QA FEEDBACK TEMPLATE
Here is a handy sample template that you can use and adapt for your call / contact center.
• Where: At the 06:12( call closure) mark.
• What( objective): Did not provide the call reference number to the caller.
• Why it matters: Without the reference number, customers can ' t track progress, and it helps to build trust.
• How to improve: Say: " Your reference number is 12345. Keep it for follow-up." Tip: add a sticky note to remember to provide the caller with the call reference number at the end of the call.
• Action( if repeated): First instance, coaching noted. Repeated, verbal warnings and refresher micro-training.
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 reso- lution( 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, ensuring 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.
CREATE A DISPUTE PROCESS
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.
COACH ' S CORNER
Here’ s how to implement a dispute-handling process.
1. Document the process. Clearly outline how an agent can submit a dispute, whether it ' s through a form, email, or your QA system. Keep it simple: who to contact, what information to include( e. g., call ID, reason for dispute), etc.
2. Set a review window. For example, agents can raise a dispute within seven business days of receiving their QA scores. This ensures timely reviews while keeping everyone accountable.
3. Establish an escalation path. Disputed calls should be re-evaluated by a neutral QA reviewer or team lead who wasn ' t involved in the original scoring.
4. Close the loop. Once the review is complete, communicate the final decision and explain it, even if the score remains the same. Agents appreciate knowing why.
5. Track dispute trends. If multiple agents dispute the same rubric item or feedback type, it may signal unclear QA criteria or inconsistent calibration: something worth revisiting in your next QA review session.
REMEMBERING QA ' S PURPOSE
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.
Mark Pereira is a certified Trainer and experienced On-Site Supervisor specializing in boosting retention and productivity through proven teaching methods. With an academic background in Business and Innovative Education, he provides coaching to agents with empathy and skill. He stays up-to-date with industry developments from his base in Indianapolis, Indiana.
APRIL 2026 15