A company was building a performance management infrastructure for its call center agents. As they were designing the metrics, one of the team members mentioned that there is some "big brother" concern from the agents whenever management talks about "schedule adherence" or "agent utilization." The employees can become fearful when they believe they are always being watched by an unseen force.

The recognition of employee concern led them to a discussion about how the names of metrics typically aren't employee-centric. We communicate measures to the employees using attributes that are important from the company point of view, but not necessarily from the employee's point of view. If I am an agent, hearing the term "agent utilization" may make me feel "used." The names of measures should help agents understand how they are contributing to corporate objectives.

In the meeting, they discussed whether "a rose by any other name" would be less offensive. Their conclusion was that re-naming might seem like wrapping paper that only disguises the reality. However, agents will begin to understand the difference if the company's motivation and message is clear and managers give the employees time to adjust.

So how could you better name a metric that is currently called "schedule adherence" or "calls per hour?" Because your organizations are unique, the answer is different for each of you. However, you can ask specific discovery questions. For example, how does a metric align to corporate objectives? How do you frame the metric from the employee's point of view? Does "calls per hour" become "customers per hour?" Does "schedule adherence" become "attention to schedule?" Only you, with the help of your employees, can define those nuances.