Just like any corporate environment, Sutherland treats employees as expendable (which is a truth in that line of business). Processes in the program i worked for were not transparent all the time. Agents did not get official training for new information or new procedures all the time. You'd expect that if there was no time for training, management would efficiently disseminate information through official means like email. But there were a lot of times when you heard about a change in the business process through hearsay ("i heard from someone who spoke to the manager...") pretty sure the client does not recommend that kind of info dissemination. Promotion depends partially on performance to a certain degree, but no good performer actually gets promoted without friends. Employees come and go. And there are so many instances when a rule or policy is applied arbitrarily. Excessive absences or not following client recommended business processes will only be a problem if you don't have friends. Schedules are released and assigned, only to be changed in the last minute without giving the agent much preparation or choice. Underpaid SMEs who have hourly rate of an agent (but with more work) are more knowledgeable than some managers. The burden of performance is put on agents only and not on managers or the actual operations manager( who end up just pushing agents) just like what you'd expect in mediocre performing BPO campaigns. The campaign's performance issues are blamed on agent quality than on effective management. At some point it makes you wonder why quality of work still suffers even if half of the floor is replaced with new agents. In short, only agents and some supervisors truly internalize accountability.
