they make money? Quite simply, their income (that is, insurance premiums) needs to exceed their expenses (that is, claim payouts and overhead). That means, on average, no one is going to “get back as much as they put in.” If they do, the insurance company has lost money on them. If the insurance company losses money on too many people, or for too long, they either go out of business or need to dramatically raise rates.

Once we recognize the economic aspects of insurance (the cost-benefit perspective), are cognizant of the business model (to make money), and jettison wrong expectations (getting more than we put in), we can move forward with an attitude that health insurance should cover the “big” things and we should take care of the rest. Therefore, I want a policy that will cover a major surgery, a catastrophic illness, and prolonged treatments. I want to, and should be able to, cover the rest. But how can I do that?

Incredibly, the government has a solution! It starts with a high-deductible health plan. High-deductible means much lower premiums. This addresses concerns of catastrophic illnesses and bills that would result in financial ruin. In fact, my own health plan has a deductible of $5,150. That means I am on my own to cover most, if not all, of my family’s medical expenses. This brings up the second aspect, a health savings account (HSA). An HSA lets me set aside money, tax-free, for medical expenses. This money can generate a return, which is also tax-free, and when I use the money for medical expenses, it is again tax-free.

With the high-deductible medical insurance combined with a health savings account, I have taken control of my medical costs and saved money. I make decisions for how and when money will be spent on medical procedures, just like every other expense I consider – on the cost-benefit of the transaction. Lest you become aghast at me turning health considerations into a dollar sign, let me remind you that every other purchase is treated that way. So why not medical costs, too? After all, what we eat has a great bearing on our health, but it is common to bypass healthy and advisable foods based solely on their cost. We buy life insurance not by how much we need, but by what we can afford. The place we live and the car we drive, both of which can have health ramifications, are again based on cost.

Originally, high-deductible health insurance plans and HSAs were intended for the self-employed. Now they have been expanded to include small businesses (the majority of call centers are small businesses). Plus, it is likely that President Bush will try to expand the scope of who can be covered by these programs. We have an opportunity to adapt a new attitude and take control of rising medical costs; let’s do so.

Read more in Peter’s Sticky Series books: Sticky Leadership and Management, Sticky Sales and Marketing, and Sticky Customer Service featuring his compelling story-driven insights and tips.

Peter Lyle DeHaan, PhD, is the publisher and editor-in-chief of Connections Magazine, covering the call center teleservices industry. Read his latest book, Healthcare Call Center Essentials.

Tags From the Publisher

Call Center

Are You In or Out?

Post author By Peter Lyle DeHaan
Post date November 1, 2004

By Peter Lyle DeHaan, PhD

Since you are reading this column, it is highly likely that in some way or manner, you are in the call center industry. However, the question, “Are you in or out?” does not query your connection to the industry, but rather your participation within it.

Those who operate call centers, classify their activity in two ways. The first is if they handle inbound traffic or outbound traffic; the second is whether they are an in-house or outsource operation. Therefore, “Are you in or out?” is two questions, each with two answers, for four possible outcomes:

An in-house call center, doing inbound work
An in-house call center, doing outbound work
An outsource call center, doing inbound work
An outsource call center, doing outbound work

Inbound or Outbound? Inbound or outbound refers to the direction of calls. That is, whether the center makes calls (outbound) or receives calls (inbound).

For an outsider – or even an uninformed insider – this would seem to be a small distinction. “What’s the big difference?” They ask. “Both involve agents, use phones, and are supported by technology. If you are doing one, the other should not be a problem.”

Not so fast. The differences are as profound as night and day.

Inbound: Since inbound call centers answer calls, agents are in a reactive mode. That is, they wait for the phone to ring (or for the next call to drop from the cue) and then they react to it. Inbound call centers are equipped with ACDs (Automatic Call Distributors) to efficiently send calls to the “next available agent.”

Inbound operations are staffed more hours of the day than their outbound counterparts, with most operating 24×7. Agents are scheduled to work in anticipation of projected call volume based on historical data and marketing initiatives.

Outbound: For the outbound call center, agents must be proactive; that is, they need to take initiative. The successful outbound agent has a different personality than the ideal inbound agent. Even if the nature of their outbound work is not specifically in sales, they still need a sales mentality.

They need to engage the called party, lead them towards a stated objective, and deal well with rejection – some of which may be personally directed. Outbound call centers rely on predictive dialers to place calls. Outbound centers have reduced hours of operation, limited by law and the demands of specific campaigns.

Here agents are scheduled as needed to complete a requisite number of calls within a certain window of time.

There has been much talk about the avalanche of recent legislation to regulate (that is, limit) outbound calling, historically called telemarketing.

There is a wide degree of differing opinions on how this has affected the outbound call center industry. At one extreme, the doomsayers assert that the industry has been decimated, sending millions into unemployment and leaving outbound calling as an insignificant fraction of the overall call center industry.

The opportunists proclaim that this legislation has forced marginal players out of the industry, or at least pushed them to inbound work, and made outbound calling easier. This is because the 70 million or so who signed up for the Do Not Call (DNC) list weren’t buying anyway.

Those remaining, who can still be called, have a higher propensity to buy. Yes, jobs have been lost and centers closed, but much of that, they assert, would have happened regardless of this legislation.

Blended: Not to be overlooked, the concept of blended call centers (those doing both inbound and outbound work) has been pursued, although with varying degrees of success. Blending can occur at different levels. The first is within a call center, where some agents are answering calls while others are placing calls.

The second level of blending occurs with agents who are proficient at both calling disciplines; they can be scheduled for either activity as needed. Most agents cannot successfully make this transition from one day to the next, but for those who can, the variety is greatly appreciated.

The third level of blending occurs from call to call. If an unexpected rush of incoming calls occurs, the outbound reps are automatically removed from the agent pool of the predictive dialer and placed into the agent pool for the ACD.

This continues until the rush is over, when the process reverses. Conversely, if it is a slow day for incoming calls, these agents can be automatically switched to the outbound campaign. While this type of efficiency excites upper management, it often works better on paper than in reality because reps who can successfully do this type of on-the-fly mental adjustment are rare.

In-house or Outsource? While the concepts of inbound and outbound are generally understood, the terms in-house and outsource elicit some confusion.

An in-house call center is one where the work done is performed for the company itself – that is, internally – and is generally secondary to the main function of the company and the products or services they produce.

Conversely, an outsource call center is in business to provide call center services to other companies. Phone work is all they do; it’s their business.

In-house: There are arguably 50 to 100,000 call centers in the United States. The range is so great, because the definition of a call center varies. Of these, roughly 90 percent are in-house call centers.

Outsource: Outsource call centers, though a minority, are increasing in number and importance. This trend is due to more and more companies looking to outsourcing as a way to increase service levels or options, return to their core competencies, save money, or all three.

At outsource call centers, processing calls is all they do. Therefore, they must do it well and cost-effectively if they are to remain viable. They also enjoy an economy-of-scale that is not feasible for the in-house operation.

As such, their margins allow the client to save money and the outsource call center to make money.

Unarguably, the outsource call center industry can trace its beginnings to the post-World War I era, when enterprising telephone answering services begin popping up around the country. Even though the label would follow decades later, these entrepreneurs were, in fact, the first outsource call centers.

The modern era of outsource call centers began in the 1980s, when the introduction of toll-free numbers made it cost-effectively realistic to centralize call centers. Still, it wasn’t until the last few years that the outsourcing label was applied.

Outsource call centers are very similar in design and function to their in-house counterparts. There are, however, a few important distinctions.

First, while an in-house call center can be viewed as either a cost-center or a profit-center, the outsource call center must be a profit-center and is often the only source of revenue for the company. Second, the outsource call center must continually search for and find new clients to serve. Therefore, it has an external sales and marketing aspect that is not needed at in-house call centers.

Lastly, in-house call centers service their company’s customers, whereas at the outsource call center it is generally their clients’ customers who are served. Therefore the agents at an outsource call center are working for their client’s, but work with their clients’ customers or prospects.

Outsource is Not Synonymous with Offshore: A recent trend has been moving call center activity to other countries which boast stable technological infrastructures and offer qualified workers who possess lower wage expectations. This is typically referred to as offshore outsourcing and is too often incorrectly shortened to outsourcing.

This is incorrect shorthand, as the majority of U.S. call center outsourcing is, and will continue to be, to U.S.-based call centers. Offshore outsourcing, which is getting all the attention, is a small minority of the total call center outsource picture. Although offshore outsourcing will continue to occur and increase, it will be some time before it becomes the majority of all call center outsourcing.

Where Does Connections Magazine Fit In? At Connections, our focus is on outsource call centers. Our articles are written with outsource call centers in mind. That does not mean that we are not a great magazine for in-house call centers.

In fact, more and more in-house call centers are receiving Connections then ever before; new subscriptions occur daily! As long as our in-house friends keep the caller/client distinction in mind, Connections’ articles apply as appropriately to them as they do to the outsourcing center.

Also, the content of most articles is applicable to both the inbound and the outbound operation, though occasionally content will specifically address one segment or the other.

The bottom line is, whether you are inbound or outbound, in-house or outsource, Connections Magazine is for you!

Read more in Peter’s Sticky Series books: Sticky Leadership and Management, Sticky Sales and Marketing, and Sticky Customer Service featuring his compelling story-driven insights and tips.

Peter Lyle DeHaan, PhD, is the publisher and editor-in-chief of Connections Magazine, covering the call center teleservices industry. Read his latest book, Healthcare Call Center Essentials.

Tags From the Publisher, offshoring, outbound calling, outsourcing, telemarketing

Call Center

Beam Me Up Scotty

Post author By Peter Lyle DeHaan
Post date October 1, 2004

By Peter Lyle DeHaan, PhD

It was a lazy summer afternoon, a Friday. Things were a bit slow at the office and upper management had all left to get an early jump on their weekend. I, being a front-line manager, did not have that luxury. Besides, I had work that I wanted to complete before the weekend.

My first clue that something was amiss was revealed by increased activity in the hallway near my office. There was more movement than usual and at a higher volume. People were running, not walking. Giggling and excited shrieking was predominate, rather than reserved talk and business-appropriate laughter. It seemed that an impromptu game of tag had materialized.

Concerned that my staff had instigated or was somehow involved in this revelry, I quickly went to investigate. To my relief, the perpetrators were from a different department. Even so, my stern look of disapproval was respected enough to send them scurrying in other directions. I did not know if they merely retreated in order to find friendlier confines to resume their childishness or if a wave of common sense and decorum had suddenly overcome them. Regardless, they vacated my area and I felt sufficiently removed from any possible ramifications for their actions. I returned to my office and returned to the project at hand.

Several minutes later, the next clue of impropriety came via the overhead paging system. It was being used, not for “official business,” but rather for the personal enjoyment of the restless minions remaining in the building. They paged a rookie to call an extension; I recognized this to be a non-existent number. I smiled, envisioning a frustrated greenhorn dutifully dialing a number that would not work. Certainly, the conspirators were watching from some hidden vantage point, gleefully snickering at their co-worker. This repeated a few times and when their victim became aware of their scheme, they paged him with a legitimate extension – one of an uptight secretary, who would have no tolerance of their Tomfoolery. Now wise to their prank, the resourceful trainee, reciprocated with a retaliatory page of his own. This soon escalated to a “paging” war, drawing in more people, with increasingly ridiculous and outrageous announcements.

A final page stopped the misfits in their tracks, leaving them first chuckling and then bemused. In a reasonable impersonation of Captain Kirk, one employee accessed the overhead paging system and with deadpan seriousness announced, “Beam me up, Scotty; there’s no intelligent life down here.” I stopped working, smiled, and then laughed. Noticing it was now after five, I got up, turned off the lights, and went home. My work could wait for another day.

I’ve had a long fascination with Star Trek, repeatedly watching episodes from the five series, the cartoons (yes, there were Star Trek cartoons), and the ten movies. Among other things, Star Trek looks to a promising and exciting future. Many societal problems are either resolved or greatly minimized in the future according to Star Trek, providing a mostly utopian existence where evil is restricted to outside the Federation, rarely to raise its ugly head amidst the crew of the Enterprise. Star Trek also has a realistic underlying basis in scientific fact and sound theory, albeit stretched a bit thin at times (the transporters are perhaps the biggest scientific leap). Plus, with good plots and cleverly intertwined story lines, it makes for good drama.

However, it is not optimism for the future, realistic scientific prognostication, or compelling story lines that have given me the most pause for consideration, but rather it is the lessons Star Trek provides in leadership. Entertainment value aside, I have also looked to Star Trek as a study in effectively and dramatically leading people and managing staff. What lessons could I learn from Captains Kirk, Picard, Sisko, Janeway, and Archer? How do they elicit such devotion and dedication among their crew?

I am not the only one thus intrigued. In the book, Make It So by Wess Roberts and Bill Ross (ISBN 0-671-52098-9, if you are interested), the authors share “leadership lessons from Star Trek The Next Generation.” They cover relevant topics such as focus, urgency, initiative, competence, communication, politics, honesty, interdependence, and resiliency. While the book makes for good business reading, it is even more rewarding to watch each chapter’s referenced episode, focusing on the specific leadership citations.

While the book draws its conclusions from specific episodes, my preference is general observations based on the collective Star Trek saga. Before doing so, we should note that Star Trek’s military-style command structure is not typically found in call centers and therefore total employee obedience and unquestioned agent allegiance are not realistic real-world expectations. Nevertheless, here are some leadership ideas:

Demonstrate Loyalty: Although Starfleet personnel are trained to obey their leaders, the Enterprises’ crews show extreme loyalty to their captains. Why? Because the captains show extreme loyalty to their crews. This loyalty is earned, not commanded or demanded. Each captain was willing to go to great extremes and take on excessive risk for the sake of an injured, wayward, or stranded member of the crew. When leaders put everything on the line for a follower, the follower is much more inclined to do the same for the leader and to more fully embrace their common cause.

Take Blame; Share Credit: A true side of leadership is to shoulder the blame for an erring, but otherwise worthy subordinate, while being sure to shower accolades on those deserving it. Conversely, cowardly and ineffective leaders try to make themselves look good by assigning blame to others and taking credit for what they did not do.

Tap into Expertise: Starfleet captains (and call center leaders) often put together ad hoc teams for specific missions or adventures, mixing senior officers with junior members, who possess a unique skill or training. Junior staff that is thus tapped are given a great opportunity to rise to the occasion, performing at a higher level and with increased confidence and self-esteem. Employees who prove themselves in this way are promotable and can be groomed for even greater responsibility.

Celebrate Unconventional Thinking: A repeating theme in many Star Trek episodes is the seemingly unstoppable, irreversible impending disaster. There appears to be no escape and no plausible solution. Yet one of the crew, in a moment of creative thinking, extraordinary deduction, or brilliant intuition will find a unique solution and save the day. Star Trek captains delight in this and so do effective leaders. Plus, as unconventional solutions are rewarded and recognized, their producing behavior is reinforced and encouraged. Quite simply, great leaders inspire their charges to innovate

Be Worthy of Imitation: Each captain and every effective leader possesses qualities that are admirable and laudable of emulating. These positive traits draw both crew and staff to their leaders, compelling them to be like, act like, and follow the example that they see. When leaders have no one following them, then perhaps they’re not admirable enough to be followed, or have some other character flaw.

Get Real: Each captain is tough – when he or she needs to be. However, they also have a human side that those in their inner circle or close proximity are able to witness. This provides a connection that can transcend rough spots in relationships and times of stress.

A Final Thought: It took me way too long to realize the ultimate reason that Starfleet captains are such successful leaders. Quite simply, that’s how the writers made them!

Read more in Peter’s Sticky Series books: Sticky Leadership and Management, Sticky Sales and Marketing, and Sticky Customer Service featuring his compelling story-driven insights and tips.

Peter Lyle DeHaan, PhD, is the publisher and editor-in-chief of Connections Magazine, covering the call center teleservices industry. Read his latest book, Healthcare Call Center Essentials.

Tags From the Publisher

Call Center

My Response to Spam

Post author By Peter Lyle DeHaan
Post date September 1, 2004

By Peter Lyle DeHaan, PhD

Do you like spam? Does anyone? I’m not talking about the luncheon meat product SPAM, which is produced by Hormel Foods Corporation, but rather the inundation of unwanted messages that increasingly plagues us. Unless you happen to be one of those who delight in propagating spam messages, I am confident that you concur with me that spam is a problem.

Unfortunately, defining spam is easier said than done. What constitutes spam to some may be acceptable communications to others. Just as in 1964 when Justice Potter Stewart famously said of obscenity, “I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it,” the same can be said of spam.

In similar fashion, I too, can quickly spot spam, but coming up with a concise, compelling, and complete clarification is an elusive endeavor. Nevertheless, here is my definition: Spam is an unwanted message that is offensive, illegal, or intrusive.

Spam email messages can take on many forms of varying severity: pornographic, obscene, offensive, illegal, scams and cons, viruses, virus warnings, chain letters, sales solicitations, undesired attachments (especially when they are large), and even thoughtless email forwards.

It is safe to say that email spam has reached endemic proportions, leading some to say that email use, as ubiquitous as it currently is, will be decimated in the near future.

Others, however, boldly predict that the increasing flow of spam will be reversed, curtailed, and stopped within two years. My view is that reality will end up in the middle of these two extremes.

Some claim that filters are the key, but attempts to filter spam often have the side effect of blocking legitimate messages. I have experienced this on both the sending and receiving side of the equation.

At one time, I made extensive use of Microsoft Outlook’s “rules” to search for and automatically move spam to a separate folder, which I reviewed once a week. Invariably, I would find legitimate messages in my spam folder, some of which were time-critical.

Also, I invested an excessive amount of time writing new rules to capture additional spam that had been designed to bypass spam filters such as mine. My conclusion is that it takes less time to simply delete spam messages as they arrive than to try to maintain an effective filter.

Even though about two-thirds of my email each day is spam, I only spend a couple minutes a day deleting it. Also, the interruption caused by spam email (assuming you batch your email) is negligible.

Now, let’s return to my definition of spam: Spam is an unwanted message that is offensive, illegal, or intrusive. Notice that I did not used the word email. Although spam messages are associated with email, I submit that any unwanted message is spam, requiring time for a response and causing an interruption of more important activities. Consider the following:

Popup Ads: When surfing the Web, or at least certain websites and portals, popup ads become a navigational hazard. The more annoying ones blast you with music or sound. The infuriating ones are next to impossible to close.

Popup ads, we are told, are used because enough people click on them to justify the ads’ continued use. I must admit that even I have clicked on a few myself, albeit accidentally.

The time required to deal with popup ads, unless you are a hard-core Web surfer or have low sales resistance, is minor. The interruption to efficiently navigating the World Wide Web is moderate.

Direct Mail: The concept of an unwanted message as applied to direct mail has been given the label of junk mail. It used to be that I would sort through the mail when it arrived, cull the junk mail, and throw it in the trash.

But now, with concerns of identity theft rampant, I find myself opening every piece of junk mail, pulling out anything with personal information on it, and shredding it. This takes time and is an added annoyance. I suppose that this effort averages me about five minutes a day.

As such, junk mail actually takes more time to deal with than spam email messages. Fortunately, this processing of junk mail is not a true interruption, as I can handle it at a time I choose.

Door-to-Door: Incredibly, I have experienced a slight increase in door-to-door solicitations over the past year. While I am proficient at hitting the delete key for email, closing pop-up ads, shredding junk mail, and ending a telemarketing call, I find it difficult to close the door on someone.

After telling phone representatives that I am not interested, I have no problem hanging up if they keep jabbering, yet I have never shut my front door on someone who won’t take no for an answer. Fortunately, this doesn’t happen too often. Even so, the interruption is a key annoyance.

Television and Radio: These are broadcast mediums, in which content cannot be targeted, but is intended for the masses. Radio commercials occur between 12 and 16 minutes every hour and with the average adult reportedly listening to the radio three hours per day, which results in about 45 minutes of unwanted messages per day.

With television, there is even more time devoted to commercials. Surveys consistently put the number of commercial minutes per hour for TV at 16 and higher (over 20 for daytime TV). With various studies claiming three to five hours of TV watching per day, this adds up to an hour or more of unwanted messages each day.

Granted, we have trained ourselves to do productive things during these times (grab a snack, run to the bathroom, or take out the trash) or do semi-productive things, like channel surf or get an update on the score of the game; a great deal of time is still wasted.

Adding radio and TV commercials together approach or exceed two hours of unwanted messages a day. Isn’t this another form of spam? Yes, but one that we have been conditioned to accept and tolerate.

Many readers of Connections Magazine are involved in outbound telemarketing and some are in call centers that are exclusively devoted to outbound. Unfortunately, for most consumers, an outbound telemarketing call is unwanted and therefore it fits the previous definition of spam. (Before any readers from outbound call centers get angry, please read the rest of the article.)

With the advent of the national do-not-call (DNC) law, many consumers, like me, have registered our residential numbers. This has stopped all phone solicitations to my home.

The side effect of the DNC law is that those outbound telemarketing call centers (who haven’t switched over to inbound) are looking to do more business-to-business work. In the past year, the number of telemarketing calls to my office has increased from a couple a month to several per day!

There are even some days when the number of unwanted calls exceeds the number of wanted calls.

My broad and all-inclusive definition of spam is the consumer side of me speaking. While most readers will concur that the words “offensive” and “illegal” have their proper place in the definition of spam, the words “unwanted” and “intrusive” may go too far.

Indeed, applying this definition, virtually every marketing effort, no matter how well designed and executed would fall victim to one of these two words.

From the business side of me, I see a legitimate need for businesses to be able to engage in cost-effective and results-producing marketing efforts. Politicians know that too, but realized that it was politically advantageous to dramatically curtail outbound telemarketing by enacting a national DNC law.

In short, they were willing to effectively destroy an industry, increase the marketing costs of most companies, and further retard a slowly recovering economy for the sole purpose of political expediency. (Note that Congress exempted themselves from their own restrictions, giving testament to their belief in the effectiveness of outbound telemarketing.)

Unsolicited faxing is currently illegal and more onerous restrictions are scheduled in the near future. Currently, there are advocates for legislation to do to direct mail what DNC did to outbound calling – effectively stop it. There are already serious calls for a “do not email” law (not that it would work).

Why? Because these, too, are politically expedient, albeit bad for business and the economy as a whole. With fax, mail, and email as targets, could all forms of proactive marketing be far behind?

We all need marketing. Businesses need to promote products or services and consumers need to be informed about options. You can help; quite simply, make sure that your message is not viewed as spam.

Read more in Peter’s Sticky Series books: Sticky Leadership and Management, Sticky Sales and Marketing, and Sticky Customer Service featuring his compelling story-driven insights and tips.

Peter Lyle DeHaan, PhD, is the publisher and editor-in-chief of Connections Magazine, covering the call center teleservices industry. Read his latest book, Healthcare Call Center Essentials.

Tags From the Publisher, telemarketing

Call Center

Call Center Shrinkage

Post author By Peter Lyle DeHaan
Post date July 1, 2004

By Peter Lyle DeHaan, PhD

In retail, the term shrinkage is euphemistically used to reference stock which “disappears” before it can be sold. In essence it is a product that the retailer bought, but can’t sell. To be direct, shrinkage is theft. While some of this occurs in the form of shoplifting, it also results from employees, both through acts of commission and acts of omission.

Regardless of the source or the motives, shrinkage hurts everyone in the form of higher consumer prices and lower company profits. This affects jobs and threatens the business’s future viability. Some retail operations take a surprisingly relaxed position about shrinkage, viewing it as an inevitable cost of doing business; whereas others see it as the theft that it is, taking aggressive steps to eliminate or at least reduce it.

Shrinkage in the retail environment has an analogous application to the call center. True, a call center does not have tangible inventory that can disappear. A call center’s inventory is human capital, that is, the call center schedule. Shrinkage in a call center, therefore, is agents who are “on the clock” but who aren’t processing calls. This could be manifested by agents who are not at their stations when they are supposed to be, not being logged in, not being “in rotation”, or who employ some “trick” to block calls.

Similarly to retail, some call centers take a surprisingly relaxed position about this shrinkage of the schedule, also viewing it as an inevitable cost of doing business. Their response to it is intentional over-staffing. This only serves to cover the problem, not resolve the underlying cause. Other call enters see shrinkage as little more than stealing – stealing time. Like their retail counterparts, they too take aggressive steps to eliminate or at least reduce it. Call center shrinkage likewise hurts everyone: a lower service level offered to the client, reduced profits to the call center, decreased morale, and even less compensation for the call center agents.

There are three factors that help track, explain, and counter call center shrinkage. They are adherence, availability, and occupancy.

Adherence: Adherence is a measurement of the time agents are scheduled to work compared to the time they actually work. Why is adherence important? Quite simply, it is because the schedule was developed to match the traffic projection and when the schedule is not fully worked, the result is understaffing. In an ideal situation, staff should adhere 100% to their schedules. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

Adherence can be best tracked by comparing logged in time to scheduled time. Most call center managers are shocked the first time they look at this. It can represent a huge unnecessary cost to the call center, as well as contribute to lower service levels.

Several factors can account for differences between the schedule and the time worked. The first area is scheduled breaks, lunches, and training. This is the only acceptable contributor to adherence discrepancy. Depending on the length of breaks, the best resulting adherence will be around 90%. Forty-five minutes of breaks in an eight-hour shift will result in an adherence of 90.6 % (7.25 hours / 8 hours). The second consideration is absences, late arrivals, and early departures. Unless these openings are filled, the result is a disparity between the schedule and the fulfillment of that schedule. If this missed work is paid time off, such as paid sick time, then there is both a dollar cost and service impact that results. The third area is unscheduled breaks or any other distraction that causes agents to leave their positions. When factoring all of these items together, it is not uncommon for call centers to have adherence rates around 75%, although well-run centers will be in the low 90s (as determined by their established break schedule.)

Adherence is the first of three related scheduling metrics. The next is availability.

Availability: A second, and related, staffing metric is availability. Availability is a subset of adherence. Of the time that staff is adhering to their schedule, availability measures how much of that time they are ready (that is, available) to answer calls. It can be easily calculated by comparing available time (also called, “on time,” “in rotation,” or “ready”) to logged in time. Specifically, it is the percentage that results from dividing available time by logged in time. Although the ideal goal of 100% availability is achievable (that is, ready to process calls all of the time agents are logged in), 98% to 99% is more realistic.

Agent availability is strictly within the control of agents. It is determined by each agent’s willingness to keep his or her station in a state of readiness to be assigned calls. Simply put, it is whether the agent is available to take calls all of the time.

Availability is the second scheduling related metric. The third is occupancy.

Occupancy: Occupancy is the amount of time agents spend talking to callers compared to the time they are turned on or are available. Although it is possible to have 100% occupancy, the corresponding service level would be poor and generally unacceptable. One hundred percent occupancy means that agents are talking to callers the entire time they are logged in. It also means that there are calls continuously in queue, waiting to be assigned as soon as an agent completes a call. The resulting efficiency is great, but callers can end up waiting in queue for several minutes. Therefore, 100% occupancy does not produce quality service and can lead to agent burnout and fatigue.

Interestingly, ideal occupancy rates vary greatly with the size of the call center. Smaller centers can only achieve a low occupancy rate (perhaps around 25%) while maintaining an acceptable service level. Conversely, large call centers can realize a much higher occupancy rate (90% and higher) and still maintain that same service level. This dynamic relationship between occupancy rates and call center size is the underlying impetus for mergers and acquisitions among outsource call centers; it is a profound example of economies of scale. Call centers in the 10 to 20 seat range typically see occupancy rates around 50%.

To calculate occupancy, divide the total agent time (that is, talk time plus wrap-up time) by agent “on” time. This should be determined for each agent as well as for the entire call center.

Two Case Studies: Now, let’s consider all three of these metrics together and apply them to two call centers. The first, a well run call center and the second, an under-managed one. We will assume that they are the same size and both have a realized occupancy rate of 50%.

Call Center A has an adherence rate of 90% and an availability rate of 95% (along with the aforementioned 50% occupancy rate. For each 8 hour shift there is 3.42 hours of on-line time or actual work (8 hours x 90% x 95% x 50%).

Call Center B has an adherence rate of 75% and an available rate of 65% (with an occupancy rate of 50%). For each 8 hour shift there is only 1.8 hours of on-line time or actual work (8 hours x 75% x 60% x 50%).

Although the results for call center A, a well run operation, may be surprising, the corresponding number for call center B is shocking. In fact, to maintain the same service level, Call Center B would need to schedule almost twice (1.9 times) as many hours as Call Center A. Consider what a significant impact this would have on the bottom line.

Lest you think that these are unrealistic numbers, both are real situations describing call centers I have visited. It takes a concerted and ongoing management effort to be like Call Center A, while all too many operations are more like Call Center B. I challenge you to run your numbers to see how you compare – and then take steps to improve them.

Don’t let call center shrinkage lead to profitability shrinkage.

Read more in Peter’s Sticky Series books: Sticky Leadership and Management, Sticky Sales and Marketing, and Sticky Customer Service featuring his compelling story-driven insights and tips.

Peter Lyle DeHaan, PhD, is the publisher and editor-in-chief of Connections Magazine, covering the call center teleservices industry. Read his latest book, Healthcare Call Center Essentials.

Tags From the Publisher, managing call center agents