Are Third-Party Consultants Failing Call Center Staff with Poor Induction Programs?

Are Consultants Doing a Good Job? :(

I would like to share some interesting insights related to HR activities in the customer care division, specifically concerning call center executives. Recently, during my summer internship at a leading telecom service provider, IDEA Cellular, I encountered an incident that highlights the impact of hiring call center executives through third-party consultants.

When we discuss call centers, the term "ATTRITION" often comes to mind. While it's true, in a large organization with various departments, the HR manager cannot continuously hire call center executives daily or weekly.

:shock: One day, while conducting research in the call center, I noticed a customer care executive who seemed worried and was trying to find out something. I approached him and asked, "Did you miss something?" Without replying, he asked me the names of our Vice President and the General Manager of Customer Services. He inquired with his colleagues but couldn't find the answer. I quickly understood the situation and decided to investigate how many others were in the same position. Eventually, he approached his team leader and answered the customer after putting them on hold for over two minutes.

:?: When I asked them, "You have been working for IDEA Cellular for more than two months, and you don't know about your bosses?" I was shocked by the response: "We are not working for this company; we are working for 'xyz' consultant, and our boss's name is Mr. Jain. We don't need to know anyone from this company or its managers."

Strictly speaking, all HR roles can be outsourced, and many companies are moving in that direction. In the near future, we may see all HR functions outsourced, but if any company wants to do so, they should certainly choose India to benefit from it.

What I would like to conclude is that all employees, whether directly hired or through a consultant, must be given an induction program. Customers can only gauge the company's services through the service provider (executive).

Now the question is: Can new consultants seize this opportunity to provide more services to corporates by offering more training and induction programs about the companies?

Please do not hesitate to contact me for any further information or clarification.

Regards, Bikumandla Srikanth Gupta

[Email Removed For Privacy Reasons]

[Phone Number Removed For Privacy-Reasons]

Hi Srikanth, I absolutely agree with you that the consultant who provided the agents ought to have run an intensive induction training program so that the new recruits know at least the basics of the hiring company. The call center executive represents the company, and it really doesn't matter to the customer whether the latter was hired directly by the company or by a consultant. What matters is whether the problem was solved effectively, whether the customer felt cared for by the company, and whether her feelings were assuaged at the end of the call (if it's a complaint call). And if the person handling the telephone does not even know the name of the general manager, etc., it is definitely a big lapse.

But consider this - don't you think it is the responsibility of the hiring company to make sure that the agents it is putting across to the customers as its representatives are up to mark in all respects? After all, it is the customer execs who are the touchpoints, the brand ambassadors, and the value creators for the company. If the hiring company put the agents provided by the consultant on board at such a crucial position (of customer care representative) without bothering to check their quality (knowledge, skills, attitude - in this case, I think all three were missing in the agent in question!), then it shows up pretty badly on the company itself. It sounds like the company hardly cares who mans the telephones so long as they receive calls and manage the complaints. How in the world is such an untrained customer agent supposed to create much-touted things like "customer delight," "the wow experience," etc., if he or she has not even been given basic training by the company?

So if you want to hold anyone responsible for this lapse, I feel it's the hiring company which should get the brickbats first.

Regards, Maliha

Hi Maliha, I agree with you too . Don't you think that the hiring company has to invest a lot of time and resources, especially in training employees weekly, due to high attrition rates and new walk-ins every week? How is it possible to manage in such a scenario?

Thank you.

Well, yes, I can see that it would be difficult to train them intensively if they are being recruited on a weekly basis. However, the costs of not training them are even higher than that of training them at that rate. I think by now everybody knows that it costs far more to acquire new customers than to retain old ones. As customers, we have often been at the receiving end of untrained call center executives, making our lives miserable. How irritating it is to find an uncaring, unresponsive, bored-to-death agent mishandling your call, especially when you are in a tough situation. Nothing can lose customers faster than poor service. The telephone executive can make or break a company's brand. Can a hiring company really take the risk of not training their agents and relying on the consultant to do their job for them? I think it's a big risk. I wouldn't do it if it were my cellular company.

Cheers! 
Maliha

Thanks, Maliha. Wherever I attend seminars in management services, they talk about the ethics and values which are important to an agent. But usually, agents are not management professionals; they are just graduates worried about their monthly bread. How do we make them understand the ethics, values, and needs of the organization? Do you think that training will really work out? And if so, what sort of training?

Hi, If not an intensive training, at least a brief outline of the company should be made known to the new hires. This can be done by either party, especially if the hiring company has outsourced this activity to some agency; it has all the rights to expect the returns for the money spent. Alternatively, the hiring company should also think of its own induction program rather than investing a similar amount in having an external agency train the people.

To sum up, the hiring company can either outsource both recruitment and training (induction) or only recruitment. Depending on the level of outsourcing, they should expect accuracy and also be prepared to bridge the gap wherever required because it's ultimately their services getting affected. It's always advisable to have backup plans. In today's customer-oriented scenario where organizations are willing to spend on so many other things, why not training and induction!

I agree with Jyoti, induction training for new hires is a MUST, even if it's just an outline of the basics of the company. Plus, a good manual will provide them with all the necessary information and FAQs. While the hiring company should expect consultants to send trained agents, they should not take them for granted because they—the hiring company—will be the ones to lose in the end (apart from the customer, of course!). Therefore, I believe the consultant should be removed from the vendors list if there is evidence of untrained agents being sent to the hiring company. However, at the same time, the hiring company should not take a risk and should send all agents for induction training.

I think that's a balanced approach that will benefit all three partners—the consultant, the hiring company, and the customer.

Maliha

Yes, I agree with you, Maliha and Jyothi. Both of you have raised some good points. If there are several agents like this without any induction program, it could prove to be a huge loss to the organization, as these agents are the brand ambassadors between the organization and customers.

The Power of Word of Mouth

Word of mouth is most powerful. If the agents don't answer properly or put the customer on hold for a few minutes to answer simple questions like this, what kind of impression will they have about the organization?

Ultimately, it should be the responsibility of the hiring company to take care of these things.

Thank you,
Subhash.RV 

Dear Srikanth,

Allow me to add a few points, maybe general but in line with your thoughts. The scenario we are discussing is called 'contractual staffing,' where a candidate works for company A but is paid by company B, which is usually an 'HR staffing solution provider' in India, starting from basic recruitment consulting, commonly known as consultants.

Reasons for Contractual Staffing

Contractual staffing is practiced for one or more of the following reasons:

1. The parent company may have budget constraints on hiring directly, leading them to engage third parties.

2. Companies have a compensation policy that provides certain benefits to all employees. Employing individuals not on their direct payroll helps save opportunity costs.

3. Third parties handle most HR activities (excluding company and industry-specific tasks), making the parent company's job easier.

When a contractual staffing contract is established between two parties—the 'parent' and the 'foster' (third party)—the terms and conditions include clauses ensuring that any company or industry-specific gaps during the candidate's tenure in the parent company will be filled by the parent. This maintains uniformity and smooth transitions for all employees. The candidate, as a brand ambassador for the parent company, must receive all necessary information, including induction and training. The 'foster' manages the candidate's 'back-stage' activities such as payroll, compensation, benefits, and career growth. Clear separation of duties between the parent and the foster ensures a smooth experience for the candidate and both parties involved.

Quality Aspects in Contractual Staffing in India

In India, quality aspects in contractual staffing are not well-established, especially in the ITeS industry currently experiencing a boom. With high supply compared to demand, both parties in a contract staffing agreement overlook quality lapses, knowing replacements are readily available. This imbalance results in candidates losing jobs, parents compromising their brand value, and fosters investing time in finding replacements.

This situation will change when the bubble bursts and quality becomes integral to the system. Training, induction, and other processes will then be driven by quality and strategic implementation. The change is not far off; it's just around the corner.

I hope the information above proves useful!

Take Care,

-KK

Hi Karthik, you raised some good points and a probable solution. The parent should come to an agreement with the foster parent, discussing what should be covered in training apart from the basics. Additionally, after hiring, a good induction program provided by the parent will be helpful. I am looking forward to more valuable contributions from our group.

Regards,
Subhash.RV 

Dear Colleagues,

It is very necessary to hint from the very beginning that there is no way you can share a fried egg; someone will always have the lion's share.

By implication, the consultant employed to carry out recruitment can only try within the limits of what he can see during the assessment period.

Forms of Screening

One thing of note is that screening these days comes in different forms—online screening, submission of hard copy resumes, direct chat interviews, aptitude tests such as GMATs, GRE, assessment centers, etc.

Client Preferences

However, more importantly, it is what the clients want most times that the consultant looks for—age limit, experience, background, etc.

Professionally, it is left for such consultants to recommend when they come across exceptionally gifted candidates who might be older than the desired age bracket or have a different background—for example, a candidate with an administrative background seeking a marketing job.

The Issue of Morality

In addition to the above, there is the issue of morality—what yardstick is available to measure this aspect of human life within the allocated assessment period? Remember, it could take a lifetime to understand an individual's moral standards.

The long and short of all this is that no matter the level of experience acquired, certification, brilliance, every new intake needs to be inducted to allow easy adaptation. Within this exercise, the business culture is introduced, the employee policy manual is interpreted, and questions are asked.

Consultant Liability

It should be noted that corporations cannot hold consultants entirely liable for any misconduct carried out by people recommended and eventually recruited by them. Employers of labor still owe these new intakes—INDUCTION.

I would like to submit here that we can only try; we can never legislate morality and human behavior.

Thanks

Hi Ajayi, Yes, indeed. What you have said is true, and it seems you wrote it with much experience. I agree with you.

Are consultants the real heroes for increasing attrition?

I have another query: "Don't you think that consultants are the real heroes (major factors) for increasing attrition in corporates by headhunting?" To what extent is it justified? Please comment. 樂

Regards, Srikanth Gupta [Phone Number Removed For Privacy-Reasons]

Dear Colleagues,

If you ask me, I would say they are doing a good job within the limits of their clients' request or requirements.

However, addressing the issue of headhunting - to me, I think it is a better option when compared with poaching!

Consultants come in between an establishment that wants a vacancy filled and a potential candidate for such position - this seems civil and acceptable.

On the other hand, poaching seems "crude" and at times could be very intimidating. This involves direct negotiation between a firm and a potential candidate who obviously has a job, most times in a rival/competing company.

In some cases, it is the CEO of such rival firms that does the negotiation - promising heaven and earth to the candidate to be poached.

Records have it that most times they do not fulfil all their mouth-watering promises - hence, in a short while, the new intake becomes disgruntled and waits to be poached by another firm.

However, with all sense of responsibility, I would rather have a candidate headhunted for a job using a consulting firm than poach from competitors.

Thanks.