If Customer Service Agents Have To Say No, Their Supervisors Better Not Say Yes

When they encounter a pesky automated menu or IVR, many customers default to pressing “0” or screaming “operator.” The reason? They do not trust the self-service platform to solve their problem; they believe they require agent assistance.

Unfortunately, they do not necessarily have much trust in agents either. Many of those same customers will demand to “speak to a supervisor” the second they encounter resistance on the front line.

Social media users may lampoon the behavior as whiny and “Karen-like,” but it is far from exclusive to a select few complainers. It is a common tactic exercised by many demographics of customers during interactions with companies in many industries. Accordingly, multiple brands have explicitly reached out to CCW Digital for our thoughts on the dreaded “supervisor request.”

The simple answer? Ensure that there is complete consistency between what an agent and supervisor offer. If you force your agents to say no, do not provide a “yes” when the customer escalates. On the other hand, if you know you’re ultimately willing to provide the desired compensation or resolution, empower your frontline agents to offer it.

The long (but more informative) answer? Read on.

The biggest problem? Asking for a supervisor works for getting what you want

If you want your kid to stop crying in public, don’t trade a piece of candy for their cooperation. It conditions them to misbehave as a tactic for getting what they want. If you want your group project teammate to stop slacking off, don’t do the work for them. It lets them know that there is no real cost for their laziness. If you want customers to stop demanding escalation to a supervisor, do not incentivize that behavior by giving them more than they could have gotten from the initial agent. It encourages them to not only develop unrealistic expectations but also disrespect the frontline.

For those reasons, as well as the points detailed below, it is actually counterproductive to the entire support process.

My personal inspiration | Poorly “delivered” customer service from a package service

Even if I had not received specific member requests to tackle this topic, I would have had sufficient inspiration. Over the past few months, I have witnessed a first-hand discrepancy between the service I get from frontline bots and agents – and what I receive when I escalate to specific managers.

Like an increasing number of large apartment complexes, my new building uses a “package concierge” service that accepts shipments and then delivers them to residents at specified times. The offering has considerable appeal for landlords; it allows them to up-charge renters while also absolving them of complaints (let alone financial liability) for lost or stolen items.

The problem is that the service is the antithesis of reliable. In just a few months at my apartment, I have dealt with one outright stolen package and numerous items that ended up being delivered days late – often with no proactive (or even reactive) warning or apology. There have also been cases where they didn’t even report receiving the package from Amazon until the next day, prompting me to call Amazon about the possibility that the delivery was lost.

Worse, the customer service team is effectively worthless. The service directs users to a chatbot for reporting issues, but while the bot promises an immediate investigation and response from an agent, said response almost never comes. Frankly, it is not even clear whether the bot is properly logging complaints or missing item reports, as there is no clear way to lookup any past, bot-generated tickets.

There are email and text options, but I rarely even receive a response to my inquiries in these channels. If I do, it is never timely enough to rectify the situation and ensure I receive immediate compensation for a lost package – or same-day delivery for a missed item. More often than not, it is simply an agent asking me to restate the information I already shared in the initial complaint. The text number does technically connect callers to a phone contact center, but I have never had an agent actually pick up the phone.

Ultimately, it is clear that the frontline support team is neither empowered nor motivated to provide real resolutions. Their only role is to exist and create the illusion of a support mechanism so that they can allow customers to feel “heard” without having to actually deliver value.

I eventually reached a breaking point and shared my concern with my building’s management company. They predictably offered no help, noting that the issue was between me and the package service. Fortunately, they did forward an email exchange they had with a manager-level employee at said company. That gave me a specific person to contact the next time I had an issue.

And that is exactly what I did. After waiting around all day for a package to be delivered in the 4-6PM window, I received a note well after 4PM that the “time was no longer available” and that I had to reschedule. Insultingly, there were no additional time slots for that day - which meant all my waiting was for naught. Beyond disrespecting me and my time, the service also offered no compensation for the fact that I would be going at least a day without the package.

After receiving generic, useless responses to my general support text and email, I contacted the specific manager. She responded promptly. And though I did not entirely love her tone (she made it very clear she did not want customers to contact her directly), I have to applaud her for magically finding a way to reschedule the delivery for later that night.

If she was able to so easily find a suitable timeslot, why was I unable to do so using the self-service app? Why were no frontline text or email agents able to properly respond and resolve my concern? Why shouldn’t I just contact her directly when I have issues in the future?

5 reasons a successful "supervisor escalation” is bad for customers, employees, and your bottom line

At the high level, it would be easy to view my situation as proof that supervisor escalations work. I got the package the night I needed it, and the company’s frontline agents didn’t have to receive an extra 5 complaint emails from that annoying Brian Cantor guy.

A deeper view, however, realizes why this approach is bad for both customers and contact center operations.

It creates additional customer effort

In today’s era of convenience, effort is the enemy of customer satisfaction. When customers feel they have to devote extra energy and time to solving a problem, they are less likely to reward the brand with their happiness, loyalty, and advocacy.

Escalating from bot to agent, and then from agent to supervisor, is a process that takes time and effort. It is therefore a process that creates frustration for customers.

After enduring this effort and frustration, customers will surely at least consider a competitor that offers a faster pathway to the support they are seeking.

So if you know you are ultimately going to give the customer what they want, why not save everyone time and just deliver that resolution on the frontline? And if you know there is no universe in which you could say “yes” to a certain request, do not allow the customer to engage in more waiting – and develop false hope – in pursuit of a supervisor.

It’s bad for business

Resolutions, especially make-goods or other policy deviations, cost money. As such, it is wise to view them as investments toward return like greater customer satisfaction, higher customer loyalty, or stronger brand perception. Every extra second, let alone step, it takes for a customer to receive that resolution diminishes these returns.

Customers engage with support because they have a problem to solve. If you quickly solve that problem, you create a happy, trusting customer.

If you force the customer to escalate to a supervisor, you communicate a lack of respect for the customer and their time. This instantly worsens the customer’s perception of the brand. You also create a new problem – the additional hassle – beyond what prompted the customer to call in the first place.

Collectively, these reduce the value a customer feels from the ultimate resolution. The same resolution that would have sparked a “wow, thanks so much for helping” response on the front line will only result in a “seriously, it’s the least you can do” if delivered after supervisor escalation. The “investment” that would have yielded extra customer satisfaction and loyalty devolves, at best, into a way to prevent future complaints.

It conditions poor customer behavior

Contact centers have chatbots, IVR platforms, and frontline agents for a reason: they enable efficient, scalable service delivery. In most companies, it would be unrealistic for supervisor-level employees, let alone Chief Customer Officers, to manage every single customer issue.

If, however, customers are led to believe they require managerial support for their issues, they will look to escalate. At that point, the brand will either have to deal with the inefficiency of essentially putting leaders on the frontline – or the customer satisfaction issue of “forcing” customers to settle for a “lesser” support experience.

Worse, once a brand even slightly conditions customers to believe supervisors have magical resolution powers, it becomes difficult to right the ship. Customers will automatically assume that the standard, frontline resolution is lesser – and automatically assume they can get something better by escalating. Brands will thus be stuck over-delivering on the frontline just to prove customers wrong and break their habit, while also needing to keep extra-special resolutions in their back pocket for those who expect something above and beyond when they escalate.

It signals a lack of trust in employees

Contact center agents are rational human beings. They understand what customers want, and they can often determine the best possible solution. In most cases, they will be able to identify and deliver the same resolution or “make good” that the supervisor would end up offering.

By refusing to let them drift from policy, and instead leaving make-goods to the “managers,” the company ignores this rationality. Instead, it signals a lack of trust in the frontline. It broadcasts the belief that agents are either incapable of surmising the best “creative” resolution or too reckless to exercise discretion when settling on a make good.

If management does not even trust the frontline’s ability to refrain from giving each customer a million dollars when a delivery is a day late, why should the frontline feel any attachment to the organization? Why should it feel motivated to deal with hard, frustrating calls every day for a modest salary? Why should it care about how it performs?

It creates a poor agent experience

If agents are forced to play “bad cop,” they will inevitably end up in heated conversations. They will deal with hostile, angry customers unafraid to spew obscenities, insults, and even threats over their inability to get what they want.

By playing “good cop,” the supervisor will then relish in the joy of “turning customer frowns upside down” and giving them what they want. They get to play the cool dad who retrieves the cell phone that the strict mom took away as punishment.

Always disrespectful to the front line, this dichotomy is particularly problematic in today’s labor market. Today’s employees have an unprecedented sense of self-worth; they are no longer willing to endure taxing, frustrating work so that someone in a cushy boardroom can make all the money. And they do not have to stew in silent misery; thanks to the rise of remote opportunities, they have more opportunities than ever to find brands that value their effort and leaders who feel a responsibility to protect their teams from the worst parts of the job.

If agents not only have to deal with angry customers but know they are the only employees facing such hostility, they have little reason to stay and even less to care about performance.

Customer-centric brands do not impose policies, rules, and scripts on agents as a way of restricting them. Rather, they create environments that empower agents to do right by customers. Giving them leeway to offer creative support for customers, or at least providing them assurance that management will have their back when “no” is the only answer, goes a long way in creating the optimal contact center culture.

Image: Unsplash