The tyranny of AHT

Free visual lesson · about 5 minutes · short quiz at the end

ccPlanning academy · metrics

The tyranny of AHT

Essential for planning. Toxic the moment it becomes an agent target.

The dual nature

The same number, two completely different uses.

Average handle time is indispensable as a planning input — you can’t size staffing without it. But as an agent performance target it’s one of the most destructive metrics in the contact centre. Same number; opposite consequences.

Why it’s great for planning

It sizes the work.

Volume × AHT = workload, the foundation of every staffing calculation. Forecasting and tracking AHT at an aggregate level is simply good planning, as the forecasting track covered. No argument there.

Why it’s toxic as a target

“Get off the call” is the wrong instruction.

Tell agents to lower AHT and they rush customers, skip checks, avoid notes, or transfer to stop their own clock. The call ends faster — and comes back tomorrow as a repeat. You optimised the wrong thing.

The repeat-contact trap

Faster calls, more calls.

A shorter handle time that fails to resolve the issue just shifts cost downstream: the customer calls again. Cutting AHT while repeat contacts rise is not a saving — it’s the same work, done twice, with an unhappy customer in between.

What to target instead

Resolution and experience — let AHT settle.

Measure whether the issue was solved (first-contact resolution) and how it felt (quality, CSAT). Get those right and AHT lands where it naturally should for each contact type. Manage the outcome; observe the AHT.

The nuance

AHT outliers are still worth a look.

This isn’t “ignore AHT entirely.” A specific agent far above peers may need coaching or system help — investigated as a diagnostic, kindly. That’s different from a blanket target that pressures everyone to rush every call.

Do the downstream maths

30 seconds saved, one call lost

Push AHT down 30 seconds by rushing and say 1 call in 10 now fails to resolve. Those unresolved customers call back — a brand-new contact at full length. You saved 30s × 9 calls (270s) and spent a whole extra ~360s call.

Net result: more total handle time, a worse experience, and a dashboard that says AHT improved. The saving was never real.

The takeaway

Forecast AHT; don’t weaponise it.

It’s a brilliant planning input and a terrible agent target. Chase resolution and experience instead, use AHT as a diagnostic for outliers, and let the average sit where good service puts it.

Now test yourself ↓

1 / 8

Slides done? Here’s the same idea in a bit more depth — the part worth keeping.

In depth: the same number, two opposite uses

Average handle time is indispensable as a planning input — you literally can’t size staffing without it, because volume times AHT is the workload every staffing calculation rests on. As an agent performance target, the very same number becomes one of the most destructive metrics in the contact centre. Same figure, opposite consequences, and confusing the two roles is where the harm comes from.

Why it’s toxic as a target

Tell agents to lower AHT and the only levers they actually control are the harmful ones: rush the customer, skip the checks, avoid the notes, or transfer the call to stop their own clock. The call ends faster — and comes back tomorrow as a repeat. That’s the repeat-contact trap: a shorter handle time that fails to resolve the issue just shifts cost downstream, so cutting AHT while repeat contacts rise isn’t a saving at all, it’s the same work done twice with an unhappy customer in between. The metric improves while the operation gets worse — Goodhart’s law in its purest form.

Target the outcome, keep AHT as a diagnostic

The fix is to manage the outcome and observe the AHT: measure whether the issue was solved (first-contact resolution) and how it felt (quality, CSAT), and AHT lands where it naturally should for each contact type. This isn’t “ignore AHT entirely” — a specific agent sitting far above their peers may genuinely need coaching or system help, and that’s worth investigating kindly as a diagnostic. The difference is between a targeted, supportive look at an outlier and a blanket target that pressures everyone to rush every call.

The principle to remember: forecast AHT, don’t weaponise it. It’s a brilliant planning input and a terrible agent target — chase resolution and experience, use AHT as a diagnostic for outliers, and let the average sit where good service puts it.

The tyranny of AHT