Methods for reviewing customer support conversations

<body>
<div class="article-banners">
<div id="docs-wmp-link">
<a href="https://support.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/5411234991258-plan" rel="noopener" target="_blank">What's my plan?</a>
</div>
<div class="article-banner" id="addon_zqa">
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<strong>Add-on</strong>
</td>
<td>Quality Assurance (QA) or Workforce Engagement Management (WEM)</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
<div id="docs-ai-summary">
<p id="docs-ai-summary-toggle">Verified AI summary <span id="up-triangle">◀</span><span id="down-triangle">▼</span></p>
<p id="docs-ai-summary-content">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.</p>
</div>
<div class="body">
<div class="p">
<div class="note fastpath">
<span class="fastpathtitle">Location: </span> Zendesk QA &gt; Conversations</div>
</div>
<p class="p">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. </p>
<p class="p" dir="ltr">This article contains the following topics:</p>
<ul class="ul" id="topic-1__ul_lx1_msb_4fc">
<li class="li" dir="ltr"><a class="xref" href="#topic_wsw_cly_ydc">Manager reviews</a></li>
<li class="li" dir="ltr"><a class="xref" href="#topic_h51_hvk_32c">Peer-to-peer reviews</a></li>
<li class="li" dir="ltr"><a class="xref" href="#topic_ows_lv2_p2c">Self-reviews</a></li>
<li class="li" dir="ltr"><a class="xref" href="#topic_fcn_dtb_4fc">Reactive reviews</a></li>
</ul>
<p class="p" dir="ltr"><strong class="ph b">Related articles</strong></p>
<ul class="ul" id="topic-1__ul_mx1_msb_4fc">
<li class="li" dir="ltr"><a class="xref" href="https://support.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/7043669307418" target="_blank">Using Zendesk QA as a reviewer</a></li>
</ul>
</div>
<div aria-labelledby="ariaid-title2" class="topic nested1" id="topic_wsw_cly_ydc">
<h2 class="title topictitle2" id="ariaid-title2">Manager reviews</h2>
<div class="body">
<p class="p">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. </p>
<p class="p">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. </p>
</div>
</div>
<div aria-labelledby="ariaid-title3" class="topic nested1" id="topic_h51_hvk_32c">
<h2 class="title topictitle2" id="ariaid-title3">Peer-to-peer reviews</h2>
<div class="body">
<p class="p">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. </p>
<p class="p">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. </p>
<p class="p" dir="ltr">Training all reviewers and tracking evaluations can be time-consuming, but the
benefits are significant. <a class="xref" href="https://support.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/7043724530842" target="_blank">Calibration</a> sessions can help align reviewers on consistent
evaluation standards.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div aria-labelledby="ariaid-title4" class="topic nested1" id="topic_ows_lv2_p2c">
<h2 class="title topictitle2" id="ariaid-title4">Self-reviews</h2>
<div class="body">
<p class="p">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. </p>
</div>
</div>
<div aria-labelledby="ariaid-title5" class="topic nested1" id="topic_fcn_dtb_4fc">
<h2 class="title topictitle2" id="ariaid-title5">Reactive reviews</h2>
<div class="body">
<p class="p">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. </p>
<p class="p">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. </p>
</div>
</div>
<script id="fast-path-script">
//<![CDATA[
const fast_path_style = document.createElement('style');
fast_path_style.innerHTML = `#article-body .fastpath{font-size:.9em;background-color:#f3f3f3;border:1px solid #d3d3d3;padding:10px 10px 8px;margin-bottom:16px}#article-body .fastpath::before{content:none!important}`;
document.head.appendChild(fast_path_style);
//]]>
</script><script id="ai-summary-script">
//<![CDATA[
const ai_summary_style = document.createElement('style');
ai_summary_style.innerHTML = `#styled-article-body{padding:0 0 0}#article-body #docs-ai-summary{background-color:#f3f3f3;border:1px solid #d3d3d3;padding:10px 10px 6px;margin-bottom:16px}#article-body #docs-ai-summary #docs-ai-summary-toggle{font-size:.9em;font-weight:700;margin-bottom:4px;cursor:pointer;display:flex;justify-content:space-between;align-items:center}#article-body #docs-ai-summary #docs-ai-summary-toggle #up-triangle{margin-left:auto;padding-right:10px;display:none}#article-body #docs-ai-summary #docs-ai-summary-toggle #down-triangle{margin-left:auto;padding-right:10px}#article-body #docs-ai-summary #docs-ai-summary-content{font-size:.9em;padding-left:25px;padding-right:25px;margin-bottom:12px}`;
document.head.appendChild(ai_summary_style);

const toggleAISummary = () => {
const summary = document.getElementById("docs-ai-summary-content");
const upTriangle = document.getElementById("up-triangle");
const downTriangle = document.getElementById("down-triangle");
if (summary.style.display === "none") {
summary.style.display = "block";
upTriangle.style.display = "none";
downTriangle.style.display = "inline";
} else {
summary.style.display = "none";
upTriangle.style.display = "inline";
downTriangle.style.display = "none";
}
};

document.getElementById("docs-ai-summary-toggle").addEventListener("click", toggleAISummary);
//]]>
</script>
</body>