Fight-based coping strategies

The fight-based coping strategies reflected behaviors in which individuals actively fight their lack of knowledge of how to solve perceived problems.

Interviews and observations revealed that call center agents fought their lack of appropriate knowledge especially in two different ways: Rapidly gaining knowledge by sharing it internally in the work group; and Resisting-based behavior. Both of these coping strategies will be discussed in the following paragraphs.

1. Gaining knowledge through internal knowledge sharing

In this study, internal knowledge sharing refers to the process of information exchange (skills, knowledge, and expertise) between agents within a specific work group. Sharing information and experiences less formally (since this practice was not explicitly defined in work routines) enabled individuals to gain practical knowledge required for solving a specific problem (such as details regarding a customer errand) for which the agent does not possess the appropriate knowledge (such as not having experienced this type of problem before). This coping strategy is an active approach toward learning, since the individual must accept that appropriate knowledge is lacking, and then process and solve that lack of knowledge. In addition, handling the work by using knowledge from colleagues within the same work group was based on a general perception among agents and middle managers that it was more time-efficient (faster) to ask (physically) close colleagues for information rather than to search within the company’s computer systems, knowledge base or routines, or to ask their operational support or colleagues in other work groups for answers. Therefore, time is an important contextual component for understanding why agents utilize this coping strategy (in addition to certain laziness). This strategy aims to solve specific problems based on lack of knowledge, and solve them as efficiently as possible. However, the strategy is also based on a willingness among colleagues to help agents with lower levels of experience and knowledge, which not only has implications on individual performance but also on the performance in the group. For example, helping less experienced agents solve certain problems was beneficial for the efficiency of the knowledge-seeking agent, given that a relatively short amount of time was spent gaining the right type of knowledge. This resulted in quickly solving the problem at hand. However, it was less efficient for the knowledge-providing agents (in the short term), since they utilized their own working time to instead

help their colleagues (usually done during the scheduled time for wrapping up their own customer errands). Helping less experienced agents solve their problems resulted in longer wrap-up times, an impeded number of calls made during a scheduled hour, and lower efficiency rates. Some more experienced agents explained the impact on their performance:

We are good at taking time for helping each other out, but that is something that we might not afford statistically. Those of us who have been here longer [more experienced agents] help the new ones extremely much. There have been some frustrations regarding that. Many of the young ones have fast errand-times but at the same time, among us others more experienced people, the errand-times have instead become worse because you need to help these new ones all the time. Maybe they say

”Oh, can you help me here?” and you go there and maybe it’s a real problem that takes 7–8 minutes to solve (Agent, Case Delta, November 2014).

Rather than spending time on the phone waiting for accurate information from the work group’s operational support,⁶⁶ these agents realized it was more efficient to turn to their colleagues to solve a problem related to their tasks.

Many avoid calling the operational support. We have a new system where we are supposed to call the operational support, but if you are in a hurry it’s very easy to turn the chair around to a colleague to say, “how would you have done here?” That goes a lot faster. But of course that affects the errand times and that is probably not the idea (Agent, Case Gamma, November 2014).

Fighting against lack of knowledge by being provided information resulted in less beneficial conditions for the knowledge-sharing agents.

If you are helping someone in the group, then of course I’m suffering for it. It takes time to help each other as well, we have different missions and sometimes it can be something that’s very complicated that we help each other with solving. You ask each other if you need to solve a problem (Agent, Case Gamma, November 2014).

66 Although the work group’s operational support was aimed at helping agents resolve problems, it became clear that their physical availability was impeded after February 2014, as a result of changed communication routines (since the rate of sick leave among the supports had risen in 2013). Instead of physical contact, agents were instructed to call a central support number, answered by any of the operational supports in the organization. This frustrated the agents, since the support function often failed.

130

Of course it [helping] affects the wrap-up, it takes time from the colleagues who are supposed to do something else. But all the new ones that are not as experienced need help from us, they only had about 2 to 3 weeks of training and it’s difficult to learn from that, it’s too much information at once. But if you feel that you have good statistics, it’s not a big problem since you don’t get stressed about it (Agent, Case Delta, November 2014).

The short training period when starting the job mainly only taught certain skills at a superficial level. Both experienced and inexperienced agents understood that newly recruited agents relied upon more knowledgeable colleagues to learn how to carry out tasks that were more problem-based (Chapter 7.2.1). The newly recruited agents’ learning curve was facilitated by more experienced agents. From the perspective of the more experienced agents, this way of coping was not equally straightforward, as it took much of their time, so contributed to poor performance levels.

Basically, management did not account for helping others when having follow-up meetings of the agents’ statistics (Chapter 7.2.2). The positive gain for inexperienced agents (being able to solve a problem) was prioritized among management and experienced agents above perceived levels of (increasing) stress from experienced agents providing recurring help (given that their performance levels were low). Regardless of their performance levels, spending time helping others learn the job did contribute to improved efficiency levels for the entire work group, compared to spending additional time searching elsewhere for knowledge.

It was generally understood that searching for knowledge outside the work group and waiting for help from the operational support was more time-consuming than asking a colleague.

Previously, we called the credit division or the settlement division in Malmö [the back-office division] several times a day… that was a bit time-consuming… but now we have all skills in the group. It’s a lot faster (Agent, Case Beta, December 2012).

In addition, this coping strategy was generally accepted and encouraged by middle management, given its (mainly) positive effects on learning and performance. However, middle managers needed to keep track of impaired performance levels among the experienced agents, given that knowledge-seeking individuals tended to turn to the same colleague for help (creating an informal operational support in the group; Chapter 7.2.1).

Solving specific problems by actively fighting against lack of knowledge in a timely manner through informal, internal knowledge sharing had both negative (group-based on-phone efficiency) and positive implications on performance in this setting (individual on-phone efficiency of the knowledge-seeking agent, and individual- and group-based problem-solving). Also, the extent to which this coping strategy was adopted in the daily work differed between agents and work groups, given that performance levels, skill levels, and the number of experienced and inexperienced agents in a work group varied over time.

2. Engaging in resisting behavior

In this study, resistance refers to individual behavior aimed at opposing managerial rules. In this setting, resistance manifested as an individual behavior of actively fighting the system in which problems are generated, rather than accepting it and handling their lack of knowledge. These informal behaviors temporarily fight against solving the lack of knowledge of how to succeed with carrying out work in line with requirements. These problems primarily were based on perceiving difficulties in following managerial instructions and procedures for carrying out the work, and managing an increasing work pace. I found that call center agents fought against the system mainly by manipulating their own time (such as their work schedule) to their advantage. More specifically, these agents behaved like so-called self-made operational managers by creating their own hidden, systematic work schedule based on time management. This coping strategy deviated from managerially defined rules and manifests as clearly breaking the rules at work. Middle management needed to constantly chase loopholes in the company’s IT system to keep efficiency high and costs low, and create functionality between the number of working agents and the flow (and forecast) of incoming customer calls. However, opposing managerially defined rules of work had positive impacts on individual efficiency, until a manager detected the behavior.

I have a large number of self-made operational managers in my group, they choose what [errands and issues] they want to solve. I for example had one agent that did not want being scheduled for solving credit issues because it was a bit tough but instead she only worked with solving credit receipts. And when I look at her overall performance [statistics], it looked like she performed very well. But when you suddenly looked at it in detail, it turned out that she hadn’t solved any credit errands for three whole months! So when I asked her it was just… Damn! She caught me! And

132

that is a refusal of work. It’s not visible in the system when looking quick but when going into detail and check “what is the reason for this” you can see it. It usually strikes through somewhere (Middle manager, Case Gamma, November 2014).

Developing creative ways to resist following their schedule and fight the system, instead of actively working toward handling perceived problems (such as experiencing the work as demanding, solving administrative errands instead of answering the phone, or perceiving rapidly shifting work tasks to be too demanding) comprised an effective coping strategy for individuals but not for the organization. The inability to handle control at work also resulted in resisting following the schedule:

Sometimes it’s challenging that it’s so much control. “Everybody into the phones, all out of the phones!” Make a decision! It happens under extremely high pressure on phone. How can I [now] catch up with my errands? Sometimes I don’t care about it [the manager’s instructions] and do my own stuff, I actually do the contrary to what I should. I don’t tell the manager, I’m sitting in the corner (Agent, Case Epsilon, March 2012).

Although this informal behavior impeded business operations from running cohesively with the demand from the external environment, it also contributed to higher individual efficiency on the phone. In addition, agents explained in interviews that resisting following the schedule was not always aimed at improving their own efficiency. Going contrary to managerial rules was sometimes carried out to favor the customer.

Handling a customer problem as efficiently as possible, even though it might include time manipulation, was implied to also result in more satisfied customers. Resistance toward the system is a complex behavior that benefits individuals working alone, as well as customers. In addition, resisting behavior based on manipulating individual time prevailed to varying degrees in the work groups and was primarily performed by agents with a few years of experience with the call center work. Utilizing their own experiences to create ways to resist the system was required for this coping strategy since it was based upon knowledge of the company’s IT systems and how to exploit the loopholes in ways there were invisible to management.