Verified AI summary ◀▼
Explore various methods for reviewing customer support conversations to enhance team performance. Manager reviews provide consistent feedback, while peer-to-peer reviews offer diverse insights and foster collaboration. Self-reviews encourage agents to take ownership of their work. Reactive reviews focus on cases with known issues but should be separated from proactive reviews to avoid bias in quality scores.
There are a variety of methods you can use to review customer support conversations and improve the quality of support your team provides. This article describes different methods for reviewing customer support conversations and the benefits each method offers your team.
This article contains the following topics:
Related articles
Manager reviews
This is the most traditional method of review. In this approach, the customer support manager or team lead reviews each team member's work and provides feedback. For larger teams, a dedicated quality reviewer or team may be responsible for this task.
This method works well for companies with structured teams and a hierarchical setup. It creates a consistent workflow because the same people review everyone’s work, ensuring uniform feedback and easier comparison of performance.
Peer-to-peer reviews
In peer-to-peer reviews, agents review each other's work. This method is most effective for smaller teams and organizations with an open culture. Agents learn by observing how their peers handle issues and by sharing tips and experiences.
Getting feedback from multiple reviewers gives the agent diverse perspectives and helps cover more conversations. This approach also fosters a collaborative culture where agents support each other’s growth. However, comparing agent performance can be challenging when multiple reviewers are involved.
Training all reviewers and tracking evaluations can be time-consuming, but the benefits are significant. Calibration sessions can help align reviewers on consistent evaluation standards.
Self-reviews
Self-reviews involve agents critically evaluating their own conversations and performance. Because you invest in hiring capable agents, trusting them to assess their work encourages ownership and continuous improvement.
Reactive reviews
When managing a large volume of conversations, it can be practical to focus feedback efforts on cases with known issues, such as low customer satisfaction (CSAT) ratings, lengthy back-and-forth exchanges, or extended response times.
While this approach provides a quick way to identify areas for improvement, it may introduce bias into your internal quality scores (IQS). Therefore, it’s important to avoid mixing reactive reviews with proactive (randomly selected) reviews. Reactive reviews tend to have lower scores, so their results are not directly comparable with results from proactive reviews.