**UPREACH

Understanding of the customer’s needs were demonstrated.

• Flawless (10 points) if it was demonstrated this case was understood perfectly
• Adequate (5 points) if minor opportunities were demonstrated e.g. only the surface issue was understood, lack of attentiveness, etc.
• Needs Improvement (0 points) if the customer’s needs were misunderstood/misdiagnosed and/or one or more of the customer’s needs were missed

To resolve a customer's problem, and ensure the guidance we offer promotes their long term success, we must fully understand their needs and concerns. We can elevate our mindset and support by grasping the situation as a whole, looking beneath the surface, and discovering the root cause.

Ask yourself these questions:

• Why is the customer asking us the question they’re asking?
• What series of steps led to this situation?
• What adjustments can the customer make to avoid this situation and other common pitfalls?
• What mindset will promote long term success?

Some examples of this:

• The surface issue = not knowing where to buy Connects
• The surface “resolution” = giving steps on how to buy Connects
• To grasp beneath the surface, though, we should ask ourselves:
• Are they new?
• Are they struggling to find work?
• How quickly are they going through Connects?
• Are their proposals eye-catching?

A client asks “How do I get a refund…” -

• The surface issue = not knowing where to go to request a refund
• The surface “resolution” = giving steps on how to request a refund
• To grasp beneath the surface, though, we should ask ourselves:
  • Is this a strained relationship with a freelancer?
  • Did they take the time to interview this freelancer?
  • Did they release a FP escrow before they received the work?
  • Did they know how to check an hourly work diary?

A freelancer wants “to withdraw their very first payment…” -

• The surface issue = not knowing how to initiate a withdrawal
• The surface “resolution” = giving steps on how to initiate a withdrawal
• To grasp beneath the surface, though, we should ask ourselves:
  • Is the payment available for withdrawal?
  • Have they set up withdrawal methods?
  • Is the withdrawal method ready for use?
  • Are there other methods that could be more cost effective or would setting up a withdrawal schedule be ideal to suggest?

A client wants “to know why he isn’t receiving proposals…” -

• The surface issue = not understanding the lack of job interest
• The surface “resolution” = giving tips on how to make the job post clear
• To grasp beneath the surface, though, we should ask ourselves:
  • Is the job description clear?
  • Is the client profile complete?
  • Are the correct job categories selected?
  • Do the skills listed match the industry/job/duties?
  • Is the compensation competitive for the job type?
  • Would the client benefit from having team members to help with recruiting/managing their account?
  • Is the client leveraging Upwork in the best way for their business needs

To provide exceptional customer service, we must ask and answer the “beneath the surface” questions.

With live chats and calls, we can probe in real-time while also utilizing resources.

With emails, we want to focus on the information given, including turning to our resources, before jumping to asking probing questions. This can lead to a possible resolution quicker. It's also important to check if the customer has already found a resolution since emailing as this will pivot our response.

IMPORTANT - If an evaluation receives a "Needs Improvement" score for the "Understand" section due to a complete misunderstanding, certain sections of the rubric such as Research, Educate, Collaborate, and Adherence may not be applicable. These sections will have N/A options that may be used in such cases. N/A is any part of the rubric = removal of the question entirely from the scoring e.g. if N/A on a 10 point question, the rubric will now be out of 90 points vs. out of 100 points.

Examples of what will be looked for in this area, but are not limited to:

• Paraphrasing
• Chatbot Acknowledgement
• Skim/Scan Inquiry or keywords
• Active Reading/Listening
• Limited Product Knowledge
• Limited System Behavior Knowledge
• Limited Policy Knowledge
• Probing Questions
• Comprehension
• Already resolved issue
• Surface level - missed root issue / cause

Question 1 of 2:

The customer was verified correctly.

• Flawless (5 points) if you verified the customer perfectly OR attempts were made where the customer refused to verify
• Needs Improvement (0 points) if you did not verify the customer properly, missing 1 or more elements
• Non-applicable (removes question from rubric) if a chat with bobo or a ticket with registered email address where there were no signs of the customer reaching out not being the account owner OR the “potential customer” does not currently have an Upwork account

It is our responsibility as representatives of Upwork to protect both the company and our customers from malicious actors. The integrity of the site and Upwork in general can be protected when contacts are properly verified and confidentiality is maintained for all parties. The below breakdown provides a quick version of verification, but for edge cases or anything that does not fall in line exactly with the below, be sure to reference **Security Verification for full information.

Accepted Verification Info (referred to as “the list” below):

• Username (user ID)
• Registered email address
• Registered phone number
• Complete mailing address
• Last 4 digits of cc or bank acct on file
• PayPal address

Phone Specific -

• If the customer is calling from their registered number in their OBO account, this can be “silently verified”, and only 1 additional piece of verification is needed from the list
• If the customer did not call from their registered number in their OBO account, 2 pieces of info needs to be verified from the list

Chat Specific -

• If customer pops up in bobo, continue assisting (this means they’re logged in)
• As customers can only typically reach chat if they are logged in, bobo should always populate. In the case that it does not, though, please follow the specific process outlined in the **Security Verification KB under “Chat Verification” drop-down

Ticket Specific -

• If the customer pops up in bobo, they’re writing from their registered email, there is no need to verify
• If customer does not pop up in bobo, request any info that can be helpful to pull up their account e.g. user ID or email address

Examples of what will be looked for in this area, but are not limited to:

• Partial verification - only 1 piece of info verified
• No verification/No Identification - no attempt at security verification or identifying the customer occurred
• Incorrect verification - wrong info was given and accepted
• Unauthorized user - clear user is unauthorized user on account and process was not followed / attempted

Question 2 of 2:

Proper confidentiality was upheld.

• Flawless (10 points) if confidentiality was upheld perfectly
• Needs Improvement (0 points) if any aspect of the above was not followed

Confidentiality (if minor, this impacts the Protect section only. if major, this may also be a UB):

• Do not release customer account information/activity to another party
• Do not share Upwork’s proprietary/internal information, including processes or tools (CSS notes, internal notes on tickets, internal procedures, internal kbs)
• Protect all forms of PII (CC info, government issued IDs, and bank account numbers should follow redaction process for removal)

If you were unable to verify or verified after sharing information with the customer, only general information should be provided. When an account is not verified, you can only release the following information:

• Basic web navigation
• Any process outlined on the customer-facing help pages (e.g. withdrawing funds)
• Questions about Upwork as a company
• General questions about the platform
• How to sign up

Examples of what will be looked for in this area, but are not limited to:

• Non-general info shared to unverified customer (no verification at all)
• Non-general info shared to unverified customer (delayed verification)
• Non-general info shared to unverified customer (unauthorized user)
• PII Breach (did not submit for redaction)
• PII Breach (requested PII from customer)
• PII Breach (released personal account info to an authorized user)
• Disclosed Internal Upwork Information

Question 1 of 2:

The right resources were accessed and utilized appropriately to help with this case.

• Flawless (10 points) if research skills are on point
• Adequate (5 points) if the correct tools were accessed, but were not used properly in a way that helped lead to a resolution
• Needs Improvement (0 points) if the right resources were not accessed to adequately assist
• Non-applicable (removes question from rubric) will only be used based on the “Important” note within Understand and if the concern is general/basic in nature, and no resources were needed to assist effectively

It's important to use tools for all interactions, even if the answer seems obvious. With a platform that constantly changes, it's crucial to review cases thoroughly. Questions may lack context, situations may evolve, or there may be underlying concerns that aren't immediately apparent. We should try to identify the deeper meaning.

The set of resources and tools that are helpful:

• OBO
• Sudo
• Zendesk; previous tickets & problem tickets
• Slack channels; specifically your team channel, Ask channels, & customer-support-announcements-and-updates channel
• CS Announcement emails
• Training courses; live trainings & self studies
• Help Center; internal KBs & customer-facing help articles
• Community pages e.g. Support page & Announcements page
• Google

The following will be reviewed to help identify if the right resources were accessed:

• The reply itself
• Any internal notes
• Screen capture

Examples of what will be looked for in this area, but are not limited to:

• Web Search Options
• View Previous Tickets
• View Help Articles
• OBO not utilized
• SUDO not utilized
• Profile Review
• Slack Search
• Lack of proper troubleshooting
• Problem Tickets (research-based) - missed relevant PT
• Problem Tickets (research-based) - found, but missed workaround advice in PT
• Messages Room

Question 2 of 2:

Internal notes were needed here and were properly added.

• Flawless (5points) if notes were added perfectly
• Needs Improvement (0 points) if internal notes were missing and/or some important context to the notes were missing
• Non-applicable (removes question from rubric) if internal notes were not needed OR based on the “Important” note within Understand

Adding internal notes within Zendesk tickets is also an element of research as it shares your research with others that may pickup your interaction for handling. It also helps to outline the full flow of any research taking place that may not be evident in the ZD ticket for someone reviewing the case for the first time. Some examples when internal notes are super helpful include, but are not limited to:

• transferring the case for another team to review, or
• being on a rest day where another team member takes your case

The following situations are when it’s important to ensure you always have internal notes:

• Received Lead / Manager approval to make an exception and/or go outside of any policy / process written in the internal KB or announced in the CS Announcement email or customer-support-announcements-and-updates channel
• Received specific instruction from other teams if the conversation took place outside of a ZD ticket
• Any research / evidence you found isn’t readily / quickly available for most e.g. maybe you found a thread in Slack answering someone else’s question that was the same as yours or maybe your lead talked to you about this in a recent coaching session or maybe you dug deep into the customer’s account and found better context to help them
• All Premium Support cases

Tips for note taking:

• Think “if I was handing someone this case to handle for me, what information would I want them to know?” - that’s context you want to include in your internal notes
• If info came from a public Slack channel, adding in the direct thread URL can save you some note taking time. If a private channel / email, take screenshots.
• Include who / where the info came from and what the specific instruction was

Examples of what will be looked for in this area, but are not limited to:

• Notes missing important context
• Notes missing and were needed

Question 1 of 3:

The information provided was accurate and up-to-date, without any errors or misinformation.

• Flawless (5 points) if the information was accurate without misinformation
• Needs improvement (0 points) if inaccurate information was given
• Misguided (5 points) if incorrect information was given from CS SA, Lead, or another dept
• Non-applicable (removes question from rubric) if accurate, but not relevant for this case OR based on the “Important” note within Understand

Question 2 of 3:

The information provided was relevant to the customer's needs and concerns.

• Flawless (5 points) if the information was relevant
• Needs improvement (0 points) if irrelevant
• Non-applicable (removes question from rubric) if the education was not accurate OR based on the “Important” note within Understand

Question 3 of 3:

All the necessary information was provided to ensure the customer's success with no gaps or missing pieces, including elevating their education to ensure they can be truly successful on Upwork.

• Flawless (10 points) if all information needed was shared + elevation, where needed, was applied
• Adequate (2 points) if all information was provided for the question at hand, but elevated education was needed and missed
• Needs improvement (0 points) if any information was missing relevant to the case and the question at hand
• Non-applicable (removes question from rubric) will only be used based on the “Important” note within Understand

Strive to empower the customer by directing them down a successful path into the future ensuring they have all the right information to guide them.

When our customers reach out to support, we want to aim to leave them in a better place than when they first reached out to us; not just with an answer to their question, but with an overall better understanding and the feeling that they can succeed with Upwork.

Examples of what will be looked for in this area, but are not limited to:

• Re-education
• Share Relevant Help Articles
• Terms of Service Guidance
• Attention to Detail
• Upwork Academy
• Community
• Proposal education
• Profile education
• Interview recommendation
• Job post education
• No resolution provided
• Contract guidance
• Incomplete education

Question 1 of 2:

The Zendesk ticket was accurately updated including all of the necessary elements.

• Flawless (5 points) if everything was updated perfectly
• Adequate (3 points) if only one of the missing or incorrect
• Needs Improvement (0 points) if more than one of the above is missing or incorrect
• Non-applicable (removes question from rubric) will only be used based on the “Important” note within Understand IF the lack of understanding also impacted appropriately updating the ZD ticket

The ZD ticket was accurately updated including all of the necessary elements -

• ZD categories were updated to reflect the main concern at hand (this includes any tag only macros required)
• Subject line was updated highlighting the main issue e.g. how to purchase Connects
  • if an auto-generated subject line e.g. “Suspension Appeal Form”, subject line can be left as is, unless the customer’s issue has nothing to do with the form they submitted
  • if a ticket/email case, the customer adds in their own subject line, but if it does not highlight the issue at hand, this should be updated
• Requester / Assignee are accurate
• Proper ticket status
• VOC Product Feedback was utilized, if applicable

Examples of what will be looked for in this area, but are not limited to:

• Zendesk categories / tags - missing
• Zendesk categories / tags - inaccurate
• Zendesk categories / tags - close, but better option available
• VOC Product Feedback
• Subject line update
• Requester / Assignee inaccurate
• Call ticket macro
• Incorrect ticket status selected

Question 2 of 2:

Policies and processes were followed accurately.

• Flawless (5 points) if everything was followed perfectly
• Adequate (3 points) if there was a slight miss in process/policy, but there was a low risk
• Needs Improvement (0 points) if there was a miss in process/policy with a high risk
• Misguided (5 points) if incorrect information was given from CS SA, Lead, or another dept
• Non-applicable (removes question from rubric) will only be used based on the “Important” note within Understand

Processes and policies were followed as described in our knowledge base, periodic updates, training sessions, and other resources available to us.

Note - if we go outside of our typical scope of handling and receive approval to do something special for a customer, the exception elements will mainly fall within “Collaborate” as well as internal notes within “Research”. As long as those guidelines were met, that is considered following processes & policies.

Examples of what will be looked for in this area, but are not limited to:

• Process Adherence (low risk)
• Process Adherence (high risk)
• Policy Adherence (low risk)
• Policy Adherence (high risk)
• Reporting clear user violation
• Unnecessary touch response
• Inaccurate merge
• Problem Tickets (adherence-based) - found PT, but did not link properly
• Unauthorized Action Taken

Question 1 of 2:

The proper steps were taken to reach out to the right areas for support.

• Flawless (10 points) if this was handled perfectly, all the right information was given to the other area and the right people were reached out to
• Adequate (5 points) if coordination was attempted, but there was a better approach either in our info sharing or the channels / people reached out to OR unnecessary reach out to non-CS teams
• Needs Improvement (0 points) if there was an opportunity to collaborate here and it was not taken
• Non-applicable (removes question from rubric) if collaboration was not necessary for this case and/or was addressed in the exception question above and/or this aligns with the “Important” note within Understand

Collaboration and coordination with other teams can help us drive resolution.

When we work with a customer, we are expected to assume responsibility and ownership for that customer at that moment. At any time, we may need to determine whether working with another team or others is required. Real-time solutions and insights are always the best and Slack can often make a difference. If real-time is unachievable / inapplicable for the situation at hand, follow ups are okay, so long as we take the time to ensure we’re reaching out to the proper people with the proper information and appropriately following up with them, as needed, to receive timely answers for our customers.

Examples of what will be looked for in this area, but are not limited to:

• Coordinate with SA/TL/Dept. (delay within SLA)
• Coordinate with SA/TL/Dept. (missed SLA)
• Coordinate with SA/TL/Dept. (not related to SLA)
• Collaborate with SA/TL
• Lack of proper info sharing
• Inappropriate team transfer
• Ownership (not facilitating resolution)
• Ownership (assume responsibility for customer experience outcome)
• No Urgency / Acknowledgement
• Unnecessary - other resources avail

Question 2 of 2:

There was an opportunity for an exception for this customer and coordination took place appropriately and/or the written policies/processes were followed to make this exception.

• Flawless (5 points) if exactly as stated above, this was handled flawlessly
• Needs Improvement (0 points) if there was a missed opportunity to make an exception and/or coordinate on an exception and/or an exception was offered when not needed
• Non-applicable (removes question from rubric) if no exceptions were necessary for this case and/or this aligns with the “Important” note within Understand

Always ask yourself:

• Does the policy/process make sense in this situation?
• Is there an opportunity for a credit, Connects, or a complimentary membership?

Whether support is needed for an approval on an exception or there’s a process / policy in place that helps give you the reins with an exception, both will be reflected here.

Examples of what will be looked for in this area, but are not limited to:

• Missed exception opportunity
• Inappropriate exception granted
• Exception spoken to before granted

The customer was effectively helped by presenting clear, concise information in a manner that was delivered effectively.

• Flawless (15 points) if our overall handling was well presented
• Adequate (8 points) if only a few small areas of improvement in clarity or delivery and/or no major opportunities in handling
• Needs Improvement (0 points) if there were minor misses in both clarity and delivery and/or major opportunities in handling
• Non-applicable (removes question from rubric) may only be used based on the “Important” note within Understand

Simply educating with complete, accurate, and relevant information isn’t enough. The way in which we overall handle the interaction is imperative. Our approach should demonstrate the following:

1. Clarity: Was the information presented in a clear and concise manner, without any ambiguity or confusion?
2. Delivery: How effectively was the information communicated, with use of appropriate tone, language, and a CAREMORE approach to connect with the customer?

CAREMORE:

Compassionate (show concern about their issues)

Authentic (have a genuine desire to help)

Respectful (with your tone and actions)

Engaging (be open, welcome dialogue)

Meticulous (consider all details and be precise)

Organic (let your natural personality shine)

Reassuring (confident-avoid/calm doubts/concerns w/ words & actions)

Enthusiastic (display an eager interest in helping)

Examples of what will be looked for in this area, but are not limited to:

• Control of the interaction
• Phone: Dead Air/Pauses (5+ seconds)
• Phone: Long hold (greater than 3 minutes)
• Chat: Dead “Air” (greater than 3 minutes with no communication)
• Lack of Confidence/Assertiveness
• Interruptions / Improper Tone
• Style/Demeanor
• Delivery/Brand Representation - talked negatively about Upwork
• Delivery/Brand Representation - apologized for non-Upwork matter
• De-escalation tactics
• Overuse of Jargon/Complex Verbiage
• Repetitive Responses
• Inappropriate Terminology
• Incorrect Terminology
• Clear / Concise responses
• Templated/Robotic Responses
• Grammatical and/or spelling errors (3 or more)
• Rushed Support
• Relevant
• Delivery/Brand Representation - unnecessary apology
• Sentence structure
• Missed Customer Retention Opportunity

It's encouraged to not simply meet requirements, but to also take initiative and be creative in solutions.

• Yes (+50 points)
• Non-applicable (removes question from rubric)

Any of the below showcases above & beyond attributes:

• Built special rapport with our customer
• Retained a customer who was threatening to leave
• Turned a negative interaction into a positive for the customer
• Applied a unique resolution
• Identified an obscure issue
• Anticipated customer's next question without being asked

We must always keep our customer’s best interests in mind, treat them fairly and respectfully, as well as hold ourselves accountable for the information we share protecting both our customers as well as Upwork.

• Yes (0 points on full rubric)
• Non-applicable (removes question from rubric)

Any of the below showcases unacceptable behaviors:

• Agent is rude and/or disconnects a call or chat prematurely without a valid reason
• Unverified email, chat, or phone call when account information is shared
• Any followups mentioning a satisfaction rating to the customer
• Sharing confidential company information or sensitive information from another customer's account
• Case handling that results in reputational risk to Upwork or security/financial risk to Upwork/customers/internal Upwork users. Examples include, but are not limited to, not following the ATO process, releasing agent last names, asking customers to upload sensitive info in chat like passports, etc.

Was the survey pitched to the customer in this interaction?

This is for data collection only. This will not impact the scoring of the rubric

Based on this evaluation, are there any process / policy / KB enhancements that may be needed?

This allows CXI to quickly call out any important enhancements that are needed based on what was learned from this evaluation. This will help to drive change in our processes, policies, internal resources, and customer-facing content.

This will not impact the scoring of the rubric.

What the Customer Experience Improvement team is all about:

The CXI Quality Program is one part of the circle of Customer Experience Excellence, along with CS Training, and you, the agents. Together, we ensure our processes and policies are followed, and company values shine through in each customer interaction.

Evaluations are designed to reiterate interaction handling expectations and support meeting metric goals. While we have outlined the UPREACH rubric expectations, we encourage your own authentic voice. We strongly believe that by being clear and transparent with the expectations, and providing real scenario based improvement suggestions along the way, you’ll have a much easier time understanding and meeting goals. Our evaluations aim to reflect this perspective, in a positive and useful way!

CXI’s Mission:

To improve Customer Experience by identifying handling opportunities, highlighting strengths, bridging gaps in resources, and influencing product, policy, and process enhancements.

CXI’s North Star:

Cultivate perspectives, champion for excellence, and advocate for change.

Agent FAQs:

What can I do if I don’t agree with my evaluation score and/or feedback?

Often, further discussion with your analyst directly can clear up any confusion. However, your team lead or manager can file an appeal on your behalf, to have the evaluation results reviewed by CXI leadership, if they agree that updates should be made.

What will happen if I submit my own evaluation appeal?

Only team leads and managers should submit appeals. Submitting an appeal directly would result in an automatic rejection. However, your team lead or manager can still submit the appeal on your behalf.

How often will I get a new analyst?

Analysts are typically assigned to you for a quarter, before assignments are rotated. There are occasionally changes during a quarter for various reasons, including when analysts are on leave.

There are parts of my evaluation I don’t understand, and have questions. Can I contact my assigned analyst directly?

Yes, absolutely! We encourage regular engagement to get to know each other, and for general questions, evaluation support, and sharing perspectives. Speaking with your analyst often will ensure you’re getting the most from your CXI experience.

What if I don’t understand how to apply the feedback guidance?

Sometimes talking through the feedback with your analyst can offer clarity and fill gaps in understanding. Talking through examples and scenarios is helpful. Your team lead is also a great resource for helping you reiterate the feedback and have more focused learning or development for more complex opportunities.

Lead FAQs:

How long do I have to submit an appeal for my agents’ evaluation?

Appeals should be submitted within 10 days of the evaluation being completed. If the evaluation is outside of this window, please contact CXI leadership directly to request a manual review. **Keep in mind, depending on when the manual review request is received, updates to the evaluation may not be possible.

How long does an appeal decision take, and who reviews the case?

The average appeal response time is 3 days, but please allow up to 7 days for a decision. This allows time for leadership to review the case, which includes research and discussion, before a determination is made. The official decision and response detailing the reason for the decision will be sent in Maestro. Management is also looped in on all appeals and appeal decisions.

I have an agent I’d like evaluated for opportunities. Is it possible to request an evaluation for a specific ticket?

Yes, absolutely. As long as the ticket is within the review period, it will be added to the appropriate week for evaluation. Please reach out to CXI leadership in Slack or by email to submit your request. Be sure to include the ticket number and the reason for the request. **Keep in mind, any tickets evaluated by request will be in addition to the 3 evaluations the agent would normally receive.

How do I file an appeal?

When viewing an evaluation, within each question, you will see a “Start Appeal” button like here.