• Home
• Public Courses
• In-House
• Clients
• Articles
• About
• Contact

Effective Evaluation Of Debt Collection Calls

Despite the indisputable value of comprehending the wider culture and policies of individual lenders, understanding how clients evaluate and 'mark' their collectors' performance is perhaps now the most important aspect of pre-training preparation.

Historically, this was not nearly so important, as most companies chose not to adopt a set of strict call monitoring criteria other than, understandably, in the area of regulatory compliance. Instead they took the view that a collector should be allowed to use their individual style and intuition during a conversation with a debtor, making their own decision on when to adopt a strategy of acceptance, questioning, or polite ultimatum.

A new form of monitoring

In recent months, however, I have seen a marked trend in the industry towards the adoption of a more complex call monitoring system which, for example, seeks to sub-divide the telephone call into a very high number of different elements, apply weightings to each of the elements, and ultimately calculate a collector's monetary monthly bonus based on the overall results of the evaluations conducted. Much thought and time has been put into these call monitoring systems, and this effort should undoubtedly be applauded.

The rationale of such systems seems to be to focus the collector's mind on every individual aspect of their call, reminding them of the need to give the appropriate greeting, gain information, probe, challenge, negotiate, overcome objections, create a sense of urgency, control the call, actively listen, empathise, build rapport, state the consequences of non-payment and the benefits of paying on time, close the call effectively and, oh yes, use their time efficiently.

However, I feel there is a real danger that such systems end up being documented and applied in a way which encourages robotic collector behaviour, whereby collectors are inadvertently encouraged to always go through the same set of probing questions, irrespective of the attitude of the customer, the timing and content of the last call or the history of the account to date.

Recently, I have seen more than a few call monitoring systems which end up being driven by ease of form completion rather than by collection effectiveness - it is easy to tick boxes to confirm something was said or done, but does that always reflect the level of tactical excellence within the call? My view is categorically 'no'.

Keep things relevant

It is of course inherently difficult in life to evaluate an art rather than a science. Two plus two will (despite what the accountants say!) always equal four, but asking a customer 'why haven't you paid?' may be relevant for some calls, and yet a waste of time in any others. Similarly, asking a debtor if they have a mobile phone number may gain call monitoring points for a collector, but few would argue that a more effective tactic would be to ask: "Just before we finish, I need to update my records with your mobile number. What is your current number?"

I have worked in companies where collectors have been marked down for not stating to a customer the consequence of continued non-payment. At one level, this policy seems entirely sensible, but in the context of a customer who has already been given that consequence in a conversation two hours earlier, the lack of basic common sense risks playing into the hands of many customers who will start to see the collections function as no more than a 'one size fits all' factory line operation, which is blind to the intricacies of each individual case.

An increasing number of organisations seem keen to introduce a standard call opening for outbound contact, after the mandatory security checks have been completed, which insists on bombarding the debtor with numerous different facts about their debt - the amount of the arrears, the date since last payment, the need for a debit card payment and the possible consequences of failing to pay on time - all in the opening paragraph, with the debtor barely having time to register the identity of the caller.

In my opinion, such a strategy misses a vital opportunity to achieve 'eye contact' over the telephone by the use of single statements of fact, followed by silence, which encourage the debtor to reply accurately with the reason for non-payment without them feeling under pressure to give the 'right' answer in response to a more overt form of collector probing.

Effective call monitoring

So, what is the answer to effective call monitoring which encourages best practice collections behaviour, without drowning the collector's individual style and personality in a sea of standard 'must ask' questions and statements?

Well, like so many things, I believe the answer lies in quality not quantity. In my opinion, the list of 'must haves' in a debt collection conversation need consist of nothing more than:

• Compliance with the law - the Data Protection Act, the Administration of Justice Act and so on.
• Compliance with all regulatory requirements - for example the Office of Fair Trading Guidance Note on Debt Collection and Financial Services Authority requirements.
• Compliance with all internal company policies, such as length of payment arrangements, method of payment and amount of concessionary arrangements.

The rest of the call evaluation should focus around the key role of any debt collector - namely, to collect as much money as possible as quickly as possible as cheaply as possible, giving equal value to the rights of the creditor and the rights of the debtor.

Standard scripts can undoubtedly be helpful for inexperienced collectors whose confidence will build via the support of a structured framework. Once their confidence is established, however, I believe they should be encouraged to try alternatives, play with words, and develop their own unique style of debt collecting, consisting of both well-established, proven collection tactics, as well as fresh approaches, insights and tactics designed to increase the likelihood of payment being made on time.

There will never be agreement across the board as to the quality of any art, and debt collection is no exception. Would the collector have collected more by stating that, or asking this? Did they accept the minimum payment too early when the customer may well have been able to afford the full amount? The reality is that we will probably never know. However, by conducting regular workshops with those that evaluate calls, a level of fair consistency in call evaluation is achievable.

Such workshops should also involve the collectors themselves so that they too are party to the healthy debates which inevitably arise from the question, 'what is the best collections approach?'

Whatever your company policy on the evaluation of your collectors, I believe that a system of regular call monitoring has a vital part to play in identifying and rewarding top collections performance, acknowledging and encouraging improved performance and assisting and supporting collectors in their drive
to optimise the results for both themselves and their company overall.

The key, however, lies in ensuring such a system is not overly complex, does not rely on a 'tick box' mentality and ensures that your company is employing a dynamic team of spirited individuals, rather than an unimaginative squad of robots whose key deliverable is nothing more than predictable and mundane consistency.

• Privacy Policy
• Accessibility Statement

All site content is © 2008 Chris Firat Training unless otherwise noted. All rights reserved.

Site design by 29digital.