Remembering Dick and Myra Larkin - National Association of ...

They are assumptive commands intendedto have an impact on our behavior. Theyare unabashed employee controls.There is no doubt, that in making thestipulations contained in Sheely’s letter,Allstate is imposing behavioral controlover its agents. This new requirement toconform to a mandatory set of standardsimposed by the company is the clearestform of control Allstate has exerted todate. Because “behavioral control” is akey element used by the IRS to determinewhether a worker is an employeeor independent contractor, a higher standardof vigilance by the employer mustbe used. Allstate’s newest mandate is ablatant violation of that precept.Training? We Don’t Need NoStinking Training!IRS Publication 15-A has been updatedfor 2009, but essentially contains thekey elements previously used to describethe employer/employee relationship. Onpage 6 of the publication, in the righthand column, is a section titled “Trainingthat the business gives the worker.” Itstates: “An employee may be trained toperform services in a particular manner.Independent contractors ordinarily usetheir own methods.”Employers are generally cautious to afault regarding mandatory training. Butwhether from mounting pressure causedby market conditions or from internalcorporate directives, Allstate has beensystematically violating IRS rules regardingsuch things as mandatory officehours, quotas, annual reviews, call forwardingand much more. Now Allstatehas fractured the “no mandatory training”element as well.Training is defined as the processof teaching or learning a skill. Trainingcan be used to improve a previouslylearned skill or to define parameters forthe performance of a particular job orduty. In all cases, the one being trainedis required to conform to a skill set beingsupplied by the trainer. Imposing newtraining requirements or changing an already-in-placeskill is a form of control.This is a significant element of control anemployer gives up when they utilize anindependent contractor. But, the tradeoffis extremely beneficial tax treatmentfrom the IRS. It is only when companiesrenege on their promise of compliancethat both the worker and the IRS beginto take notice.Interestingly, had Allstate not producedits latest corporate memo, the trueextent of its training scheme might neverhave been brought to light. In its zeal toimplement new “accountability” standards,Allstate recounted the inclusionof a program designed to move forwardits latest corporate agenda. The name ofthe program is “Customer Service Expectations.”Likely, many of you reading thiswill not recognize the name. That’s becausethe element most of us are familiarwith is called “First Impressions.” In typicalAllstate fashion, a new program willhave been in place and implemented foryears before the agency force even hearsabout it or notices it.“First Impressions” is a mandatorytraining program, which was implementedin 2008 as a series of phonecalls to all agents. It is mandatory becausethe process of answering thephone automatically enjoins the agentin the training program. The purpose ofthe “First Impressions” program was/is toinstitute an Allstate-designed programwhich included a defined work processand the sequence in which the agentshould perform the work. But the programwas, of course, never touted as atraining program. It was introduced toagents as a way for them to improve“telephone skills.”The following are direct quotes fromthe program’s FAQ’s sent to each agent.“What: Series of 3 brief calls eachmonth to all agents through 2008 – conductedand scored by a vendor called InTouch assessing how agencies handlegreetings, closings, and voice tone.Why: Improve first impressions whencustomers call agencies – drive improvementand consistency into agency telephoneinteractions.When: Launched 4/1/2008 – ongoingthrough 2008”The reality of the “First Impressions”program was that it was intended to bea key element of the “Customer ServiceExpectations” mandate. It is this mandatethat is central to Allstate’s controlof the agents’ work product: interactionwith the customer. Allstate wasn’t evencoy when it unabashedly answered the“Why” behind the calls. It stated openlythat the program was designed to “driveimprovement and consistency intoagency telephone interactions.” Mostagents were at a loss as to how to rejectthis forced, mandatory training. As withother employee controls, agents remainunable to defend themselves without potentiallyimpacting their careers.To Allstate’s credit, they invented away to require mandatory attendanceat training classes without the agents’ability to reject the process. Agents areso used to using their computers to signon to remote training classes, or to callin to Citrix-based teleconferences forvoluntary training, that they overlookedthe sheer simplicity of what occurs whenthey answer the phone to take what theyhope is a customer calling for a quote.From Allstate’s perspective, theyknow that an agent “must” answer thephone. Therefore the agent is automaticallyrelegated to “mandatory attendance”of whatever happens next. The agent answersthe phone hoping it is a prospectiveor current client. The “trainer” whois on the other end of the line, then asksa question or series of questions and recordsthe agent’s response. The agentis then “graded” on his efforts and anevaluation is posted online for him to review.Agents are provided sample scripts,the sequence of questions and possibleresponses. Those who initially scoredpoorly are encouraged to adhere moreclosely to the script in order to attain ahigher score.This is classic “Mandatory Training101.” Allstate wishes to modify what itsees as undesirable behavior. It ramps upa countrywide staff and evaluation system.Allstate implements calls to agentoffices knowing they must answer thephone and “attend” the training. Allstatecollects the data. Allstate delineates“good” behavior from “bad” behavior.Agents are contacted by managers to“help” them by reviewing their recordedcalls. Allstate provides agents withscripts and a sequence to follow. Allstateachieves modified behavior. AllstateSummer 2009 Exclusivefocus — 49