CX Tribe is the best Customer Experience insights, case studies and statistics. Human curated. Delivered weekly. Join more than 5,000 other CX Professionals and subscribe.
[Best Practices]
It’s time to stop giving people Net Promoter Score® Targets [Link]
A couple of different articles came in this week about the efficacy, or not, of giving people targets in general and NPS targets in particular.
The Hustle wrote an excellent take down of targets that starts in Soviet Russia and Jim Tinchner mined his LinkedIn audience for a direct view on NPS targets.
The use of NPS targets is a conversation I have been having with senior client executives for at least 10 years.
NPS targets can work, but most of the time when they are applied to front line staff they simply cause score begging and disengagement with the continuous improvement process.
Consider the situation of the front line person in a bank. How much ability does that person have to impact on the customer’s overall experience in the bank?
Firstly, they are beset by rules and regulations on what they can and can’t do, as handed down to them by company policy, external agencies, governments, etc.
Their work competency is determined by the training provided by the company.
The effectiveness of the software and business systems they use is controlled by the company.
The décor of the place in which they work is supplied by the company.
Even their personality traits are pre-selected by the company’s hiring practices.
So when you think about it, there is little they can do in the moment to impact the customer’s perception of the interaction. They can smile and be pleasant – that’s about it.
So with all the key CX levers out of their reach, there is only one thing they can do: score beg.
So what is a good metric: Response Rate.
If you goal staff on response rate it reinforces that the data and process are the critical elements.
[Employee Experience]
Employee experience drives customer experience [Link]
It’s time to debunk the myth that employee experience and customer experience are linked [Link]
Confused? Same here.
In the second piece Esteban Kolsky outlines some reasons that EX and CX are not related. This is based partly on the assessment that the 40% of, non-automated, transactions handled by staff are not being impactful on CX.
He has some other points, about culture and only investing in an economically positive approach, but they never really build to any sort of cohesive argument.
His comment to “debunk charlatans of platitudes. You know these people – they’ve never held a single job as practitioners (or they think they did, but didn’t)” seems odd for a person who’s LinkedIn profile does not appear to include any line CX roles.
On the other hand Eagle Hill’s research looks at the direct link between EX and CX.
This chart from their research shows several direct links between how staff who are unhappy, feel it impacts on their delivery of a good customer experience. If staff believe it’s linked, you can bet it is.
I’m inclined to believe the research, not the opinion.
