PRIYA* don’t quit … : BPO Retention Planning Tool

Background:
The young Business Process Outsourcing Industry in India has been struggling with high
attrition rates right from the word go. The high cost of attrition in the established B.P.O.
Organizations – whose major challenge is to ramp up & train the workforce quickly to
translate the business opportunity into revenue Dollars – has already been felt &
documented extensively in the media. Every BPO organization seems to be trying to
reduce their attrition, percentage point by percentage point.

There is a feeling, especially among HR Managers, that while there are market dynamics
involved in the demand–supply gap, there certainly is a need to find better ways to retain
the young & well trained workforce at the Agent level.

PRIYA (Proactive Retention Interventions among Young Associates) is a conceptual

model that has evolved from HR practices based on intuitive common sense. It works.
While this author has thought through the Tool elaborated here, a lot of ideas and
practices used in it owe their existence to various HR & Business Leaders across BPO
organizations. Hence this is truly a piece of collaborative development and should
therefore be shared freely for the benefit of this new growth space.

Let us begin by reviewing the numerous innovative HR initiatives & interventions that
are constantly being tried by most industry leaders today (Example: Tie up with distance
learning MBA programmes, providing discotheques / ‘fun at work’, etc.). Somehow none
of these interventions seem to work consistently across an organization, nor can they be
said to be having a highly significant impact across the board on the attrition level in the
targeted employee population in a BPO organization handling diverse variety of work.
What works for one organization, seems to be an impossibility to even consider in
another organization.

While these HR interventions & initiatives certainly work in pockets, there are some
limitations in their approach:

Page 1 of 20
________________________________________________________________________
1. Business Imperative: The current attrition management outlook assumes that the
absolute attrition percentages are of utmost importance. Logically however, the
Clients would be more worried about the organization’s ability to meet the SLAs
(Service Level Agreement) consistently, and not the absolute attrition percentage
levels. (Yes, lower attrition percentages help quite a lot in that!)
2. Cost–Benefit: The cost–benefit of these HR initiatives are very difficult to calculate
at the design stage. (Usually the cost calculations do not capture the disproportionate
amount of time the senior management spends in creating, validating, implementing
& troubleshooting these initiatives – specially in terms of the opportunity cost due to
time spent away from the business opportunity)
3. Effectiveness & Impact: The effectiveness of an initiative is very difficult to predict,
and the actual impact is usually out of whack with the originally estimated level. The
choice of initiatives is usually someone’s preference / gut feel – instead of a very
rigorous business decision. (Since some of these initiatives work, there is a sort of
organizational legitimacy granted to this “deciding by gut feel” when it comes to HR
interventions related decision-making.)
4. Monitoring & Control: These initiatives / interventions tend to get out of control
quite quickly, and it takes a Herculean effort for the organizational leadership to rein
it in. The organizational leadership also does not have very clear decision-making
data to choose between similar / overlapping interventions or to stop ineffective
interventions. The ‘in-process’ monitoring of these initiatives / interventions is quite
difficult given the biases of the implementers & their varying levels of buy-in.
5. Implementation: The success of most of these HR interventions is driven by the
passion of the implementers, specially the first level managers. This does create a
possibility of a less effective initiative being continued without knowing clearly that
there was a better one available, and would have had a higher organizational impact,
given the quality of involvement of the first level managers.
6. Focus: These initiatives / interventions are usually backward looking. They are
typically driven by the data from exit interviews of the preceding month / quarter.
Also given the fact that the reasons ‘why people leave’ are known to be different from
‘why people stay’, organizations might be aiming the interventions at the ‘wrong’

Page 2 of 20
________________________________________________________________________
 population, if not also a significantly smaller one! Reliability of exit interview data is
another issue, as call-back validation is typically not a standard practice. One really
does not know how many employees actually joined the organization next door
instead of that MBA they said they wanted to join.
7. Linkage & Alignment: These HR interventions usually do not provide any linkages
to other HR & business processes in the organization & hence to that extent do not
add value. Their alignment to the overall HR framework is therefore tenuous at best,
if not completely out of sync.

It is in this context that this Retention Planning Tool is extremely powerful, while
being very simple to understand (almost intuitive) & easy to implement.

The Retention Planning Tool:

The concept of this tool is very simple:
The ‘Value to Company-Probability of Leaving’ Matrix

Probability of Leaving
High Medium Low

High Q1 Q2 Q3
Value to
Company Medium Q4 Q5 Q6

Low Q7 Q8 Q9

Figure [1]

• Identify the individuals in each service delivery ‘team’

• Plot the position of each of these agents (by the first level Reporting Manager &
the Business HR) in this matrix based on the given parameters.

Page 3 of 20
________________________________________________________________________
 • Prepare & implement specific action plans (by the first & second level Reporting
Managers & the Business HR) for enhancing retention for each individual based
on their position in this matrix.
• Create this matrix for each ‘Service Delivery Team’ in the organization & add up
the numbers for each quadrant to understand what is the most appropriate HR
initiative / intervention that is required.
• Monitor & Review these matrixes periodically for any changes & to obtain
decision-making data for discontinuing, modifying, continuing or initiating new
interventions.

The mapping of each individual in the Service Delivery Team is based on the following
Parameters:

Value to Company:
Every individual in each Service Delivery Team to be rated as High / Medium / Low
based on:
1. Current Performance: Productivity, Quality & ‘overall value to the Team’ (If this
person leaves, how much will it impact the motivation, stretch & ‘feel good
characteristics’ in the team?).
2. Criticality of the person to the process: is there a high chance of the Client migrating
the process back / canceling the contract if this person leaves? Is this one person
handling a critical sub process / language / front-end that no one else in the current
team can handle? In such a case, even if the person is of ‘medium value to company’
from point 1 above, he / she should be moved to the high value category.
3. Longer-term Value: Does this person being part of this process enhance my
organization’s chance of getting more business (upstream / downstream processes)
from the same Client? Does this individual possess relevant experience / qualification
/ aptitude for moving into higher value roles likely to emerge in the near future – even
if for some other Client / team in the organization?
Probability of Leaving:

Page 4 of 20
________________________________________________________________________
Every individual in each Service Delivery Team to be rated as High / Medium / Low on
probability of leaving based on the following 16 parameters.

A ‘High’ rating in even one parameter would result in a ‘high Probability of leaving’
individual. Also please note the correlations & dependencies within these factors, some
of which have been pointed out. This evaluation assumes that the Business HR person &
the 1st Level Reporting Manager possess a tacit understanding of each individual’s
‘Value System’1 (the person’s predisposition to act in a certain way in a specific situation
according to the highest operating value that the person holds).
1. Working relationship with Reporting Manager: Good / indifferent / strained?
2. Performance rank vs. salary position in the team: Is he / she getting paid the
most in the team if he / she is the top performer? Individual salary & performance
data is no secret as the team members share them with each other regardless of
their appointment letter instructing them not to!
3. Behavioral and cultural fit in the team: Good / Bad / Ugly? (Shows high
correlation with the team diversity mix, especially with respect to gender). There
typically will be more team issues in an all female / male team. A good diversity
mix always helps. (Given the typical age profile, there will always be some cases
of hormonal overdrive!)
4. Workplace Location: Is this his / her hometown? What is the extent of his / her
wanting to move back to his / her hometown? (Has high dependency with 5.
There is typically a lot of parental pressure on the unmarried woman working in
the night shift to leave / shift job to the hometown)
5. Gender Related: Male / Female
a. Marital Status: Has high correlation with attrition of women due to
relocation because of marriage.
b. Work timing: Day / night. Has high correlation with attrition of women
due to health reasons. (There appears to be a higher than average number
of disturbance in menstrual cycles & miscarriages for women working in
the night shifts.)

Page 5 of 20
________________________________________________________________________
 c. Spouse’s work timing: Same / different (If different, has very high
correlation with attrition due to health reasons for women)
d. Living with in-laws: There is a 100% correlation of attrition for married
women working in the night shift & living with in-laws. The in-laws
expectations from the daughter-in-law (preparing breakfast & lunch,
attending to the door / phone, housework – since she’s at home –
irrespective of the fact that it is her peak sleeping time) will force the
women to leave her job within about 2 months. Spouse’s work timings can
further complicate her situation.
6. Aspiration& capability for Higher Education: Aspiration alone is a bad
indicator. Most associates would either intuitively give up on the tough
competition for opportunities in Premiere Business Schools that they really aspire
for, or, simply would not currently have the financial capability to take a break for
preparation or a full time course. It is only after about 3 years of working that they
would be willing to consider a distance learning option as the only feasible option.
7. Promotion Prospects: Internal opportunity availability for vertical movement in
the near future. Is my organization growing fast? Is the new business it is getting
similar to my current work? Do they believe in giving a chance to me rather than
hiring someone above me from the outside? Is the process for promotion fair &
does it happen with a high enough frequency (half yearly)?
8. Opportunity: Internal competition vs. likelihood of getting a higher position in
another organization immediately. Are there any startups where I can ‘encash’ my
experience today? If I stay, what are my realistic prospects for moving up
compared to my peer group?
9. Training / mentoring / exposure for growth & learning : Adequate / inadequate
10. Grievances: Any unresolved / ongoing HR or organizational issues
11. Reward & Recognition: Have you found an excuse yet to reward & recognize
this individual for what he / she does really well at work?
12. Need for the job: financial, social or personal compulsions to continue working.
Time Required:

Page 6 of 20
________________________________________________________________________
The first time round, it typically takes about 3 to 5 hours of discussion between the 1st
Level Reporting Manager & Business HR to consolidate the mapping of 10 to 15 people.
Subsequent reviews take about 1 hour for a team of 10 to 15 people.

The time required to analyze the mapping & to chalk out a retention plan will depend
completely on the actual details of the mapping as will be brought out below & in the
case study.

Matrix Analysis:
The distribution of the population in the various quadrants (Q1 to Q9) of the Matrix is
an indication of the effectiveness of your Organization’s HR & Training Processes.
• If the Matrix Quadrants Q2, Q3, Q5 & Q6 together contain 70 to 80 % of your
population, you are extremely lucky. By some happy accident your organization’s
people processes work reasonably well & you are in a good position to initiate
‘interventions’ which will basically try to move people in the direction of the
arrows & out from Q3 through promotions as illustrated below (Q7, 8 & 9through
Performance Management, Q4, 5 & 6 through Skills Training & Q1, 2 & 3
through Developmental Training & engagement activities):

Probability of Leaving Promotions

High Medium Low
Q2 Q3
High Q1
70 to 80 % of the
Value to Team
Company Medium Q4 Q5 Q6

Low Q7 Q8 Q9

Figure [2]

Page 7 of 20
________________________________________________________________________
 • If however the numbers are not so kind, while you will need to still have the
above ‘interventions’ going, you would be well advised to create ‘initiatives’ that
will create people movement along the arrows as illustrated below.

Redeployed gainfully (depending on the

Probability Factor identified)
Probability of Leaving Training
High Medium Low intervention for From
Q1 Q2 Q3 skill up gradation internal
High pool /
Value to bench
Company Medium Q5 Q6
Q4
Q7 Q8 Q9
Low
PIP / Exit

Figure [3]

In other words, you will need to create a well deliberated ‘Churn’ in the team to
achieve the desired balance within a fixed timeframe (typically 30 to 45 days) in
order to be able to manage the possible attrition much more proactively &
effectively.

• A lot of interesting dynamics emerges as you analyse the mapping. Examples:

o Those most in need of training are in Q5, 6, 8 & 9. The Q1, 2, & 3s
however resent these “uncommitted / still on the learning-curve”
individuals being away from work ‘enjoying a good time in training’.
Hence ensuring Developmental Training for the next role to those in Q2 &
3 is imperative shortly after the Q 5, 6, 8 & 9s’ come back from their skill
up gradation training & the heat is turned on them to perform. Q1s’ need
to be given all the high impact short term assignments (depending on the
actual probability factor of course) which they will usually love to take up

Page 8 of 20
________________________________________________________________________
 and complete within timelines for the value it adds to their capabilities &
CVs’ – for internal / external movement.
o Are the people decision makers aware of the biggest contributors in the
organization (Q 1,2,3,5,6)? Have these people had a one–on–one with HR
/ Reporting Managers (First Level & Skip Level) / Business & Quality
Leaders within the last one month / quarter? Have those on PIP
(Performance Improvement Plan) felt the heat directly from the skip level
& HR? If not, there’s likely to be trouble ahead.
o What are the other processes on which this team can be cross-trained?
Where else in the organization can the restive population from my team be
moved in a planned manner? Which other teams should I keep an eye on
to create cross-training for my process & backups for attrition /
absenteeism / high volumes in my team. Be prepared for the ‘Churn’
much before it becomes imperative.
o All attrition can be traced back to this matrix in order to understand
whether that particular individual’s issues were understood / managed
right.
• In effect, the preparation of the Matrix is only the first step to an interesting
journey. Once ready, the Matrix will instantly give you the numbers & impact of
any planned intervention or initiative. E.g.: Is the ‘fun at work’ initiative likely to
retain my high value employees or some others? How many people are likely to
enroll for a sponsored MBA Programme; a sponsored vs. a reimbursed one; or
would my team’s best performers rather have deferred cash payments instead of
the MBA programme? Which ‘Internal Job Posting’ is just right for my team
member & I should inform & encourage her for the same?
Example: The organization decided to implement a 3-year distance
learning MBA programme on a conditional reimbursement model. My
Matrix clearly told me the realistic number of people likely to opt for it,
their value to the company and how many would choose not to join
because of other factors as discovered while plotting the Probability of
Leaving. I found that the prime reason why the targeted population would

Page 9 of 20
________________________________________________________________________
 not join was due to cash flow constraints. At Rs 7000 per month take
home, most of them were not in a position to spare Rs. 1500 per month for
this ambitious project. The ones who were in a position to spare the cash
typically wanted to do a full time MBA from a premier institute for the
earning opportunity & entry level / lateral managerial roles through the
superior placement opportunities. (Based on this same matrix, the data
indicated that allocating the budgeted organizational expense to the
performance based variable monthly income* would have been more
effective in creating higher retention at that compensation level.) One of
the Service Delivery Leaders however saw it as a simple matter of
implementation and instructed his Operations AVPs & Managers that he
needed 2% of the population to enroll. After the ‘Yes Sir’, sure enough,
there were 36 names identified who would write the entrance test & enroll.
And sure enough, the final tally of people who did join was zero. I suspect
that even if a few of these associates were cajoled into filling up the form
& paying up the Rs. 200 for the entrance test, they were likely to take
pains to flunk the selection test!

• The Matrix therefore gives a clear picture of the current health as well as the
necessary interventions & initiatives required in the team. Instead of trying to
force fit interventions & initiatives designed by someone high up, the Matrix data
flows up & creates a much better “mass – customized” approach for focusing
clearly on the relevant issues & actions.

Page 10 of 20
________________________________________________________________________
A Case Study:
Let us consider a typical distribution matrix for a team of 23 agents, 12
Male, 11 Female.

Value to Company
High Medium Low
Name Performance Criticality Future Need
PF1 H L L
PM2 M H L
PM3 M L H
PM4 H L M
PM5 H H M
PF6 H L L
PF7 H L L
PF8 M L L
PF9 M L L
PM10 M L L
PM11 M L L
PF12 M L L
PF13 M L L
PM14 M L L
PM15 M L L
PF16 M L L
PF17 M L L
PM18 M L L
PM19 M L L
PM20 L L L
PF21 L L L
PM22 L L L
PF23 L L L

Figure [4]

Page 11 of 20
________________________________________________________________________
 High 'H' Medium 'M' Low 'L'
Probability of Leaving
Name Relationship Performance Team Fit Location Gender Related Higher Promotion External T&D Grievances Rewards & Financial
with Rptg Vs. Salary Education Prospects Opportunity Recognitions need for Job
Marital Status Work Timing Spouse's Living with
Mgr Rank
work timing in-laws

PF1 M L L L H L L L L M M M L L M
PM2 H L L M L L L L L L M L L M M
PM3 L M L L L L L L L M M L M L L
PM4 L M L L L L L L L L M L M L L
PM5 L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L
PF6 L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L
PF7 L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L
PF8 L L H L L M L L M M M L L L M
PF9 L L M L M M M H L L L L L L M
PM10 H H H H L L L L L L L L H L L
PM11 L L L L L L L L M H M M M M L
PF12 M L M L M L L L L M L L L L M
PF13 L M L L L M L L L L L L L L L
PM14 L L M M L L L L L M L L L L L
PM15 L L L L L M L L M M M L M M M
PF16 L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L
PF17 L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L
PM18 L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L
PM19 L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L
PM20 L L M L L L L L H M M M M M H
PF21 L L M M M L L L L M M M M M M
PM22 M L L L L L L L L L L L M M L
PF23 M L L L L L L L L L L L M M L

Figure[5]

Page 12 of 20
________________________________________________________________________
Team Matrix:

Risk of Leaving

High Medium Low

Q1 Q2 Q3
High PF1, PM2 PM3 PM4 PM5, PF6,
PF7
Value to
Q4 Q5 Q6
Company PF8, PF9, PF12, PF13, PM14, PF16, PF17,
Medium PM10, PM11 PM15 PM18, PM19

Q7 Q8 Q9
Low PM20 PF21 PM22, PF23

P stands for Person; M/F for male / female

Figure [6]

Case Study: The typical outcome

Name Brief Profile Plan
Outstanding performer, has had Manager to resolve difference across the table,
disagreements with Manager, was Skip level Manager to have one on one to give
not nominated to the last comfort that her performance is recognized, HR
Leadership Development to ensure nomination to the Leadership
PF1 Training, Conscious of external development & assertiveness training. Set clear
opportunities, family reasonably expectations on lead time to let the Ops
well off, is expecting to get Manager & HR know of any developments on
married within this year the marriage front.

Page 13 of 20
________________________________________________________________________
 Good performer, has had a fight HR & Skip Level Manager to help Manager in
with the Manager as he did not creating a dialogue, explaining the context of
allow him to apply for an Internal the decisions. All three to commit to working
Job Posting for his hometown out a solution in the medium term ( 6 months - 1
location as he had not completed year) for exploring his movement to his
the stipulated 1 year in the hometown. This would be subject to the
process. His father is not keeping condition that he would be ensuring a backup by
PM2 well and wants him to return to training P6 & P7 for the critical sub process that
hometown. Manager denied him he alone is currently handling. HR to
leave last time as 2 team members proactively seek details of Processess at his
were scheduled for process hometown location operations & keep him
training & 2 for six sigma updated of future opportunities as well as
training. introduce him / forward his CV to key decision
makers for the same.

Good performer. Worried about HR & Skip Level Manager to ensure that the
his prospects of growth within the transition expected later would have him
team. Has capability & prior handling a meaty role. Encourage him to think
experience in a higher end through & start creating collaterals, put him in
downstream process project touch with the Transition Manager for this next
PM3 which is likely to be transitioned project. HR to ensure immediate salary
in the next 6 months. Salary needs rationalization.
to be rationalized

Outstanding performer, is also HR to ensure immediate rationalization of his

highly critical to another
subprocess. Process owner
PM4 (client) always wants to speak to
him directly & goes by his word.
Needs to be retained.
salary with performance. Create engagement at
work by providing additional responsibilities
like involving in a Six Sigma Green Belt
Project, Shift Utilization initiative for the team
etc.

Outstanding performer, stable, Ideal person to be groomed for promotion to

also critical for another sub Team Leader / Manager in a structured manner.
process. Manager to start involving him in resolving
PM5
people issues, communications, interface with
Clients, internal functions & enhance situational
exposure.
Outstanding performer, stable. 2nd person to be groomed for promotion to
PF6 Team Leader / Manager in a structured manner.
Outstanding performer, stable. 3rd person to be groomed for promotion to
Team Leader / Manager in a structured manner.
PF7 Create healthy competition with P5, & P6 but
let all know that there is room for all three.

Page 14 of 20
________________________________________________________________________
 Average performer, attitude Counsel, be ready to backfill
problems, peer group does not
PF8 like her behavior, has been having
health problems due to night shift

Only married person, does not HR to immediately try for internal movement to
participate in team activities or another day process.Be ready to backfill at short
PF9 extend help & support to other notice.
team members, is keen to wind up
quickly & reach home.

Has joined team later as a Counsel. Buddy with P5, 6 & 7. Ensure P5, 6 &
backfill. Issues with Manager, 7 get evaluated on how they handle this case &
Salary, Peers, Location. Unable to give them active coaching in handling it right.
adjust. Be ready to backfill.Communicate to P5, 6 & 7
PM10
that they will need to stretch additionally if this
person leaves without notice, and there is a gap
before the backfill is allocated.

Average performer. More keen on Counsel & help in delivering better performance
PM11 moving up the ladder than in the on the job.
current job.
PF12
PF13 Ensure hygiene issues are taken care of. Train
PM14 for & create & communicate for higher
PM15 performance on the job. Provide additional
Average performers.
PF16 responsibilities to P16, 17, 18 & 19 for SPOCs
PF17 (Single Point of Contact) for the team's HR,
Training, Tech, Logistics, MIS etc.
PM18
PM19
High expectations, team fit issues, Encourage exit after counseling.
higher education aspiration, does
PM20 not need the job

Uncommitted, high expectation, Explore redeployment to home location, counsel

PF21 team fit issues / Exit
PM22 Unmotivated 30 day Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) /
Unmotivated redeployment / exit in that order as there seem
PF23 to be no other major issues.

Page 15 of 20
________________________________________________________________________
Conclusion:

While this paper recommends using this Matrix for the BPO space at the Agent level, the
model is sufficiently robust to be used across levels and across different types of
industries – simply by modifying the parameters appropriately. I however think that for
industries / levels where attrition percentages are less than 10% and the attrition impact is
not so critical or immediate in meeting customer expectations; this tool would be more
useful in creating the organization’s HR strategy for People Development.

Caution:

Every powerful tool has the possibility of bringing harm due to misuse. When using the
Matrix, please ensure the following:
1. Ensure absolute privacy of the data: Share this data internally strictly on a need
to know basis, & wherever necessary provide the complete context to each
individual & not just the one or two factors that can be vividly recalled. Even
stricter privacy to be maintained to prevent this data becoming known to the team
members.
2. Respect individual merit & right to self-determination: Do not let this data
unduly influence your decision-making in terms of recommendations for
promotions, assignments, hiring etc. Do address the legitimate business need
without compromising on the organization’s values & ethical practices.
(Example: if your organization practices the value of being an equal opportunity
employer, amongst two candidates, you certainly cannot discriminate by not
hiring one person because she is an unmarried female working away from her
hometown. Please remember, each individual is different and is not necessarily
likely to behave in a fashion as brought out by correlations in historical data)

Value System: a person’s predisposition to act in a certain way in a specific situation

according to the highest relevant operating value that the person holds).

Page 16 of 20
________________________________________________________________________
Remember the scene in the movie “Deewar” where young Amitabh tries to
unsuccessfully steal a loaf of bread? On being caught & thrashed, he tries to explain that
he was not a thief, but he could simply not watch his ill mother & younger brother go
hungry. What it tells us about the young Amitabh’s character in terms of his value system
is that his operating value of ‘being unable to see his family members in distress’ is
higher than his operating value of ‘not stealing’. Hence under the circumstance, though
he did not want to steal, the higher operating value forced him to.

People with similar social & economic backgrounds tend to have the same or very similar
set of values. However the order in which these values operate within each person (The
higher or lower weightage a person assigns to each value) could be very different.
Example: Person 1 & Person 2 could have the same top 3 work related operating values
of financial betterment (money), fairplay & status. The actual order however could be:
Person 1 Person 2
[1] Fairplay [1] Status
[2] Money [2] Money
[3] Status [3] Fairplay
To an external opportunity, both these individuals are likely to respond very differently:
If Person 1 has had reason to feel unfairly treated in the current organization, he / she is
likely to actively look out for an external opportunity, and will move if the money is
better even if it is at the same level. Person 2 however is likely to consider opportunities
only at a higher designation, and might move for a higher designation even if the money
is not significantly higher.

The PRIYA model assumes that the Ops Manager & Business HR have a fairly accurate
understanding of each team member’s value system based on their interactions & past
behaviors. Their evaluation of each associate’s probability of leaving therefore would be
only as accurate as their understanding of each of their associates’ value system.
*Performance based variable monthly income: A typical scenario:
• Budget : X % of Team CTC#.

Page 17 of 20
________________________________________________________________________
• Payout : Monthly.

• Coverage: 50% of the population every, month. Over the long term, almost 90% will
get paid, even if a small amount, even if only once in the year, specially when the
volumes fluctuate.

• Applicability : Revenue generating process which has ‘stabilized’ (is meeting

customer specifications consistently for at least two consecutive monthly reviews).

• Working : Based on Volume & Accuracy.

Volume: To be eligible, an individual needs to perform at an output which is at-least

Above the team median for last month
OR
Above the current month’s customer required / baseline volume average for the
team – whichever is higher (y1).

Accuracy: Above customer specified baseline accuracy. (x1)

Slabs: Different slabs can be created with higher monetary rewards for higher levels
of customer satisfaction. Example, the slab below can be for Customer Satisfaction
(or Overall Engagement Effectiveness) between 80 to 90 %; a higher payout can be
designed along similar lines for 91 to 95% & so on.

Page 18 of 20
________________________________________________________________________
 y3 5P 6P 7P
(y3>>y1)
Volume
y2 3P 4P 5P
(y2>y1)

y1 P 2P 3P

x1 x2 (x2>x1) x3 (x3>>x1)

Accuracy

Figure [A]

• Sample Values
Min Amount: P = Rs.250
Step Function: Additional amount of P on Accuracy, 2P on Volume

y3 Rs.1250 Rs.1500 Rs.1750

(y3>>y1)
Volume
y2 Rs.750 Rs.1000 Rs.1250
(y2>y1)

y1 Rs.250 Rs.500 Rs.750

x1 x2 (x2>x1) x3 (x3>>x1)

Accuracy

Figure [B]

(#With the above distribution in Figure [B], based on actual experience, annual payout
can be budgeted @ Rs. 1000 per agent per month, approximately 15% of CTC)

Page 19 of 20
________________________________________________________________________
• Options:

The following can be appropriately chosen for achieving desirable team behavioral
outcomes: Min amount (P), step function (can be kept constant or can be varied) &
the incremental values for higher customer satisfaction / engagement effectiveness
index.

The minimum amount & step function can be changed on a monthly basis as per the
situation in the team for driving required behavior* (i.e., higher accuracy, higher
volume, higher Customer Satisfaction or all). *Above sample values will drive higher
volume

The actual values for volume & accuracy have to be specified by the Operations
Manager for the Process based on previous month’s results & current month’s
imperatives / forecast. This will need to be made known to the agents at the beginning
of the month along with the payouts for the last month. (The payout period will need
to align with payroll cut-off date, or will need to use projected data).

In case of teams having issues with salaries - this design can be used to create a
customized performance based incentive system using “Goal – seek” iterations for
bringing the total take home (Salary-Rank) of an associate in alignment with his / her
Performance-Rank immediately. This can reduce attrition due to the time consuming
process typically required in making any salary corrections.

Page 20 of 20
________________________________________________________________________