Improving a contact centre's CSAT starts with understanding what drives it down. In most cases, it isn't advisor goodwill or a poor welcome. It's structural problems: customers who have to call back several times, advisors who don't have information at the right moment, processes that create friction no one has full visibility into. The levers for improvement are known. What's often missing is the method to prioritise and activate them in the right order.
First-contact resolution is lever number one on CSAT. A customer who has to call back twice, even if well received each time, leaves the experience dissatisfied. It's mechanical: every additional contact generates effort, and effort erodes satisfaction. Based on Armatis's operational observations, each point of FCR gained translates on average into 0.5 to 1 additional point of CSAT.
Improving FCR means working upstream on three elements: advisor authority (can they decide without escalating?), real-time access to information (do they have a 360° view of the customer and their history?), and reducing unnecessary escalations (are procedures calibrated so level 1 can handle more cases?). FCR below 70% is generally the symptom of a training, process, or authority problem.
On measurement: FCR between 70 and 79% matches market standards, according to data compiled by SQM Group across more than 500 contact centres. Above 80%, you're in benchmark-level performance. These figures vary by sector and interaction complexity, but they give a useful reference point for gauging your level and setting realistic improvement targets.
The CSAT score tells you there's a problem. The verbatims tell you where it is. It's a fundamental distinction, yet many contact centres stop at the number without exploiting the associated comments. A silent 3/5 says nothing. A 3/5 with "I had to call back three times" or "the advisor didn't know my case" points directly to a lever for action.
Companies that improve their CSAT fastest are those that treat verbatims as operational data, not a qualitative bonus. They identify recurring irritants, group them by category (wait time, response quality, lack of empathy, overly complex process), and build targeted action plans by contact type and team, rather than generic training plans.
Automated semantic analysis of verbatims is now accessible to most contact centres, through tools built into quality monitoring platforms. It allows 100% of comments to be processed, including written ones, and identifies trends before they turn into a lasting decline in the score. Making this data visible and integrating it into individual development plans produces concrete results.
One of the most common management biases in the contact centre is over-managing Average Handling Time (AHT) at the expense of quality. An AHT target set too low pushes advisors to rush interactions, skip going deeper into the request, and offer partial solutions. The customer hangs up, but will call back. CSAT suffers.
Field observations are consistent: satisfaction correlates more strongly with resolution than with wait time. A customer who waits a few minutes but gets a complete, empathetic answer leaves more satisfied than one taken immediately but poorly resolved. In emotionally-charged sectors (insurance, healthcare, banking), an advisor's relational quality weighs more heavily than pure efficiency.
The right approach is to define AHT by interaction type rather than as a single global target, and to systematically pair it with FCR to detect perverse effects: if AHT drops but FCR drops too, speed is coming at the expense of resolution. That's the signal something is wrong in the process or in advisor authority.
Advisors can't serve customers well with incomplete tools or insufficient training. It's a simple observation, but the figures are striking: according to Zendesk's CX Trends 2024 study, more than one agent in two has received no training on new tools and technologies, and among those trained, only 21% consider that training satisfactory. An advisor who spends an average of 37 minutes a day searching for the information they need cannot deliver a smooth experience.
Training isn't limited to product knowledge. It also covers emotional management, relational posture, and the ability to personalise an exchange without a rigid script. In sensitive sectors (insurance, banking, healthcare), the empathy a customer perceives is a decisive factor in CSAT, often more than the speed of the response itself.
Advisor autonomy also plays a direct role. An advisor who has to systematically escalate to make a decision creates frustration on both sides. Extending authority on common cases both improves FCR and reduces relational friction, with performance management centred on individual CSAT and FCR results and differentiated action plans.
This lever is often underestimated, sometimes seen as "soft" compared to operational optimisations. The data says otherwise. According to Forrester, companies whose employees are highly engaged record customer satisfaction 81% higher than those with low engagement. McKinsey shows that people reporting a positive employee experience have engagement levels 16 times higher than those with a negative one.
This is what's known as "symmetry of attention": the quality of the internal relationship is reflected in the quality of the external relationship. A disengaged, poorly equipped, or unrecognised advisor cannot produce quality customer experience over time. Contact centre turnover, which reaches 30 to 45% a year according to Mayday 2025 data, is a direct consequence: unstable teams produce less-trained, less-experienced advisors, which mechanically degrades CSAT.
Investing in employee experience means acting on CSAT from the top: better training, better tools, recognition of individual results, quality managerial support. It's a lever that takes longer to produce effects than a process overhaul, but it produces more durable results.
A global CSAT of 79% often hides significant gaps between channels, contact types, and journey moments. A CSAT of 85% on voice and 62% on chat is very different data from an average CSAT of 74%. Managing only on the average means ignoring the most important breaking points.
Segmenting CSAT by channel, contact reason, and team is the prerequisite for any effective action plan. It lets you concentrate resources on the interactions that weigh most on overall satisfaction, rather than uniformly improving the whole journey. A contact centre that tracks its complaints CSAT separately from its information or support CSAT will detect its irritants much earlier.
Cross-referencing with CES (Customer Effort Score) on the same interactions is particularly revealing. A high CSAT with a degraded CES signals a customer satisfied with the outcome but who suffered to get it: the relationship is fragile. This type of signal anticipates a future CSAT decline before it's visible in the numbers.
None of these levers acts in isolation. FCR depends on training and authority. Training depends on employee experience. Reading verbatims feeds training plans. Channel segmentation guides improvement priorities. It's a system, not a checklist.
The contact centres that improve fastest are those that treat customer satisfaction as daily operational data, not monthly reporting. They share individual scores with advisors, integrate them into development plans, and build short improvement loops between measurement and action. It's this operational discipline, as much as the tools, that makes the difference between a stagnant CSAT and one that improves.
Want to set up a structured management system for your CSAT? Discover how to measure the performance of an outsourced contact centre and our operational approach to customer relations outsourcing at Armatis Operations.
Handling negative verbatims within 24 hours is often the lever with the most immediate impact. Identifying interactions with the lowest scores, reading the associated comments, contacting dissatisfied customers, and fixing root causes generates visible results within the following week. Over the longer term, improving FCR produces the most durable effects.
By managing AHT by interaction type rather than as a global target, and systematically pairing it with FCR. If AHT drops but FCR drops too, speed is coming at the expense of resolution: that's the signal the target needs recalibrating. A customer handled quickly but poorly resolved will call back, and their post-complaint CSAT will be well below that of a customer handled a little longer but correctly.
Verbatims should be analysed continuously, not only during monthly reviews. Recurring irritants often emerge over periods of just a few days (a product incident, a process change, team turnover). Weekly monitoring of the most frequent and negative comments is a minimum to catch these signals before they become a lasting trend.
Partially. Actions on advisor relational posture, empathy training, or individual coaching can produce quick gains on emotionally-charged interactions. But durable improvements almost always require process adjustments: authority, information access, simplified escalations, fewer repeat contacts. The human lever and the process lever reinforce each other.
Yes, provided it's deployed on the right use cases. AI improves CSAT when it helps advisors in real time (suggested responses, knowledge base access, customer context summaries), when it handles simple requests in selfcare, and when it analyses 100% of interactions to detect irritants. It degrades CSAT when it replaces human contact on emotionally-charged interactions with no accessible alternative. According to Zendesk, companies integrating data from their digital channels reduce resolution time by 25% on average and increase their CSAT by 20%.
Sources
Armatis is a European specialist in customer relations and business process outsourcing (BPO), operating across multiple continents with thousands of employees serving companies of all sizes and sectors. The company designs and manages end-to-end customer service operations: multichannel contact centres, complaints handling, technical support, back-office and digitised processes. Backed by integrated technology infrastructure and the ability to adapt to any sectoral and regulatory context, Armatis helps its clients combine operational performance, quality of experience and cost control, wherever they need it.
Contact our teams to discuss your challenges and find out how we can support you
Join the leaders who trust our multilingual and technological expertise.