Skip to main content

Knowing Beats Hoping – the case for hacking employees

Q: When is it ethical to listen to other people’s phone conversations?

A: When it’s in the best interest of both parties. Making sure customer gets what they want, and helping staff achieve their objectives.

Maximising Customer Experience is the buzz expression these days. But less obvious is the benefit to the employee. But benefit they will. By identifying how they can improve their performance, we can not only help them achieve greater success and therefore greater job satisfaction, the resulting increase in customer satisfaction will assist profitability, which in turn translates into better employment conditions and good morale amongst work mates. They’ll be delivering for their employers and pulling their weight in a team. So what is at the heart of what ‘hacking’ or listening-in to calls to and from your organisation meant to achieve? What are we trying to measure?

It’s all about really knowing what your customers are experiencing. And it’s about knowing for certain, quantitatively, which of your sales staff are working hardest to find and keep customers. And it’s about understanding, qualitatively, how they’re managing to have more success than their colleagues. It’s also about discovering, for yourself, whether you’re selling what people really want to buy, and what else you might be able to sell them. Gold-dust from the horse’s mouth (excuse mixed metaphors). Of course you have to take care you don’t make a Summer out of each swallow, or knee jerk dealing with bad apples (mixing loads more metaphors). But, to continue the theme, there’s rarely smoke without fire.

These are such important factors for the success of your business, you simply can’t rely on keeping your fingers crossed and hoping that the information is going to find its way into your management. If you don’t ‘hack’ your customer contact staff, you’re relying on faith, hope or wishful thinking. The only way you can really know for certain what’s going on is to experience the way your organisation deals with customers, both reactively (ie in response to an enquiry or complaint), and proactively (making sales calls - whether the customer was previously interested or not). I’ve blogged elsewhere about the growing problem of Call Reluctance, so detecting it and resolving it is vital for all businesses who rely on sales staff making phone calls.

Listening in on your staff is not for the faint hearted. You’re on tenterhooks when you hear a salesman stumble over a question, get something wrong, or miss an opportunity to close a sale. But you swell with pride when you hear a customer service operator turn a complaint into a satisfied customer, or a salesman turn a cold call into a result. You immediately want to share their expertise or techniques with the whole of your organisation. You want best practice to pervade, and you want all your staff to be aware that interacting with customers is the lifeblood of your organisation and it can’t be done by halves. My previous company had a motto – Good enough is not good enough. Everyone has to be on their toes, and by recording calls you’ll develop a library of best practice examples to inspire and educate – and plenty of examples where better training or more care might have avoided damage to your brand and employee confidence.

This is the final frontier of Analytics – the human element of business. The bit computers can’t yet easily measure, but the bit in the supply chain that matters most – how your customers are treated and how well you persuade them to become customers in the first place. Keep your fingers crossed at your peril.


Popular posts from this blog

Phillips screws - yes I'm angry about them too

Don't get me wrong. They're a brilliant invention to assist automation and prevent screwdrivers from slipping off screw heads - damaging furniture, paintwork and fingers in the process. Interestingly they weren't invented by Mr Phillips at all, but by a John P Thompson who sold Mr P the idea after failing to commercialise it. Mr P, on the otherhand, quickly succeeded where Mr T had failed. Incredible isn't it. You don't just need a good idea, you need a great salesman and, more importantly, perfect timing to make a success out of something new. Actually, it would seem, he did two clever things (apart from buying the rights). He gave the invention to GM to trial. No-brainer #1. After it was adopted by the great GM, instead of trying to become their sole supplier of Phillips screws, he sold licenses to every other screw manufacturer in the world. A little of a lot is worth a great deal more than a lot of a little + vulnerability (watch out Apple!). My gromble is abo

Would we pay more for their stuff?

I'm confused. Brexiters argue the Germans, Italians and French will still want to sell us their cars, so continued free trade with the UK is in their best interests. But we'll have to negotiate this (with an EU unwilling to make leaving easy) by threatening to make their cars more expensive for British people to buy. We'll do this because WE need to make imports more expensive to try to restore our balance of payments. Are Brits prepared to pay more for their Audis, Fiats and Renaults in order to make British cars more appealing, or do Brexiters want to pay more in order to punish them for taxing our insurance and banking products? Either way, imports will cost more. While in the EU, we buy their cars because we like the choice and don't want our own government to tax them. Indeed it would be better for British car manufacturing if we went back to the good old days of being encouraged to buy cheaper British cars (made by foreign owned factories). Is that what Brexite

Addictions. Porn, Drugs, Alcohol and Sex. Don't prevent it, make it safer.

In 1926 New York, during Prohibition, 1,200 people were poisoned by whiskey containing small quantities of wood alcohol (methanol). Around 400 died, the rest were blinded. The methanol they drank was in the moonshine they had bought illegally. In fact it had been added by law to industrial ethanol in order to make it undrinkable. Prohibition existed to protect everyone from the 'evils of the demon drink'. However, people still wanted to enjoy alcohol. So bootleggers bought cheap industrial alcohol and attempted to distill it to remove the impurities the state had added, but the process wasn't regulated. The state was inadvertently responsible for the suffering - although it was easy for them to blame the bootleggers and to justify escalating the war. This didn't stop the bootleggers. In fact it forced them to become more violent to protect their operations, and even less cautious about their production standards. Volumes of illicit alcohol, and therefore proportionat