Category: Healthcare Call Centers

By Peter Lyle DeHaan, Ph.D.

With the United States’ fall elections behind us, I am now recovering from the inundation of all messages political. From these saner confines of a post-election U.S., I can address the “serious” problem of outsourcing. Succinctly put, outsourcing, an often prudent, wise, and cost-effective practice, has been politicized. Once a word becomes politicized, as outsourcing was in the 2004 United States presidential campaign and resurrected in 2006, reasonable thinking seemingly stops and logic becomes, well, illogical. Rhetoric steps in and common sense is relegated to things of lesser importance.

So, emotion and rhetoric aside, what is outsourcing? In its broadest, most general sense, outsourcing is having another company or person do work for you that you could do yourself. This occurs at both a business level and a personal level – and more frequently then you might first surmise.

Some common business outsourcing examples include: payroll, bookkeeping, human resources, building maintenance, cleaning service, 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 cleaner, car wash, tax accountant, lawn service, car mechanic, maid service, pizza delivery, catering, and so forth. In fact, anyone who provides a service is actually an outsourcer, and we are all – individually and corporately – consumers of outsourcing services.

Does this imply that outsourcing is a manifestation of laziness or greed? 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 even found it beneficial to outsource their core competencies. And why not outsource if the work 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 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 seemingly about is offshore call center outsourcing that is done poorly. Offshoring is not outsourcing, but rather a subset of it. In fact, the majority of call center outsourcing today is reportedly intra-country.  That is, it is companies located within the U.S. outsourcing call-processing work to call centers located within the country. 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 several years.

This is in no way to imply that I am against offshore call center outsourcing. 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 don’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 necessarily US-based.  They too, could be offshore. 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 real frustration is not with the location of the agent, but quite simply with the agent’s ability to clearly and effectively communicate with the caller.

Politicians saw this frustration as a safe and acceptable campaign issue. They made the false assumption that it was a location issue, put a false 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 bolster their argument. National security issues were brought into play, as were 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 was portrayed as a threat to all that is dear to the hearts and minds of the people. It was the enemy and it had to be stopped. Rhetoric is persuasive, and outsourcing became demonized.

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 brainwashed into thinking that outsourcing is unpatriotic and therefore, unacceptable.

Lastly, and most dangerously, has been a spate of bills introduced on the national, state, and local level to regulate and restrict inbound call centers, not unlike what was done to outbound calling a few years ago. 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 and having widespread ramifications for the in-house call center as well.

I encourage you to not be caught up in all the political rhetoric and emotional tirades. Forget about the politics of outsourcing and consider it from the standpoint of how to best serve your patients and callers. After all, that is what good business is all about.

Politics Aside

• Outsourcing is not synonymous with offshoring.
• Outsourcing is good, beneficial, and necessary; call center outsourcing is an important and valuable option.
• Offshore outsourcing is here, it is real, and the marketplace should decide its position in the global economy – not the government.
• Each organization needs to carefully consider if outsourcing (be it offshore or on-shore) is a viable strategic option.
• The real enemy is legislation, which if left unchecked, will forever and detrimentally change the business of calling, be it outbound or inbound, outsource or in-house, on-shore or offshore.

Read more in Peter Lyle DeHaan’s Healthcare Call Center Essentials, available in hardcover, paperback, and e-book.

Peter Lyle DeHaan, PhD, is the publisher and editor-in-chief of AnswerStat and Medical Call Center News covering the healthcare call center industry. Read his latest book, Sticky Customer Service.

By Peter Lyle DeHaan, Ph.D.

Years ago, as a first-time manager, I was green and had much to learn. I walked down the hall with my boss; 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 it to him!”

I was dumbfounded at the ridiculousness of his great “insight.” Wisely, I said nothing and he continued. “You see, the busiest guy is the one who gets things done; that is who you should delegate to.”

Inwardly, I was seething.  Outwardly, I kept quiet, giving a comprehending look, a respectful nod, and a faint smile. His deputation of me and subsequent dissemination of knowledge now complete, he strode down the hallway to his next target 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, delegating to the busiest employees was illogical and unfair.  It would only serve to make them busier, thereby earning them a successive 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 secret of delegation. Delegation is something all managers must 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 – more time than to simply do the work yourself. If that is the case, why bother? Quite simply, you do it because once you have taught your employees 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 call center’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.

Select the Right People:  Employees who have proven themselves in small things can be given greater responsibilities with increased latitude. However, until they have established their ability to responsibly and effectively handle assignments, the scope of delegated 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.

Ensure They Have the Proper Tools and Knowledge:  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. In some cases, a combination of instructional styles is appropriate. Regardless, asking an employee to embark on a project without the proper resources is setting them up for failure.

Give 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.”

Hold Them Accountable: This is the hardest part. 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 consequence. This could be merely asking them to explain what happened. Perhaps, despite your best efforts, instructions were incomplete or training was insufficient.  In that case, 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, X happened, which will cost Y 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.

Delegate More: 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 consistently follow these steps, your staff 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 will take the initiative to do what needs to be done without your input or direction. This is the secret of delegation.

Read more in Peter Lyle DeHaan’s Healthcare Call Center Essentials, available in hardcover, paperback, and e-book.

Peter Lyle DeHaan, PhD, is the publisher and editor-in-chief of AnswerStat and Medical Call Center News covering the healthcare call center industry. Read his latest book, Sticky Customer Service.

By Peter Lyle DeHaan, Ph.D.

Based on the title of this article, StarTrek 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 high cost of the unrestrained pursuit of perfection.)

Instead, I am speaking of perfectionism in the workplace, among your coworkers, and emanating from your staff. Do you want a call center of perfectionist agents? Some managers say “yes,” whereas others respond with a resounding “no.” The informed answer is, “it all depends.” Here’s why:

Of that portion of the populace who are perfectionists, some are blindly or proudly so. Others are self-aware of possessing this characteristic and informed about it; I call them recovering perfectionists. A self-aware or recovering perfectionist understands this condition, knowing how to tap into and celebrate the many strengths and benefits of pursuing excellence. At the same time, they know to guard against its limiting, self-defeating, and even paralyzing facets.

Doing research on perfectionism reveals a host of ominous and debilitating traits, starting with compulsiveness and going downhill from there. However, informed or recovering perfectionists can tap into the positive aspects of their natural tendencies when appropriate and needed, that is, when it is to their advantage to do so. At the same time, they can usually avoid being handicapped by perfectionism’s alluring snares.

For a perfectionist, there are many traits which provide great value in the workplace and especially a call center:

• Produce quality work: perfectionists tend to produce high quality work. They take pleasure in excellence and find satisfaction in a job well-done.
• 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.
• 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. 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.
• Set high standards: another trait is that perfectionists set high standards, both for themselves and others. As long as the standards are reasonably attainable, it is acceptable, and even admirable, for the perfectionist to set a bar high – for him or herself. (However, 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 is procrastination. It is said 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.

Another side-effect associated with perfectionism is problems making quick decisions. Sometimes, they need to “sleep on it” to be assured of the correctness of their judgment. Sometimes decisions can be agonizingly difficult for them to reach. This, most likely, is because they fear reaching 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.

Over the years, I have often interviewed perfectionists during job interviews. As it becomes more and more apparent that I am talking to a perfectionist, 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 exhibited 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 lacking in self-awareness. 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 proclivity for perfection

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

Yes, they may require 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 working in your call center, too?

Read more in Peter Lyle DeHaan’s Healthcare Call Center Essentials, available in hardcover, paperback, and e-book.

Peter Lyle DeHaan, PhD, is the publisher and editor-in-chief of AnswerStat and Medical Call Center News covering the healthcare call center industry. Read his latest book, Sticky Customer Service.

By Peter Lyle DeHaan, Ph.D.

It was a lazy summer afternoon, a Friday. Things were a bit slow at the office and upper management had 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 whispering was predominate, rather than reserved talk and business-appropriate banter. 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 now 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 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’s naiveté. This repeated a few times and once their victim became wise to their scheme, they paged him with a legitimate extension – one of an uptight secretary, who would have no tolerance of their Tomfoolery. The resourceful trainee, however, 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 points 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 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 hospital and medical related call centers; 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 even 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 (as well as call center managers) 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, as with every effective leader, possesses qualities that are admirable and laudable of emulation. 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!

Beam me up, Scotty.

Read more in Peter Lyle DeHaan’s Healthcare Call Center Essentials, available in hardcover, paperback, and e-book.

Peter Lyle DeHaan, PhD, is the publisher and editor-in-chief of AnswerStat and Medical Call Center News covering the healthcare call center industry. Read his latest book, Sticky Customer Service.

By Peter Lyle DeHaan, Ph.D.

I first heard about the ‘net in the early 80s from one of my college buddies. He landed a job with a computer mainframe manufacturer and was assigned to work at a university.

He regaled me with tales of instantaneously sending text messages across the country and doing so at no cost. “That is fantastic,” I enthused. “How can I get in on this?”

“You can’t,” he replied matter-of-factly, “not unless you’re at a major university or work for a defense contractor.”

I was disappointed. My visions of fast and free communications faded as quickly as they had formed. With little more thought or contemplation, I quickly dismissed the Internet as a non-issue, one with limited utility and no future.

That was in 1981. Fast-forward 15 years. Suddenly, it seemed, everyone was talking about the Internet. I was perplexed. How could something so limited be treated like the next big thing? Had something changed to make the Internet a practical reality for the masses? Indeed, things had changed.

I soon obtained a dial-up Internet account. Back then, using the Internet seemed to me to be a waste of time. It took eons to be connected, a bit of luck to stay connected, and patience to accomplish anything useful – not that there was much to do from a business standpoint.

When a colleague would get email I would excitedly make note of the address, but would invariably pick up the phone for any communications. As more people became connected, I tried to check email once a day, while checking voicemail multiple times daily.

However, it wasn’t long before I was checking email several times a day and voice mail only once or twice. Now I have dedicated Internet access and spend all day connected, receiving and sending hundreds of messages. All too often, I forget to check voicemail!

I recently gave some thought to what my day would be like without email. Indeed, over 95 percent of my work on this magazine is accomplished via email. Articles are submitted electronically, then routed to our proofreaders, passed back to me, and forwarded to production.

Design proofs are sent as PDF attachments and most progress reports and requests from our printer are sent via email. Without email, we would be forced to rely on snail mail and overnight delivery services, adding to our costs and lengthening our production cycle.

In fact, if I only had the phone and delivery services for communications, I would likely need to hire an assistant just to accomplish the same amount of work. Plus, I would not be nearly as effective or efficient. In short, the Net results are great!

Email is just one aspect of the internet; the world wide web is another part. Once the realm of large companies with big budgets, websites are now common for organizations of all sizes.

In many cases, divisions, departments, and even projects within organizations boast their own website. Nowadays, an organization without a website is perceived as second rate or as a non-player. Websites are also a great equalizer, leveling the playing field between major corporations, smaller competitors, and start-ups.

This site currently boasts 1,400 pages and grows larger every year.

While the purpose of the website is to provide useful industry information, other organizations may have different goals. Some merely want to drive as much traffic as they can. These sites are commercial, for-profit creations, which generate revenue from ads.

Other sites are fee-based, intended to be revenue-generating vehicles, while password protected sites are used as a member benefit or to serve customers. Another common goal of websites is promotion and marketing.

One seemingly obvious feature of websites is to provide a means for further communication. Therefore, a contact page is a common element.

As such, it is surprising when contact information cannot be found; this is confounding. These organizations should want to interact with customers and prospects, but visitor to these sites can’t call, can’t write, and in some cases can’t even find an email link.

Of course sending a message to an email address found on a website isn’t any guarantee of dialogue. In researching a recent article, I used a search engine and contacted the first ten companies listed via email. The results were appalling.

One site responded within five minutes with a personal response. Two more followed later that day, and a fourth, three days later. But six never responded or even acknowledged receipt of my message.

Now it could be that a message or two got lost in cyberspace. That does happen, but certainly not 60 percent of the time.

In another instance, I sent out a targeted email to over 100 addresses gleaned from printed directories and listings. Again, the results were disconcerting.

Six percent were returned because the mailbox was full, eight percent were rejected because the domain name was “unknown,” 14% were refused because the user name “could not be found” and 61% did not respond; only 11% replied.

This all suggests some valuable services that a call center can provide, first to its own organization and then to help others. The first service is to verify that a website is up and running.

True, there are software programs that can do this, but who is checking to make sure the programs are actually running? Plus, who is watching for error messages?

A second call center service is to periodically send out test email messages to important email addresses. If it bounces back or there is an error, the recipient or technical staff can be contacted to correct the problem.

This is especially needed for generic email addresses, such as info@…, sales@…, customerservice@…, and so forth. An even better idea, and the third service opportunity, is to actually access the email sent to these common addresses, responding to it as appropriate or forwarding it to the proper individual.

By expanding your view of a call center to include these and other Internet services, will enhance the standing of your operation and thereby increase the ‘net results.

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

Peter Lyle DeHaan is an entrepreneur and businessman who has managed, owned, and started multiple businesses over his career. Common themes at every turn have included customer service, sales and marketing, and leadership and management.

He shares his lifetime of business experience and personal insights through his books to encourage, inspire, and occasionally entertain.

By Peter Lyle DeHaan, Ph.D.

Growing up, I heard a radio commercial with the tag line, “Service sold it.” Even as a young child I was able to grasp the concept that providing quality service was a great way to close more sales and gain new business.

Over the years, I have heard this mantra repeated, again and again, either verbatim or conceptually, by various local, national, and international companies – answering services included. Yet I now give this grandiose platitude only passing consideration. This phrase has a hollow ring; it seems a disingenuous assurance, holding an empty promise. What was once good business turned into good ad copy and now gets lost in the clutter of promotions that we no longer believe. In fact, the louder this claim is trumpeted, the less credence I give it and the more I assume that their quality is lousy, that their ad campaign’s only goal is to convince us of the contrary. To paraphrase George Bernard Shaw, “He who can, does. He who cannot, talks about it.” It seems that no one provides quality service any more.

Recently, I placed a series of calls to my computer vendor. They offer a quality package at a good price, provide fast shipment, and facilitate ordering. Yet the quality of their service is rotten. Two prior interactions with their “customer service” staff resulted in one failure and one partial success. My latest episode, requiring a dozen or so phone calls over the span of weeks, ultimately resulted in a satisfactory outcome. But it required great patience and persistence, long hold times, being transferred to the wrong departments and back again, and talking with “English” speaking reps who could not effectively communicate in a language I comprehended. One humorous example was a representative who said, “Excuse please the silence while I hold you.” To accomplish my objective, I had to escalate my call, invoke their “100% Satisfaction Guarantee,” and insist that they accept the return of my entire order – not just the computer in question. As you might suspect, I deem it a waste of money to buy their extended customer support plan.

Next I attempted to resolve an ongoing problem with my caller ID. The feature that sold me on the product was the promise that, working in conjunction with call waiting, it would display the number of a second caller while I continued talking to the first. Unfortunately, it never worked. I called repair and reported the problem. I was given the time and date by which it would be repaired. It was not. I reported it again. No change. I pulled out the multi-page manual and found a small-print footnote, which said that the feature I desired needed to be installed separately. Thinking I was on to something, I called and ordered it. Again, the promised due date came and went. I called again, only to be informed that the desired feature was not available in my area. Four “service” people decided to take the easy way out, pushing me through their system or hoping I would give up, rather than simply check to see if the feature was available.

On to cable TV. With the escalating costs of cable, it eventually became less costly to switch to satellite. Now I can get 100 channels and still not have anything to watch!  The installation and support of the satellite system was excellent (more on that later), but the simple act of canceling my cable service took months. With each passing month a new bill would arrive, announcing an escalating monthly balance. A call would be placed to the cable company; an assurance would be given that our service was indeed cancelled and that they had no idea why we kept being billed. This went on for over six months. I seriously doubt that any company can be that incompetent, so my cynical nature speculates that they were intentionally doing this to pad their receivables.

When I installed DSL Internet service, the big challenge came in disconnecting my unneeded dialup Internet line. Because of a previous service debacle, my Internet line had become the billed number and my listed number became secondary. The representative, fortunately one knowledgeable and thorough, apologized that the only solution was to cancel the entire bill and the reinstall my main line. This would only be a billing function and my phone service would not be interrupted. However, there would be side effects. First, I would need to call their DSL division to make sure my DSL wasn’t cancelled and to update my billing arrangement. (Apparently, this was common, because the DSL representative immediately understood the problem and knew just what to do.)  Then I would need to call my long distance carrier to make sure that when my service was “reinstalled” I would be put on my same rate plan and not their higher default plan. A third call needed to be made for my white page listing. Surprisingly, each call had its desired effect. But imagine the turmoil that would have ensued had the first representative not fully informed me of all the ramifications and exactly what needed to be done. Exceptional customer service, however, would never have put me in the position to make those calls in the first place and even good customer service would have done so for me. Quality service didn’t sell it, being the only game in town did.

We all know someone who left one company because of poor quality and then subsequently left their competitor for the same reason. Eventually, all available alternatives had been tried and subsequently rejected. They were then faced with the necessity of returning to a previously unsatisfactory company. Their new goal was simply to pick the provider that was the least bad.

Does anyone provide quality service anymore? Fortunately, yes. In previous columns, I mentioned my mechanic and optometrist, both stellar success stories. In concert with this, it is noteworthy to mention that the authorized agent for my satellite television is a local company. Is being local then, the key for my satisfaction? Not entirely. My local credit union, bank, and doctor have all caused me repeated consternation. Besides, there are also good service examples that are not local. To produce this magazine, the sales, graphic design, and proof editing are all handled by extremely competent individuals who are not local, yet provide an exceptional level of service and quality work. The common thread here is that they are all small organizations. So then, is company size the key? No, there are many other small organizations that have demonstrated the ability to disappoint.

Although being local and being small are two elements that decidedly allow the potential for providing quality service, they are not requirements; the real key is the personal touch. With each unfavorable example I gave, I dealt with a department, not an individual – not really. The representative had no accountability to me and no stake in the outcome. With subsequent calls, I would talk to a different person. To them I was not a customer; I had no real value. I was just another phone call – a problem – one to get rid of in the shortest time possible, so they could go on to the next call, and eventually punch out for the day.

However, with each positive example I cited, it was a specific person who made the difference. This was someone who genuinely cared and had a real interest in the outcome, someone who was willing to make me his or her priority and do what was required.

Every telephone answering service I know claims to offer quality service, but is this a reality or a hoped for fantasy? Is a one-on-one personal relationship provided to clients? Whether you are on the receiving end or the provider, can you honestly say, believe, and prove that your telephone answering service provides quality service? If not, what changes need to be made?

Read more in Peter Lyle DeHaan’s Healthcare Call Center Essentials, available in hardcover, paperback, and e-book.

Peter Lyle DeHaan, PhD, is the publisher and editor-in-chief of AnswerStat and Medical Call Center News covering the healthcare call center industry. Read his latest book, Sticky Customer Service.

Save

By Peter Lyle DeHaan, Ph.D.

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 is due to 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 caller, increased call center labor costs, decreased morale, and potentially less compensation for agents.

There are three factors that help track, explain, and counter call center shrinkage. They are the time bandits of 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 projected traffic. 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 (alternately called, “on time,” “in rotation,” or “ready”) to logged in time. Specifically, it is the resulting percentage 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 being available to take calls.

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 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 call center consolidation; 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 medical call centers, specifically medical answering services. The first, a well run operation and the second, a mismanaged one. They are approximately the same size and both have a realized occupancy rate near 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 labor costs and departmental expenses.

Lest you think that these are unrealistic numbers, both are real situations describing call centers I have visited. It takes a concerted and an 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 these time bandits steal from you any more!

Read more in Peter Lyle DeHaan’s Healthcare Call Center Essentials, available in hardcover, paperback, and e-book.

Peter Lyle DeHaan, PhD, is the publisher and editor-in-chief of AnswerStat and Medical Call Center News covering the healthcare call center industry. Read his latest book, Sticky Customer Service.

By Peter Lyle DeHaan, Ph.D.

In the years between high school graduation and my first real job, I took on a variety of part-time work while being a full-time student. During one such vocational transition, the placement advisor at school knew of an immediate opening for an audio engineer at a TV station. I arrived to find out it would be a group interview, not a group of people interviewing me, but rather one person simultaneously interviewing three candidates.

Stan was an odd-looking guy, with clothes and a hairstyle emanating from the previous decade. Despite the powerful magnification of his Coke-bottle glasses, he still squinted at everything. Stan led us candidates to an open classroom and the interview quickly fell into an awkward pattern. Stan would ask a question and we would respond in order, with me going last. With my classmates embellishing many of their answers, I struggled with how to honestly present myself as the desirable candidate. After a while, the classmate who went first blurted out, “I have a Third Class FCC License.” “This position doesn’t require an FCC License,” Stan responded. “I have a Second Class FCC License,” the second one boasted. Then all eyes turned to me. Should I let them know that my credential was even better, although equally irrelevant? Or would my silence communicate another deficiency in this game I was losing? Opting to avoid further silence, I informed the group that I had a First Class FCC License. Of course, this meant nothing as far as the job was concerned. Everyone was uncomfortable on this whole exchange but as the last one to speak, I felt it more acutely.

Seeking to defuse the tension, I changed the subject. “When would you need us to start?” I inquired. “As soon as possible,” was Stan’s reply. “I can start in two weeks,” volunteered contestant number one. “I can start in three days,” bested contestant number two. “I can start tomorrow,” I asserted confidently. “Okay,” Stan replied, “be at the station at 6:30 tomorrow morning.” I was hired!

The first day I watched Stan work and did a lot of listening. As he explained it, the job seemed simple. There was lots of idle time, four live broadcasts and on some days production work in between. However, he was more interested in regaling his glory days as a radio DJ than in training me. It turned out that Stan was also a silent partner in an out-of-town enterprise; his presence was urgently required to protect his investment. As soon as my two weeks of training were completed, Stan would be gone.

On my second day, Stan let me touch the control panel and I did the first live segment. It was a 30-second weather report. I turned on the mike when the weatherman was cued and turned it off when he was done. There was a mike check beforehand and I monitored the level as he spoke. I did the second live broadcast, too, a one-minute news segment. Stan did the third segment: news and weather – two mikes!

The half hour noon show, however, was overwhelming. There were a half a dozen mikes to activate, monitor, and kill, recordings for musical bridges, an array of possible audio sources, and a live announcer, plus an abrupt change in plans if a segment was running long or there was time to fill.

On the third day, Stan called in to tell me he would be late. He reviewed expectations of the first two segments and I did them solo. He called later, before the third, and we talked it through; he promised to be in before the noon show. I did the third segment by myself.  Then Stan called to say that he had been watching and I had done fine. Could I do the noon show by myself? “No!” I asserted. “Okay, he assured, “I will come in, but let’s talk through it just in case.” I never saw Stan again; my “training” was over.

With sweaty palms and a knotted gut, I muddled my way through the noon show, knowing that any miscue would be heard by thousands. By the time the show concluded, I was physically and mentally exhausted. This was a pattern that would repeat itself before each noon show for the next several months. If only I had gotten more training to boost my confidence.

On-the-job training was fine for production work. Time was not an issue and retakes were common, expected, and accepted. If I hadn’t been trained on something, the director would instruct me. The live shows were a different story. It was tense and nerve-racking; perfection was expected and errors were not tolerated. This produced an incredible amount of pressure and anxiety.

This stress was partly due to my lack of training, but more importantly a result of the directors; I worked with three. My favorite was nice and kind; he remembered what it was like to do my job and was empathic and understanding. Unfortunately, I seldom worked with him. The second director was aloof and focused only on the broadcast, not caring what he said or how he treated others. Fortunately, I didn’t work with him too much, either. Most of my interaction was with a third director. During live broadcasts, he became verbally volatile and abusive. He yelled – a lot. When he was mad, he yelled louder. And everything was laced with expletives. Management via intimidation was his style. My goal was to get through the noon show without a verbal tongue-lashing; usually I was unsuccessful. Of course, this made me even more tense.

Although most of the work was fine, my angst from this half hour each day caused me to despise my job. Thankfully, my time there would be short, as graduation was nearing. I grabbed the first job offer and gave my two-week notice. Ironically, the day after I tenured my resignation, explosive director inquired, “You should be getting some vacation, soon, shouldn’t you?”

“I haven’t put in enough time, yet,” I replied. Besides, I just gave my two week’s notice.”

“What!” he exploded. He slammed some papers on the table. “I can’t believe it,” his face turned red and with a curse, threw the papers on the floor. “We finally get someone good and they don’t pay him enough to stay.”

I was dumbfounded.  “Good?” I questioned. “I’m not good.”

“You’re the best audio engineer we’ve had in years.”

“What about Stan?” I asked.

“Stan was an idiot. He was always making mistakes. We couldn’t get through a broadcast without him screwing it up. You did better your first week than he ever did.”

“But…but, I make mistakes everyday, too”

“Your mistakes are trivial,” he disclosed. “Few viewers ever notice.” As he picked up his papers and left the room, I contemplated what he had said. I am a good!

Not surprisingly, I had a new attitude during the noon show that day. The nerves were gone, I made no “mistakes,” I wasn’t yelled at, and most significantly, I enjoyed it. My job was fun.

On my second to last day there, I met the weekend audio engineer. She was thinking about taking over my shift. She wanted to see what was involved in the noon show. Unfortunately, that day the show was one of the most difficult I had encountered. There was a live band, with each person and instrument separately miked, plus there were a few unusual twists. I would need every piece of gear in the room and use the entire audio console. Although it was stressful, it was a good stress, because I was a good audio engineer. I performed my part without error, earning a rare compliment from my critical director. At the end of the show, I leaned back with the knowledge of a job well done. My protégé shook her head. “I could never to that,” she sighed and left the room.

My last two weeks at the TV station were most enjoyable. As such, it is with fondness that I recall my time there. How might things have been even better if someone had told me sooner that I was doing a good job?

Read more in Peter Lyle DeHaan’s Healthcare Call Center Essentials, available in hardcover, paperback, and e-book.

Peter Lyle DeHaan, PhD, is the publisher and editor-in-chief of AnswerStat and Medical Call Center News covering the healthcare call center industry. Read his latest book, Sticky Customer Service.

By Peter Lyle DeHaan, Ph.D.

On a weekend trip a while ago, my wife and I found ourselves at the local McDonald’s for breakfast. “I’ll have a number 10,” I decisively informed the perky and personable teenage-looking girl at the counter. She acknowledged my request and smiled pleasantly. This encouraged me to make small talk while my wife contemplated her choices. Not fully awake or alert, I said something which was apparently mildly humorous, causing her to laugh and brighten her smile. “What a pleasant way to start my day,” I thought, glancing at her name tag; it said, “Amber.”

My wife conceded that what she wanted wasn’t part of a meal deal, nor were the items listed individually. Amber was helpful. “Tell me what you want and I will see what I can do,” she encouraged. My wife listed three disparate items and Amber began pushing buttons on her cash register. After a series of thoughtful keystrokes, she proudly announced that she had accomplished my wife’s request. We paid for our meal and stepped aside to await it.

As the people behind us placed their order, Amber’s positive, friendly demeanor continued to capture my attention. Suddenly she saw someone out of the corner of her eye. Her smile widened as she looked up and her face beamed, “Good morning Jimmy,” she excitedly called out. In the split second that it took for my glance to move from Amber to Jimmy, I anticipated whom I might see. Certainly, he would be her peer, perhaps a jock or a maybe prep, possibly even her boyfriend.

I was wrong. Jimmy was an older man with a weathered face, worn clothes, and a considerable limp. He moved forward with deliberate effort, alternating between a herky-jerky lunge followed by a short shuffle. As he made his way across the room, he did not attempt to get in line, but headed straight to an open space at the counter near Amber.

With considerable effort, he produced a handful of coins and cupped them in his twisted and arthritic-looking hand. He tipped his hand forward and with careful effort, gave it a little shake. Two coins spilled out onto the counter and then a third. As if not satisfied with his progress, he poked his gnarled index finger into his open hand and moved it around as though stirring a pot. Then he flicked a fourth coin onto the counter, stirred some more, and released a fifth. With the last coin still rattling on the counter, Amber was there. She picked up the coins, rang up an unspoken order, pulled a dime from the cash drawer, and carefully dropped it into Jimmy’s still cupped hand.

What happened next made me curious. Amber reached under the counter and pulled out a handful of supplies. Then she turned to the coffee pot behind her and laid the contents in her hand on the table – two containers of cream and several packs of sugar. This seemed backwards and inefficient – pour the coffee first, then get the additives. Amber grabbed a coffee cup and filled it half full. Even more curious. Did Jimmy only want a half of a cup? She then picked up one of the creams, gave it a brisk shake, meticulously opened it, and carefully – dare I say, lovingly – emptied its contents into the cup. Then she repeated the procedure with the second cream.

Amber glanced around the room to see if anyone else needed her assistance. Assured that she was not neglecting another customer’s need, she picked up a pack of sugar, shook its contents to the bottom and prudently tore off the top, so as to not waste any, pouring every granule into the coffee. She repeated this a second time, but then another customer momentarily diverted her from Jimmy’s coffee. She returned to the partial cup and added two more sugars. But her task was still not complete. Amber then produced a stir stick and thoroughly mixed the contents. Upon being satisfied with the results, she then topped off the amalgamation with more coffee, put on a lid, and presented it to a grateful Jimmy.

She didn’t do any of this begrudgingly or with indifference, but with all the care and precision of someone making their own cup of coffee. She was there to serve Jimmy and she did so happily and without hesitation. I was touched by her kindness and thoughtfulness. Such a gesture was probably not found in the restaurant’s efficiency manual, but it was the right thing to do. Amber’s attitude and actions established the framework for the rest of my day. If her example affected me to such a great extent, I can only guess what it did for Jimmy’s day.

I imagine that, when Jimmy woke up that morning, there was no question in his mind where he would go for coffee. I surmise that his morning trek to McDonald’s was routine and habitual. I surmise, however, that he wondered who would wait on him. He might have said to himself, “I hope Amber’s working today.  She treats me like I’m special; my whole day goes better when she gets me my coffee.”

Likewise, I wonder what Amber thought before work that morning. Did she make an intentional decision to have a positive attitude, thereby producing a difference in the lives of those with whom she came into contact? She may have, but I suspect it wasn’t necessary. I think that her attitude of cheerfully going the extra mile was so much a part of her that it had become routine and habitual. While I was focused on my own needs, Amber’s attitude was to focus on those around her. And what a difference she made, not only for Jimmy and for me, but for the other customers and for her co-workers as well.

I was challenged by all this. My attitude as I start each day, no doubt, affects how my day goes and has a ripple effect on those around me. Though it’s unlikely I will ever match Amber’s personable, outgoing disposition, I can aspire to her positive, helpful, serving attitude.

Do you have someone like Amber working in your call center? What if all your staff was like Amber? Then caller satisfaction would be exceeding high, complaints and service problems would be non-existent, and your call center would be an even greater place to work.

Whether it’s pouring coffee or answering the phone, you can have employees like Amber – and it’s not hard; all it takes is an intentional effort to have a positive attitude. That positive attitude starts with you – and it can start today!

Read more in Peter Lyle DeHaan’s Healthcare Call Center Essentials, available in hardcover, paperback, and e-book.

Peter Lyle DeHaan, PhD, is the publisher and editor-in-chief of AnswerStat and Medical Call Center News covering the healthcare call center industry. Read his latest book, Sticky Customer Service.