4 ms·

> Experiments like this are designed to find out where that inflection point is, and the evidence that's coming in so far suggests that the inflection point is

> Experiments like this are designed to find out where that inflection point is, and the evidence that's coming in so far suggests that the inflection point is somewhere below 40 hours. More research is needed, but that's exactly what is happening If someone's job is in customer service and the key part of their role is to answer the phone when it rings/respond to the email when it arrives ... you don't need research to determine that if they are not there, the phone/email doesn't get answered. If you let them stay at home on Fridays, either you pay someone else to come in on those Fridays, or you accept that phone calls/emails won't be answered on Fridays. Ever. This appears to be really easy to propose/promote when it's not your company :(

eesmith 4y ago
If the customer service rep works more hours, at a decreased productivity (tired workers make mistakes, over-stressed workers may be more impatient) such that the marginal return becomes negative, then YES! it becomes more cost effective to pay someone else to come in on those Fridays. Just like we don't expect those reps to also work evenings and weekends, even if the company has 24/7 support. The article points out some indirect benefits, like improved employee retention, which would decrease training costs and result in more experienced reps working the phone/email, which may improve customer service and relations. This is really hard to promote, which is why there have been experiments along these lines for the last 5-10 years.
zemvpferreira 4y ago
Here's what I think you're missing: Most people who answer telephones for a living are not paid to answer telephones. They're paid to answer customers. If I'm speaking to someone who's worked too much for their capacity (whatever that is) and I get a curt, wrong, or bad-mannered answer I'm very likely to take my business elsewhere. In fact I've done so, to the tune of a few good thousands, a few times. Off of a repeat bad experience with customer service. Would it be better for the business for that same position to be filled with someone whose energy were better at the time I rung? (To give you credit, some positions do need to fill shifts and it is what it is, but you can always split them between more people)
- logifail 4y ago
  > Most people who answer telephones for a living are not paid to answer telephones. They're paid to answer customers. If I'm speaking to someone who's worked too much for their capacity (whatever that is) and I get a curt, wrong, or bad-mannered answer I'm very likely to take my business elsewhere (Warning: anecdote) I've just phoned my son's school to tell them he's poorly and won't be there today. The receptionist who answered the phone is "the grumpy one" (there are two at this school, the other one is lovely). Of course it's possible that the grumpy one could well morph into being lovely if only they were given more time off, but I doubt it. I've spoken with both of them dozens of times, and it's utterly predictable, one is always lovely, one always isn't. Some people are great with customers, others just aren't. > some positions do need to fill shifts and it is what it is, but you can always split them between more people There are small businesses where teams are, unsurprisingly, small. Having worked both with and in such places, I'm not sure how feasible the "split between more people" actually is.
  - zemvpferreira 4y ago
    Fair enough. Incompetent people should either be trained or fired, no argument there. The point is that in many (most?) jobs it's mutually beneficial to employer and employee if work is done at peak performance. But some people should just...go do something else for all our sakes. I've been a one-person customer support team for thousands of clients myself. Working till 6am to answer all emails in under 24 hours got old very quickly. There's always another way to do things. A business that can't expand or improve while treating employees well is probably not a business that should exist.
Philip-J-Fry 4y ago
>If someone's job is in customer service and the key part of their role is to answer the phone when it rings/respond to the email when it arrives ... you don't need research to determine that if they are not there, the phone/email doesn't get answered. You're correct that the phone doesn't get answered. But that's not "productivity". Productivity is the function of the hours worked and the results gained. Their job isn't just to answer the phone, it's to resolve problems and leave a customer satisfied. Too little sleep and a foggy brain? Might take them more time to resolve an issue. Might leave them unhappy and the customer can detect that. The results might surprise you, they could be more productive and more phone calls are answered in less time because issues are resolved quickly. To get around the problem of no phones being answered on a Friday you could propose a rota so staff is properly covering every day of the week. If everyone is 20% more productive, then every day can afford to have 20% less staff. Problem solved. 24/7 businesses already rota customer service staff. Maybe the rest of the staff are more productive and there's less problems. The knock on effect being that there's 20% less phone calls. The problem sorts itself there, they don't even need to be more productive. Lets say that there is no productivity increase at all. Well, hire 20% more staff then. Large companies can afford it. The wealth gap is widening, capitalists with hundreds of millions or billions of pounds have convinced workers there's not enough money to go around, but we know that's bullshit.
danparsonson 4y ago
> If someone's job is in customer service... you don't need research to determine that if they are not there, the phone/email doesn't get answered. Except perhaps in the case of very small companies with a single CS person - someone else can answer the phone? Can they never have a holiday too?

eesmith 4y ago

If the customer service rep works more hours, at a decreased productivity (tired workers make mistakes, over-stressed workers may be more impatient) such that the marginal return becomes negative, then YES! it becomes more cost effective to pay someone else to come in on those Fridays. Just like we don't expect those reps to also work evenings and weekends, even if the company has 24/7 support. The article points out some indirect benefits, like improved employee retention, which would decrease training costs and result in more experienced reps working the phone/email, which may improve customer service and relations. This is really hard to promote, which is why there have been experiments along these lines for the last 5-10 years.

zemvpferreira 4y ago

Here's what I think you're missing: Most people who answer telephones for a living are not paid to answer telephones. They're paid to answer customers. If I'm speaking to someone who's worked too much for their capacity (whatever that is) and I get a curt, wrong, or bad-mannered answer I'm very likely to take my business elsewhere. In fact I've done so, to the tune of a few good thousands, a few times. Off of a repeat bad experience with customer service. Would it be better for the business for that same position to be filled with someone whose energy were better at the time I rung? (To give you credit, some positions do need to fill shifts and it is what it is, but you can always split them between more people)

logifail 4y ago
> Most people who answer telephones for a living are not paid to answer telephones. They're paid to answer customers. If I'm speaking to someone who's worked too much for their capacity (whatever that is) and I get a curt, wrong, or bad-mannered answer I'm very likely to take my business elsewhere (Warning: anecdote) I've just phoned my son's school to tell them he's poorly and won't be there today. The receptionist who answered the phone is "the grumpy one" (there are two at this school, the other one is lovely). Of course it's possible that the grumpy one could well morph into being lovely if only they were given more time off, but I doubt it. I've spoken with both of them dozens of times, and it's utterly predictable, one is always lovely, one always isn't. Some people are great with customers, others just aren't. > some positions do need to fill shifts and it is what it is, but you can always split them between more people There are small businesses where teams are, unsurprisingly, small. Having worked both with and in such places, I'm not sure how feasible the "split between more people" actually is.
- zemvpferreira 4y ago
  Fair enough. Incompetent people should either be trained or fired, no argument there. The point is that in many (most?) jobs it's mutually beneficial to employer and employee if work is done at peak performance. But some people should just...go do something else for all our sakes. I've been a one-person customer support team for thousands of clients myself. Working till 6am to answer all emails in under 24 hours got old very quickly. There's always another way to do things. A business that can't expand or improve while treating employees well is probably not a business that should exist.

Philip-J-Fry 4y ago

>If someone's job is in customer service and the key part of their role is to answer the phone when it rings/respond to the email when it arrives ... you don't need research to determine that if they are not there, the phone/email doesn't get answered. You're correct that the phone doesn't get answered. But that's not "productivity". Productivity is the function of the hours worked and the results gained. Their job isn't just to answer the phone, it's to resolve problems and leave a customer satisfied. Too little sleep and a foggy brain? Might take them more time to resolve an issue. Might leave them unhappy and the customer can detect that. The results might surprise you, they could be more productive and more phone calls are answered in less time because issues are resolved quickly. To get around the problem of no phones being answered on a Friday you could propose a rota so staff is properly covering every day of the week. If everyone is 20% more productive, then every day can afford to have 20% less staff. Problem solved. 24/7 businesses already rota customer service staff. Maybe the rest of the staff are more productive and there's less problems. The knock on effect being that there's 20% less phone calls. The problem sorts itself there, they don't even need to be more productive. Lets say that there is no productivity increase at all. Well, hire 20% more staff then. Large companies can afford it. The wealth gap is widening, capitalists with hundreds of millions or billions of pounds have convinced workers there's not enough money to go around, but we know that's bullshit.

danparsonson 4y ago

> If someone's job is in customer service... you don't need research to determine that if they are not there, the phone/email doesn't get answered. Except perhaps in the case of very small companies with a single CS person - someone else can answer the phone? Can they never have a holiday too?