Define the behaviours
Translate empathy into clear review criteria: acknowledge the loss, use plain language, avoid unnecessary repetition and explain the next step. Keep accuracy and required procedures in the same quality framework.
A quality and coaching model that helps a lender make sensitive conversations clearer and easier for families to navigate.
A national lender’s estate-support team follows required verification and account procedures. Yet call reviews focus heavily on completing the checklist. Families repeat sensitive information, hear unfamiliar terms or leave uncertain about the next step.
Specialists want to handle these moments well, but the scorecard offers little guidance on tone, acknowledgement or clarity. Managers need a consistent way to recognize good judgment and coach the conversations that need more care.
Translate empathy into clear review criteria: acknowledge the loss, use plain language, avoid unnecessary repetition and explain the next step. Keep accuracy and required procedures in the same quality framework.
Have quality leads, coaches and the client review the same sample conversations. Discuss differences in scoring and build shared examples of what good sounds like.
Choose a specific behaviour to improve. Practise difficult moments, review follow-up conversations and check whether the coaching is working. Feed recurring confusion back into scripts, guidance and process design.
Conversation reviews. Reviewer alignment. Specialist coaching. Themes and recommendations for service improvement.
Account policy. Required controls. Approval of quality standards and customer communications. Decisions that require client authority.
Both teams use a regular quality review to agree priorities, resolve scoring differences and track coaching actions.
Review a consistent sample of conversations against an agreed baseline. Use the findings to improve coaching and the process.
Assess whether callers understand what happens next, what is needed and who will follow up.
Track repeat explanations, duplicate requests and contacts caused by unclear guidance.
Monitor agreement between reviewers and whether coached behaviours improve in follow-up reviews.