Geckoboard is on a mission to help founders and team leads boost the visibility of key metrics throughout their company with their easy-to-use TV dashboard software. They believe that by surfacing live metrics and making them easy to understand, individuals and teams alike can perform better, and they follow this principle in their organization too.
Improving information sharing was one of the main reasons Geckoboard created a conversation review program for their customer service team.
“We continue to offer excellent support with a great CSAT score and impressive response times. But on top of this, we’re now sharing more information internally and providing ten times as much proactive advice between support agents than we did before,” explains Luis Hernandez, the VP of Customer Success at Geckoboard.
Here’s a recap of Luis’s article “Introducing "peer reviews" to Geckoboard's CS team”, where he explains the hows and whys of bringing peer feedback to their already high-performing support team.
Conversation reviews - i.e., systematic quality evaluations of support interactions, - come in many forms. Reviews can be carried out by different people (manager, QA specialist, self- or peer reviews) depending on the best fit for your team. Geckoboard opted for the latter: peer reviews.
Here are the main reasons for choosing peer reviews, as told by Luis, Geckoboard’s VP of Customer Success:
With benefits like these, choosing peer reviews was a no-brainer for Geckoboard. Though conversation reviews are beneficial in all forms, peer feedback is gaining more and more popularity across the globe.
From the initial idea of bringing peer feedback to the support team, it didn’t take much time for Geckoboard to get the system up and running. After agreeing upon a few basic rules and their quality criteria, they were able to get going with conversation reviews with little effort.
Geckoboard had already been happily using Klaus for reviewing new agents’ conversations during their onboarding program. So, when they decided to expand their internal quality evaluations across the entire team, they already knew which software they were going to use for the purpose.
Here’s what the rest of the peer review setup looked like for Geckoboard’s support team:
Geckoboard had a very smooth and successful peer-review setup procedure. With continuous calibrations and iterations, they’ll make sure that the system remains strong as the team and company change.
Geckoboard considers peer reviews a huge success. However, they’ve seen some teething problems along the way, too.
Luis points out two issues they encountered after setting up the process:
It’s difficult to find time for peer reviews during the busiest times. Geckoboard’s support team’s first and foremost duty is to solve customers’ issues. If tickets queue up, agents need to tackle those before they can deal with conversation reviews. So, sometimes, they had to skip peer reviews and focus entirely on working on the queue.
Luckily, Luis found a solution for that: “It seems that our original approach of two peer reviews per day works better as “ten per week.” This removes the pressure to review conversations every single day and lets people choose a particular day when they have a free hour.”
Reviewers tend to give only positive feedback to their peers. Some agents might feel uncomfortable with leaving negative reviews, and others may just have become so used to using the positive lexicon they use in customer interactions that giving negative feedback no longer feels natural to them.
However, knowing that other companies have experienced similar issues when they first started doing peer reviews, there’s hope that this shall pass. For example, Grigorij Urasov, Happiness Engineer at Automattic, said: “When we first started out, peer reviews [at Automattic] were mostly positive, but according to the latest Feedback Analysis report in Klaus, 56.6% of reviewed tickets fell under "Room for Improvement".”
Getting used to and comfortable with the peer review process, or with any other new internal procedure, might not happen overnight. Luckily, that’s nothing that a little time and experience can’t fix. The more agents conduct reviews, the more natural it will become to give honest and continuous feedback.
Despite the minor hiccups, Geckoboard is happy with the decision to start doing peer reviews in customer service.
”It’s been six weeks since we implemented peer reviews for support and I have to say the results have surpassed our greatest expectations,” said Luis Hernandez.
Here’s what Geckoboard’s VP of Customer Success sees as their biggest gains in the process:
Internal feedback is a crucial part of successful customer service teams’ day-to-day life. It plays an important role in achieving and maintaining a high level of support quality, and it’s an essential element in agents’ professional development.
If you’d like to give conversation reviews a go, check out Klaus. It’s the tool that Geckoboard uses as their peer feedback platform, and we have a feeling that you will love it, too.
See how other companies are doing conversation reviews on Klaus:
No spam, maybe also an occasional cat picture.