Disconnection by Channel

The following table shows the number of disconnections in various channels for a random sample of customers who terminated wireless service over the last two years.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Table 1: Disconnection by channel

Channel Telesales Internet Care Retail Indirect Agent Outside Outsource Non-commissionable Total

Number disconnected 10 10 177 104 141 2 1 1 2 448

Percentage 2.23% 2.23% 39.51% 23.21% 31.47% 0.45% 0.22% 0.22% 0.45% 100.00%

From the table, at 39.51%, the care channel had the highest level of disconnection. It was followed by the indirect channel, which accounted for 31.47% of disconnection in the sample used. The retail channel also had a high level of disconnection considering that it accounted for 23.21% of the samples disconnections. Other channels rate of disconnection fell below 3%. The following figure shows the trend in disconnection by channel.

Customer Lifetime Value, Average Revenue per User and Propensity to Churn

Managing the high rate of disconnection requires the understanding of the dynamics of customer retention, which include the customer lifetime value, the average revenue per consumer and the propensity to churn. Analyzing the sample data using statistical regression techniques can yield valuable insights. The following tables summarize the statistical measures of the relationship between lifetime value, average revenue, and the propensity to churn for a sample of 451 customers.

Table 2: Regression summary

Multiple R 0.0529

R Square 0.0028

Adjusted R Square 0.0005

Standard Error 34.734

Observations 450

The summary of the regression model in the preceding table shows the relationship between key aspects of subscriber disconnection. Further information is in the following table.

Table 3: Model analysis

ANOVA df SS MS F Significance F

Regression 1 1518.083462 1518.0834 1.2583 0.2625

Residual 448 540502.1703 1206.4780 Total 449 542020.2538

Statistical parameters are also important in evaluating the relationship between variables. The following table shows the information on key parameters.

Table 4: Regression parameters

Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0%

Intercept 43.374 3.5630 12.173 0.000 36.3721 50.3768 36.3721 50.3768

Variable coefficients 0.5676 0.5061 1.1217 0.263 -0.4269 1.5622 -0.4268 1.5621

Discussion

The statistical analysis of data from a sample of 450 subscribers who disconnected their lines reveals important insights. Teamwork is important in controlling high rates of disconnection. The pursuit of activities entailed in business endeavors necessitates the engagement of multiple persons in the performance of the diverse tasks that are normally typical of the different functional areas of a business enterprise. This makes team building an inherent task in any organization. Within these teams are personalities and mindsets of different nature. Myers (2013) views team dynamics as the influences on the direction of a teams behavior and performance that are attributable to unconscious, psychological factors. Underlying these dynamics are the environment within which the team undertakes its activities, the type and nature of activities involved in the teams work, the personalities that the team is comprised of and the working relationships among the people within a team (Weick & Roberts, 1993). A number of psychological models of group behaviour lend themselves for use in explanation of team dynamics, given that teams are essentially groups. Among them are the Kurt Lewins group dynamics model, the Schutzs human elements approach and the personality approach (Carter, 2013). A pioneer in group dynamics as a discipline of scientific inquiry concerned with the examination of groups and their nature and in the process advance related knowledge, Lewin (1951) posited that peoples behaviour is a function integrating an individual and their surrounding environment, suggesting that groups are synergies of their individual members.

An integral thread of the models propositions in relation to group dynamics is the task and fate interdependence of group members. The similarity of a groups members may not necessarily form a rationale for the existence of a group but rather, it is the realization of the dependence of the fate of the individuals in it that offers an incentive for its formation (Shaw, 1971). More importantly, where the performance of individual members depends on the overall performance of a group, tasks are such that the achievement of a member, overall, rests in that of others within that of the group as a whole, which the group becomes strong. Schutzs (1958) fundamental interpersonal relations orientation offers a framework within which the behaviour in these groups, once formed, is structured. Accordingly, all behavior is a fundamental precedent of three aspects; inclusion, control and affection. It was initially hypothesized that groups go through each dimension developmentally, with the issues of a single dimension being predominant in a group at a particular point in time. However, all these dimensions tend to be functional at all times (Sundstrom et.al 1990).

Once the issues pertinent and peculiar to a particular dimension are resolved to the satisfaction of a majority of the individuals comprising a particular group, new issues arise that crystallize as attributes of the next dimension (Pheysey, 2002). Underlying these dimensions are beliefs in the form of feelings held by individual group members, which are typified by significance, competence, and likeability. These feelings are founded on aspects of an individuals behaviour of themselves in terms of their self concepts (Campion et.al, 1996). Additionally, incidences of defensive behaviour are the result of negative self-concept issues. An example is where there exists conflict within an individual with respect to significance. In such a case, an individual may act in defense when they are not treated with esteem, such as where their contribution in a discussion forum is not afforded priority effectively creating resentment within them.

Impliedly, the degree of cohesiveness within a team increasingly hinges on each members perception of others behaviour towards them. Such perceptions bring about issues of trust within teams. Indeed, Costa (2003) integrates several definitions of trust into one common theme that emerges whenever trust is in consideration; the expression in the behaviour towards others. There are essential attributes that denote teams in which trust levels are desirable. A fundamental tenet of trust in a team is an intimate knowledge of each other among team members as people in their personal capacities, as opposed to looking at others within the lens of professional pursuits (Kozlowski and Iigen, 2006). This facilitates openness and elimination of any potential restrictions in communication. Further, team members become more likely to express their feelings, recognize and respect each other as well as develop an identity related to the team. A climate of cooperation exists coupled with the ability to voice differences openly and appreciate conflict in the event that it arises (Guzzo & Dickson, 1996). Where distrust is highly prevalent in a team, adversarial rather than cooperative relationships among the team members become the norm. According to Jarvenpaa & Leidner (1998), when trust is low, communicating and relationship building among team members is a time and energy consuming effort that exhausts people within the team.

One condition that fosters this situation is the tendency to micromanage activities in team building efforts (Costa, 2003). For example, some members within a team may be inclined towards intolerance for others ideas and contribution in the course of consensus building during deliberations over matters of common interest. In such cases, a misunderstanding of individual personality traits, aspirations and expectations are likely to strained relationships considering that members behaviour towards each other do not adequately address these important issues. Dietz & Hartog (2006) documented one of the characteristics of highly effective teams as those in which the members talk and listen roughly in an equal measure, keeping the contributions short and sweet. As earlier noted, talking and listening in equal terms suggests the presence of a personal connection among the group members. The link between teams permeated by such an attribute and high levels of effectiveness may well lie in the quality of communication that lies within such groups (Saunders & Thornill, 2004). Communication may enable a robust exchange of ideas, bringing new and superior insights on the performance of various group tasks. Additionally, it allows clarity of the roles to be played by each of the group members in their minds so that there is a clear sense of purpose among them, a motivational factor that may further enhance their productivity levels.

Take the case of two teams with varying levels of trust. One team comprises of members drawn from the supply chain departments of various companies in a supply chain, and are mandated to play oversight over the integration of the companies supply chains in order to ensure seamlessness in products flow across the chain. On the other hand, another team exists with a different composition of members. To be particular, these members are drawn from the same company, and perform the role of overseeing supply chain activities in order to enhance efficiency and effectiveness. In the former team, the members come from different companies whose cultures are likely to be different. As such, they may not view each other as personal acquaintances or friends considering the circumstances under which the team has been constituted, in addition to its composition (Schein, 2010). The team members may therefore not have a robust flow of communication transcending professional boundaries, leading to the likelihood of less effectiveness as the benefits that come with superb communication may not be realized. An additional aspect defining trust levels in this team would be the fact that the team members may view each other as adversaries and not accomplices, given that companies in the same supply chain may be in competition for the same customers in a given product market.

In the latter case, the members are drawn from the same company. Here, trust levels are more likely to be greater as the members share the same culture and see each other as team mates from the word go, owing to the unified objective that brings them together in the company (Butler, 1983). Since trust levels have been found to be associated in a way to team effectiveness (Gagne & Deci, 2005), this team with members drawn from the same company may achieve greater levels of efficiency, considering the fact that the benefits of good communication are highly likely to accrue where there is a good level of trust within a team. Consequently, team members must always endeavor to build the greatest level of trust possible. This could enable them to build synergies that serve as a springboard to unprecedented heights. Enterprises come into existence against the backdrop of a quest to serve a multitude of interests emanating from a vast constituency of stakeholders. While pursuing these interests, business organizations do not act in isolation. A multiplicity of factors comes into bearing as far as the ability of these organizations to realize their objectives is in consideration (Wheelen, 2008). To navigate these environmental elements in order to ensure there are no impediments in the firms way, a clear sense of direction is integral in order to delineate what has to be done from that which is not required...