Menu
We’ve analyzed quality assurance (QA) from every possible angle: scoring models, calibration sessions, and compliance metrics. But how often do we look at QA through the eyes of the people it impacts most: the agents?
QA isn’t about checking boxes or filling quotas. It’s about ensuring consistency and driving improvement. At its best, QA reinforces what’s working, pinpoints what isn’t, and creates a continuous cycle of learning that strengthens the agents, the team, and ultimately the customer experience (CX).
Yes, today’s technology can analyze tone, detect politeness, and highlight friendly exchanges between agent and caller.
That’s useful, but it’s not the whole picture.
I’ve reviewed calls that looked flawless according to AI sentiment, only to uncover coaching moments after listening to them myself.
QA isn’t about checking boxes or filling quotas. It’s about ensuring consistency and driving improvement.
On one call, for instance, the agent politely told a member, “If you place me on hold, I’ll have to disconnect.” The tone was calm, but the message missed the mark.
It reminded me that no algorithm (at the time of this writing) can replace human understanding: the empathy and discernment that come from real listening.
I say that not just as a call center leader, but as someone who started on the phones.
If you spend time in call center communities on Reddit or Facebook – or sit down with your agents in a coaching session – a familiar theme emerges: the word “QA” rarely feels like it stands for Quality Assurance. To many, it feels more like “Quality Apprehension.”
Over the years, I’ve heard the same frustrations surface again and again.
On online forums, agents often describe QA as “the department that waits for you to mess up.” One Reddit user summed it up perfectly: “They call it coaching, but it feels like a report card I didn’t ask for.”
When quality reviews prioritize error detection over effort recognition, agents begin to disengage. They start doing just enough to avoid getting flagged: checking boxes instead of connecting with customers. Over time, this mindset breeds frustration, detachment, and eventually burnout.
And here’s the real irony: these are the very people QA was created to support. When the process adds pressure instead of perspective — when it creates fear instead of feedback — we’ve missed the mark.
A truly effective QA program should leave agents thinking, “I learned something today,” not “I hope I don’t get another bad score.”
For agents, QA’s job is to make work transparent and fair, to help improve the agent’s performance, not to create a “gotcha!” moment. When we design QA with the frontline in mind, it changes how agents respond to each evaluation: from fear and box-checking to curiosity and growth.
Here are a few core elements a QA program must deliver to really serve agents.
Regular calibration so everyone evaluates the same. Calibration is where QA teams, leadership, and sometimes the agents listen to the same calls and align on how they’ll score them.
Do this regularly — ideally weekly — to keep evaluators consistent, catch drifts quickly, and respond to changes (such as products, services, or policies) before they cause confusion within the team. Weekly calibration also helps QA staff surface ambiguous rubric items so you can fix them fast.
Be specific, timely, and subjective in the right way. Feedback should be delivered while the call is still fresh in the agent’s mind, ideally, within a few days, not weeks or months later.
A QA from early in the month (or worse, a quarter ago) would make the agent question, “Why is this being brought to my attention now?”
Every piece of feedback should include three things.
This balance keeps feedback subjective in tone — personal, human, and constructive: while still rooted in objective evidence from the call. Agents appreciate this level of detail because it feels fair and actionable rather than vague or punitive.
One-on-one coaching for wins and misses. I feel that feedback shouldn’t be reserved only for when something goes wrong. Schedule one-on-one sessions that celebrate great calls as well as those that require corrections. Hearing “here’s what you did well” boosts an agent’s morale and makes corrective coaching feel less threatening.
I’ve noticed that using the actual call during the session helps the agent to understand what needs tweaking faster than reading about it in the QA form notes.
Make scorecards teachable, not just “tallyable.” Scorecards must do more than add up points. Add a feedback field to each scored item so the agent always knows why they lost points on that item and how to improve while it is in front of them, top-of-mind: rather than finding out at the end of the QA form.
Keep the rubric tightly focused (five to seven high-value items) and pair each numeric score with a short, specific coaching line or a suggested phrase the agent can use on the next call. A clear, concise comment is far more helpful than a vague “missed greeting” line.
Apply progressive coaching: warn, don’t punish (unless necessary). I like to give agents the benefit of the doubt. Where most performance issues stem from training gaps, not willful misconduct, start with coaching and corrective notes. If this behavior persists, move to a verbal warning, and finally to written warnings according to your progressive discipline policy.
For small misses (e.g., forgetting to read a call reference number), an initial friendly warning with clear expectations and tips for remembering (like a sticky note on the agent’s monitor), plus a reminder that continued misses will affect scores, often corrects the problem without damaging morale.
However, not all issues can — or should — begin with gentle correction. For serious matters, swift and decisive action is essential, particularly when patterns or trends emerge. Here are some examples.
These situations may bypass progressive coaching altogether and move directly to formal investigation and disciplinary steps. These can include written warnings or separation from employment, depending on the severity of the incidents and company policy.
QA plays a critical role here by accurately documenting incidents, preserving call evidence, and escalating concerns through the appropriate compliance and HR channels.
This becomes especially important when agents are issued written warnings or are exited due to serious quality or compliance violations. These processes ensure accountability while protecting customers, the organization, and the contact center’s integrity.
The goal isn’t punishment: it’s protection, prevention, and providing exceptional customer service. Clear boundaries reinforce professionalism and safety, while coaching remains the primary tool for development when performance issues stem from skill gaps rather than misconduct.
Involve agents in building the rules. Bring experienced agents into rubric design and calibration sessions, which makes agents feel included in decision-making while also improving morale. When agents help define quality, they’re more likely to trust it and apply it, and they become catalysts for acceptance among peers.
Co-creation also uncovers real-world nuances that evaluators and leaders might miss, like effective workarounds for system issues or phrases that help build rapport but don’t match a script.
Use multiple signals, not just one QA score. A single QA score doesn’t tell the whole story. Before deciding that an agent needs corrective action, it’s essential to look at the bigger picture. Like how do their QA results compare with customer satisfaction (CSAT) scores, first call resolution (FCR), or repeat-contact rates?
One low score might reflect a challenging caller or a system issue rather than poor performance. For example, I recall an agent who received a few low QA scores for sounding rushed with callers.
The leadership team wanted me to issue a verbal warning to the agent because it was happening consistently. However, when they looked at her CSAT scores and the voice notes taken by the agent from the callers, the callers felt she gave them what they needed quickly and was professional.
Further, the team noted that she took more calls than her peers in her training class. When multiple signals were considered, the feedback shifted from punishment to a coaching conversation, helping her balance tone of voice and empathy with speed.
Selecting an appropriate sample size. Evaluating just a few calls a month doesn’t paint a complete picture of an agent’s performance. When too-small samples are selected, such as two calls per month, it can lead to unreliable conclusions; one tough call can unfairly skew a score.
A better approach is to set a consistent sampling plan, such as reviewing a fixed number of calls per agent each week or month. Also, ensure the calls represent different channels, shifts, and call types.
It’s also a good practice to create a log of the agent’s scores for each month and to place the average score on their monthly scorecard.
Of course, even the best-designed QA programs will face disagreement, which makes a clear dispute process essential.
Sometimes, an agent may feel that a score or mark-off doesn’t reflect what really happened on a call, and that’s okay. What matters is having a clear, respectful way for agents to dispute or question a QA result.
Why it matters. When agents know they can challenge a score fairly, it builds trust in the QA process. It shifts QA from a judgment to a partnership.
Here’s how to implement a dispute-handling process.
QA has a clear purpose: to uncover opportunities for improvement and support agents in delivering their best work.
When done right, QA isn’t a policing tool. It’s a platform for growth: a mirror that reflects both strengths and learning opportunities. It’s about creating a culture where agents feel valued, motivated, and inspired to deliver their best.
Because in the end, QA isn’t just about measuring quality: it’s about creating it.
This article originally appeared in Contact Center Pipeline. To view the article online, go to https://www.contactcenterpipeline.com/Article/qa-through-the-agents-eyes.