Contextual elements

The following paragraph will specify the contextual elements (based on the characteristics of call centers) that prior research shows to influence performance. Although research in organizational behavior often ignores the critical role of context when examining the link between employee behaviors and organizational outcomes (Duffy et al., 2006; Johns, 2006;

Morgeson et al., 2006), contextual elements are well-studied in call center research. Based on the literature review, stress in call centers is a significant element for understanding performance. This chapter will introduce three main contextual elements and their impact on performance, seen through the lens of stress.

3.3.1 Antecedents of stress in call centers

Employee stress refers to reactions to an inability to manage a mismatch between a desired and an actual situation in the organizational life (Carver

& Scheier, 2001; Cooper, 1986, p. 13). Prior call center research has similar descriptions of stress as a crucial element for understanding the drivers of performance, since workplace stress in call centers is unique (Holman, 2003a; Mahesh & Kasturi, 2006; Wegge et al., 2006).

Following this theoretical understanding, contextual elements influencing performance in the call center context will be presented from this perspective.

Reaching targets

In organizational studies, goals are defined as the means for reaching desired ends that participants attempt to achieve by performing task activities (Scott, 2003, p. 22). However, in call center studies, goals are most often referred to as targets. Prior research suggests that the success

of organizations is based on measured performance outcomes within certain targeted operations. This is in line with descriptions that all operations carried out by agents and teams are targeted, measured, and evaluated (Bain et al., 2002; den Hartog et al., 2004; Mulholland, 2002;

NAQC, 2010). However, rather than discussing performance impacts of operating with strictly specified, clearly defined goals, which organizational and managerial studies describe as ensuring good performance (Røvik, 2000; Schleh, 1961), the implications of targets in prior call center research mainly focused on stress (Taylor & Bain, 2001) (see exception in Rowe et al., 2011). More specifically, stress perceptions from pressures of pursuing various targets result in poor work satisfaction (Deery & Kinnie, 2004; Rose & Wright, 2005), lower well-being (Grebner et al., 2003), and impeded levels of customer satisfaction (Dean

& Rainnie, 2009). However, targets’ influence on performance also depends on individual abilities to deal with this stressor, which varies between agents (Ashill et al., 2009; Dean & Rainnie, 2009).

In addition, prior research criticized operating call centers by pursuing targets. Scholars emphasized that call center management appears to focus on what is easy to measure (quantitative outcomes), rather than what is important to measure (providing good customer service). The apparent pre-occupation with measurements results in a general belief among managers that the actual measures are important for call center agents, since they have become goals in their own right (Robinson & Morley, 2006).

Role conflict and ambiguity

Role conflict, defined as incompatibilities between job-performance expectations and performance-evaluation criteria (Kahn et al., 1964;

Singh, 2000), is highly related to role ambiguity, defined as the degree to which information is lacking about role expectations and effective performance of a role (Singh, 2000, p. 16). Given that call centers often have conflicting demands (from the main company, middle managers, and customers), both concepts are sources of organizational stress (de Ruyter et al., 2001; Jackson & Schuler, 1985; Knights & McCabe, 1998; Singh, 2000). For example, conflicting demands between managerial aims, customer expectations, and agents’ emotions regarding the inherent tension between being productive versus providing high quality generate role stress. This is supported by managerial practices of emotion regulation (showing positive emotions during interactions with customers

to fulfill the work role even when feeling angry) (Singh, 2000; Zapf, 2002) (see also coercive control and scripts in Chapter 3.1.2). Prior research also addressed a conflict between customer satisfaction, sales, and efficiency in call centers. Issues and problems might vary in terms of complexity and time required to resolve them (Jasmand et al., 2012;

Rafaeli et al., 2008; Witt et al., 2004). Therefore, managers in call centers encourage agents to resolve customer problems with high quality while taking many calls and being generally efficient in their work. This is in line with research highlighting that middle managers are considered a key stressor for call center agents (Taylor & Bain, 2001).

The predominant view in prior research is that role stress, generated by role conflict and ambiguity, impedes agents’ abilities to perform well in the call center context. Agents’ limited energy and effort must be directed toward trying to manage stressors, rather than appropriately carrying out work tasks (Tuten & Neidermeyer, 2004; Weatherly & Tansik, 1993). For example, role stress is associated with overall impaired performance levels (de Ruyter et al., 2001; Lewig & Dollard, 2003; Zapf et al., 2003) and lower levels of customer satisfaction. These implications represent dysfunctional stress (Tuten & Neidermeyer, 2004). Role stress has also been linked to reduced well-being, burnout (Singh, 2000; Totterdell &

Holman, 2003; Wegge et al., 2006), and lower job satisfaction (Ashill et al., 2009), which is in line with managerial studies (Tubre & Collins, 2000).

In contrast, perceiving role stress while possessing the ability to handle stressful situations (such as by approving performance-measurement systems) generates higher levels of service quality and sales in the call center context (functional stress). However, these implications were only valid up to a point (without further specifying the exact limits of that point) (Tuten & Neidermeyer, 2004). These findings follow the logic that the absence of stress creates no motivation to perform, whereas some stress can maximize performance in call centers. Prior studies also found a link between emotional exhaustion (as a consequence of role tension) and maintained productivity levels among call center agents, even though service quality levels were significantly impeded (Singh, 2000). These findings reflect a coping mechanism for maintained performance.

However, this also generated higher burnout tendencies (Singh, 2000).

This finding shows that agents might maintain their productivity for a limited period of time. Given the mixed performance implications, there is

a need to further examine the relationship between individual perceptions of role stress and performance (den Hartog et al., 2004).

Handling time

Time is defined as the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues (Merriam-Webster, 2016b). It also is a contextual element that prior call center research rarely acknowledges as a concept. Instead, it is included in discussions related to stress. The predominant view is that agents face time constraints on a daily basis, since they are pressured to include various operations during a limited amount of time in their work, but also because the call center work pace amplifies over time (Lin, Chen, & Lu, 2009; Sawyerr & Srinivas, 2007). Time constraints are mainly discussed in relation to agents’

conflicting roles and performance targets. These constraints include requirements to reach efficiency-based targets, satisfy customers, and add sales into service calls. The latter conflict is generally described in terms of cross- and/or up-selling (Chapter 1.1.1). This is part of a discussion that agents perceive stress due to the nature of call center work transforming from customer service into target-centered, sales-driven operations.

Although service in organizations is regarded as “a bridge to sales,” since satisfied, loyal customers tend to buy more (Jones & Sasser, 1995;

Reichheld, 1996), sales and service in call center organizations are instead regarded as contradictory objectives (Batt, 1999).

Prior research associates perceptions of time constraints in call centers with negative performance outcomes (Bain et al., 2002; Houlihan, 2002;

van den Broek et al., 2008), such as to impeded efficiency levels. Carrying out additional tasks during a call generally results in longer customer wait times before being helped, and prolonged time handling each call, especially since agents tend to spend too much time interacting with customers to successfully balance work speed and quality (Chevalier et al., 2011; Witt et al., 2004). Furthermore, perceptions of time constraints generated lower levels of customer satisfaction due to longer handling times, but also because call center agents tended to sacrifice customer service for managing the stress associated with time pressures (Armony &

Gurvich, 2010; Deery et al., 2002; Knights & McCabe, 1998). Since time in relation to customer interaction is generally limited, it is a resource that individuals must control to improve their performance (Batt, 1999; Erez, 1990). It has been suggested that call center agents should be trained in developing and utilizing better strategies for handling their time at work

(time-based strategies). Managers should engage agents in designing a break policy for themselves by specifying individual length and frequency of breaks when working. These types of time-based strategies are related to greater problem-solving efficiency and task performance (Erez, 1990;

Sawyerr et al., 2009).

Prior research also described perceiving time constraints in call centers as generated by the lack of time between customer calls, breaks at work, and length of breaks (Ellis & Taylor, 2006; Norman, 2005; Taylor & Bain, 2001). Perceiving limited time to do the job also results from the psychosocial demands associated with call center work. These demands are caused by simultaneously listening and speaking to customers, inputting data into computers, and/or reading from a screen while being required to reach targets (Zapf et al., 2003). The relationship between stress and perceiving time constraints in call centers also causes psychological problems and sick leave over the long term (Norman, 2005;

Rose, 2002), which might impede individuals’ abilities to be productive (Sharma et al., 2011).