Job quality and work engagement in Finnish call centres

Transcription

1 Paper for the International Labour Process Conference, Leeds, UK, Mustosmäki, Armi 1 & Anttila, Timo 1 1 Dept. of Social Sciences and Philosophy, FIN University of Jyväskylä, Finland armi.hartikainen@jyu.fi --DRAFT ONLY, PLEASE DO NOT QUOTE, WORK IN PROGRESS-- Job quality and work engagement in Finnish call centres Introduction A relatively large body of literature has shown that call centres are specific workplaces, which incorporate work conditions which very potentially affect negatively on employee well-being. The shifting of historically varied and complex customer service delivery to call centres has been economic success story. Batt & Moynihan (2002) state that huge scale economies have been achieved through office consolidation, service automation and process rationalization. At the same time, for the employees, the introduction of Taylorist forms of industrial engineering models in call centre environments have meant experience a degradation in working conditions, routinisation of work processes, boredom and increased stress associated with the speed-up of job cycle times. (Knights & McCabe 1998; Taylor & Bain 1999; Taylor et al. 2003) Although various studies have draw attention to call centers as offering low quality and highly controlled sweat shop jobs, these notions have also been criticized. Most of the studies have concentrated on call centre cases solely, while only few studies have compared call centre working conditions and well-being to other types of work (Grebner et al. 2003; Zapf et al 2003). Rose and Wright (2005) pointed out, while taken into account the problematic features of work organization, call centers do not constitute a workplace entirely devoid of work interest. Call center work may offer opportunities for use various skills (Belt et al. 2000; Russell 2007). Actively attending to customers and solving their problems may also be a significant source of satisfaction (Holman 2003). It has also been noticed that control mechanisms do not cause stress for all employees equally. Some employees may be indifferent or even find monitoring as a source of motivation. (Schouteten, Benders & Van Den Bosch 2010). In fact, according to Holman et al. (2002) the causes of stress and the levels of well-being in call centres are the similar as in other organisations. Moreover, both social scientists as well as work psychologists have been interested in the meaning of social relationships as a form of resistance (Mulholland 2004; Townsend 2005) and coping mechanisms (Deery et al. 2010). Departing from we are interested in studying working conditions and well-being in Finnish call centres. Substantial body of research has concentrated on how the specific

2 way of organizing work in call centers is related to ill-health of employees (Bakker et al. 2003; Charbotel et al. 2009; Croidieu et al. 2009; Zapf et al 2003) and their work-related (problematic) attitudes such as absenteeism, job satisfaction, performance and turnover (Bakker et al. 2003; Grebner et al. 2003; Hallman et al. 2008; Schalk et al. 2007). Instead, our interest is to study the possibilities of positive well-being at call center work, which is measured as work engagement. This article focuses on how job demands and job resources (i.e. autonomy and social support) are combined at call centre and at other service sector workplaces in Finland. Is call centre different from other service sector work? We approach work conditions by combining indicators of autonomy, pressures and social support, which have been central both to sociology's analyses of job quality as well as to psychology's demand-control model of job satisfaction and stress (Karasek 1979;1990). In addition our interest is to study how these factors are related to well-being (ie. engagement) and are the relationships divergent in call center in comparison to other service sector work. Work engagement and job characteristics According to earlier research, call centres are characterized by elements of Taylorism, with its emphasis on strict division of labour, and limited complexity and variability as well as lower control over work. Sociology of work has emphasized the central role of autonomy and opportunities for skills development for intrinsic satisfaction (Green 2006). Also according to the balance models of employee well being in the occupational health literature, high strain workplaces that combine high job demands (particularly high time pressures) and low job control are associated with health problems (Karasek 1979, pp ). Later on Karasek's model was supplemented with the dimension of social support (Job Demand-Control-Support model). In this model social support refers to social interaction with colleagues and supervisors which is advantageous to one's own well-being. (Johnson& Hall, 1988; Karasek & Theorell, 1990). More specifically, Karasek's model focuses on mental strain by looking at job demands and autonomy. Job demands refers to those psychological stress factors, such as a high work pressure, emotional demands, and role ambiguity, which influence how an employee manages workload, unexpected work tasks or work conflicts. Job potentially evoke strain, in cases where they exceed the employee's adaptive capability. On the contrary, job resources such as social support, performance feedback, and autonomy may instigate a motivational process leading to job-related learning, work engagement, and organizational commitment (e.g. Demerouti et al., 2001; Salanova et al., 2005; Taris and Feij, 2004). Job autonomy, alternatively called job decision latitude, is measured with reference to employees' possibilities to influence their own work arrangements. Further, the model separates two components of job autonomy: skill discretion and decision authority. Skill discretion refers to the possibility to be creative, participate in decision making, learn new things and use professional skills, whereas decision authority refers to the possibility to choose the way work is performed, have increased input on how a job is performed and take part in decisions which affect their own work

3 Although the interaction of demands and resources is often the focal point of job stress studies (e.g. Van der Doef & Maes, 1999; Kinnunen & Feldt, 2005, p. 18), it has been introduced for the studies concerning positive well-being, namely work engagement. Work engagement is understood as a positive and fulfilling, affective-motivational state of work-related well-being that is characterised by vigour, dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli et al. 2002; Bakker et al., 2008). Psychologists have started to study work engagement as the positive opposite of burnout (Mauno et al. 2007; Bakker et al. 2008). For Schaufeli et al.( 2002), vigour refers to energetic working; being ambitions enough to work hard, even in challenging situations. Dedicated worker finds the work meaningful, is inspired and proud of the work his doing. Absorption refers to personal immersion in work, from which one gets pleasure. It also indicates that a person is concentrated on his work and finds it rewarding (Maslach et al. 2001; Hakanen, 2004, p. 229). Aims In this article we explore how work engagement varies between call centre and other service sector employees and is affected by the three factors used for predicting: demands, autonomy, and social support. In addition, we are interested in whether quality of inferior in call centres compared to other service jobs, as much of the literature suggests. According to previous studies we assume, that the level of job demands is higher and the level job resources is lower among call centre employees, compared to employees working in other service sector organisations. In addition, we expect to find lower level of engagement among call centre employees due to the fact that earlier studies highlight the meaning of resources (autonomy and social support) concerning the emergence of feelings of engagement. (see e.g. Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Hakanen & Roodt, 2010). Based on earlier research (e.g. De Jonge & Kompier, 1997; Demerouti et al., 2001a) we assume that the interactions of job demands and resource factors are not statistically significant or they are weak. It follows from this that we will mainly concentrate on the exploration of the main effects. Moreover, previous studies have found no, or only weak associations, between job demands and engagement (e.g. Mauno et al. 2007; Hakanen & Roodt 2010). Therefore it will be interesting to see do they have an effect in the call centre environment which has so often been described as highly pressured working environment. Survey data and call centre environment The quantitative analysis on employee experiences is based on the data provided by Quality of Life in Changing Europe (FP6)-project. Survey was collected from service sector organizations, representing retail, banking and insurance, telecommunications and public hospitals in eight European countries (Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany, the UK, Portugal, Hungary and Bulgaria). In this study we will concentrate only on the Finnish data (n= 967), which included a telecom organization (n=435).

4 Call centre sample The analyses concerning the experiences of work in the call centre work environments is based on a survey conducted in a Finnish prívate sector telecommunication company. Overall, 435 telecom employees and managers filled in the online questionnaire, corresponding to the response rate of 59 %. Majority of the call centre employees were female (69%). Over half (59%) of the call centre agents were between the age of and only 8% were years old. Supervisory position was held by 10 percentages of the respondents. Among call centre workers 67 percentages held indefinite contracts while only 3% had fixed term contracts but 26% where employed via a temporary employment agency. Regarding the family situation, 66% of the employees were married or cohabiting and a third had children living at home. Comparison sample The comparison group consisted out of employees (N= 467) working in service sector organizations, representing retail (N=113), banking and insurance (N=218), and health care (public hospital, N=164). The response rate varied between the organizations (banking 76%; hospital 47%; retail 35%). The sample include only the employees whos jobs include service encounters with customers and patients (thus excluding for instance the maintenance and cleaning employees in these organizations). The majority of employees gave their responses via the online questionnaire. If the employee did not use PC in the daily work, paper questionnaires were distributed. Some problems occurred in reaching the retail employees due to the large share of part-timers and other irregular working arrangements. Women represent the majority of service sector employees (89%). The age distribution is more even, nearly a third falling into each age category. 14% of employees held supervisory position. Majority of service sector employees (82%) were working under indefinite contracts whereas 17% had temporary contracts. In other service sector organizations temporary agency work was not common (only one case was reported in this sample). Among these service sector employees 77% were married and 45% had children living at home. Call centre characteristics Many studies have emphasized the variance of quality of jobs in call centres depending on the various organizational factors such as working in a in-house or outsourced organization, whether employees handle inbound or outbound calls as well as whether the production model is more of quantity or quality oriented (Batt & Moynihan 2002; Bain et al. 2002; Kinnie et al. 2008; Strandberg & Wahlberg 2007; Valverde et al 2007; Weinkopf 2002; 2009; Zapf et al. 2003). Therefore we consider it necessary to take a closer look to the call centre organization in question. In order to describe the main features of the call centre work, we will take advantage of management interviews conducted in 2008 in the framework of project Successful Organizations and Employee Well-Being in Knowledge Intensive Work. Although these two datasets, interviews and survey, have been collected for different projects, they may be used to complement each other. Informants (N=7) included managers at all levels from first level supervisors to

5 department and division heads including senior management. Management interviews provide insights into the day-to-day supervision of the call centre work but also strategic issues. For instance, informants describe what kinds of changes have taken place in the market situation and in the organization and how they have affected the organization of work. The call centres under study belong to a large Finnish telecom company which operates on a fiercely competitive and rapidly changing market. The case organization has over the years tried different strategies to organize contact centre functions (ie. reorganization, outsourcing). To ensuring quality of the services, case company has decided to, instead of outsourcing, have in-house contact centres. In-house contact centres are organized into specialized divisions, such as technical support, sales, and billing and customer queries. Most of the employees handle inbound calls. Only few of the services operate around the clock. Pay related performance incentives are determined according to the nature of the service. Changing market orientation and widening product offerings and quality driven competition has started to emphasize the skills and abilities of the employees. Employees are expected to adapt to change and learn quickly details concerning new products and technologies. These skills are not just important in technical support but also in other customer service positions. Moreover, technologies related to daily work systems (ie. softwares) are subject to constant development and change in order to facilitate and speed up the work flows. New systems also have an effect on anticipated performance of the employees. After new technologies have been introduced, the workflows are expected to increase. The training periods might be limited due to the attempts to minimize personnel costs and optimize the amount of employees in shifts with expected demand. (refrase) These requirements to adapt to constant change pose challenges to employees and possibly cause extra strain (which however, is not separately studied via survey). In terms of quality and quantity orientation of work organization, it seems that quantity is emphasized according to the management interviews. Although managers talk about the change towards the quality oriented competition in comparison to price oriented competition from the earlier years, it is very clear that cutting costs is the main priority. When assessing the employee output and performance, the quantitative measures seem a lot more central tools. As call centre organization in general, the case call centres have rather absenteeism and high turnover rates. In order to tackle the problems related to the high turnover, company has offered more employees indefinite contracts instead of fixed term contracts. Instead, according to the management interviews company is using temporary agencies both to outsource the recruiting process as well as to seek higher flexibility. According to managers, the tasks that temporary agency workers perform, do not differ from the duties of other call centre workers. In fact, many of the managers emphasize the only difference between employees types of contracts are the perks that employees of the company get (ie. mobile phone being mentioned various times). But managers also recognize the

6 difficult position of the temporaries in terms of contract extensions, hardly ever it is foreseeable whether the contracts are to be continued. Key variables Work engagement Work engagement is a six-item composite variable (range 1 7, mean 4,6, sd = 1.33, Cronbach s alpha =.950) the variance of which we try to explain in this study. It is a slightly modified version from the one found in the study by Schaufeli, Bakker and Salanova (2006). The first two components (I feel I m bursting with energy; When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work) are descriptive of vigour, the next three (I am enthusiastic about my job; My job inspires me; I am proud of the work that I do) measures job dedication, and the last one (I feel happy when I am working intensely) is indicative of absorption. Predictors of work engagement Work demands. To measure work pressure, we use a sum variable that is a shortened version of the multiple scale used by Karasek and Theorell (1990) in their Demand- Control-Support model. It includes five statements as follows: does your job require you to work fast?, does your job require you to work very hard?, do you feel that your job requires too much input from you?, do you have enough time to complete your job?, and does your job often make conflicting demands on you? Receiving high scores on this scale indicates that work employees feel high pressure employees in terms of time, and physical and mental effort (M=2.69, SD=.47. α=.758). Work autonomy (Control over work, time and place). Work autonomy is a sum variable comprised of eight statements, such as are you free to decide what your job involves and does your job require you to invent your own tasks (M=1.94, SD=0.42, α=.757). These statements are also adopted from Karasek and Theorell (1990).The high scores on this sum variable refer indicate greater independence in organising work and use skills at work. Social support. Also the social support measure is adopted from a well-known study by Karasek and Theorell (1990). In our study it consists of five statements that are there is a good spirit of unity, my colleagues are there for me, people understand that I can have a bad day, I get on well with my superiors, and I get on well with my colleagues. This composite variable is used to measure the general supportiveness of an organisation s culture (M=3.85, SD=.55 α=.676).

7 Other variables In addition to work demands, autonomy and support measures, we use control variables which are related to personal factors such as gender (dummy coded 0=men, 1=women), age, education (using the ISCED Classification), married/living together (0=no, 1=yes), number of children at home (0=no, 1=yes) and work related factors like position in an organisation (coded into a dummy variable using employee position as its reference group) and industry (also coded into a dummy variable using Telecoms as its reference group). Methods Both descriptive methods and multiple regression analysis are used to study job quality in call-centres and in other service sector organizations. First, descriptive methods are deployed to describe the level of job demands, job resources and social support. Second, we use hierarchical multiple regression analysis for modelling the connections between demands, autonomy and support for work engagement. Results In order to observe whether the levels of work engagement as well as job demands and resources vary among call centre and service sector employees, results of cross tabulations and means comparisons are presented in the appendix table. Work engagement According the engagement index, possibilities to experience work engagement are demonstrably lower among service sector workers (4,2 on the scale of 1 to 7) compared to other service sector (5,1). Cross tabulations of each questions does not change the picture. Coherently employees in the other service sector jobs report practically double more frequently feelings of dedication and absorption: Out of call centre employees less than one out of five (17 %) report that they are proud of the work they do always or very often, whereas nearly every other service sector worker (46%) does so. moreover, a fourth of the call centre agents feel happy always or very often while working, in comparison to almost half of the service workers. In terms of vigor, the difference between comparison groups is a bit smaller. Nearly a fifth of call centre employees feel like going to work in the morning always or very often, whereas nearly a third of workers in other service jobs felt the so. All in all, opportunities for engagement to call centre work seem significantly lower compared to other types of service work. Job resources Autonomy Due to the interactive nature of services, service sector work in general is characterized by rather low levels of control over working time, place or content. However, compared to other service sector workers, call centre employees report even

8 rarer opportunities to influence their jobs, which provides moderate support for earlier claims on the unique nature of call centre work (Grebner et al. 2003; Taylor ym. 2003). The most notable differences are found between the comparison groups when the autonomy index is disaggregated. Only six percentages of call centre employees perceived they could often influence what they jobs involve (in comparison to 19 % in the other service jobs). Call centre workers have also less often influence on how their job is done: slightly over a third of the call centre agents (37%) stated being able always or often influence how their job is done in comparison to 62 percentages of employees in other service jobs. Taken the skill aspects of autonomy index under scrutiny, it is noticeable that call centre work is not very deviant case I the service sector. Call centre employees do report rarer opportunities to use their creativity but it is notable that there are no statistically significant differences between the perceptions of call centre and other service sector employees in respect of repetitiveness of their jobs. Both groups of employees report their jobs involving highly repetitive tasks most of the time. Moreover, only slightly lower percentages of call centre employees (67%) report having always or often opportunities to learn new things in comparison to other service sector worker (73%). Social support Combined index of social support at the workplace does not reveal any differences between call centre environment and other type of service sector work communities. When we take a look at the cross tabulations, revealed variations between the two groups are rather small. Nearly everyone feels that they are getting along well with their colleagues. In addition, fluent cooperation with supervisors seems to on a very high level, although somewhat fewer call centre employees (85%) agree with the statement I get on well with my supervisors than other service sector employees (90%). With regard to good spirit of unity, there are no statistically significant differences but then again, call centre employees (49%) perceive that they get more support from their colleagues as employees in the other service sector (39%). Job demands Job demands were assessed through five questions relating to different sources of pressures experienced at work. Overall, comparing the sum index mean call centre employees seem to report higher level of pressures (2,77 on the scale of 1 to 4) than other service sector workers (2,61). The difference does not seem very large but it is statistically significant. Looking into the individual statements of the pressure, more detailed information is acquired. The tempo of work in call centres appears to very high: all call centre workers (99%) reported being required to work fast always or often, whereas similar reports were given by ¾ (72%) of the other service sector employees. This is also reflected in the statements of whether the demands exceed the individual performance limits. Among call centres a third of the workers (36%) felt their job was requiring too much input from them, compared to other service sector where about every fourth (27%) shared the experience. However, there is no difference in terms of required efforts: 86 percentages

9 of call centre and 84 percentages of service sector employees report being required to work very hard often or always. On the other hand, the tasks of call centres agents seem to fit better into the given timeframe: nearly half of the call centre employees (46%) reported having always or often enough time to complete their jobs in comparison to employees in other service jobs (36%). Thus appear to have more tasks during their work hours that they could perform and might have to prioritize leaving some of the tasks undone more often which might cause extra strain. Results from the regression analysis Hierarchical regression analyses for work engagement are represented in Table 1. The analyses were implemented separately for other service sector employees and for call-centre employees. The regression models consist of fours steps. Firstly, the respondents' personal characteristics, gender, age, marital status, and possible children living at home, were added to the model. In the second phase, we added factors which describe respondent's hierarchical position in organisation, namely supervisory position, and educational status. In the third step, we added main predictors, demands, autonomy and social support into the model. The interactions between of job demands and resource factors we also tested, but as they proved to be statistically insignificant, we do not include them into the final model. It follows from this that we will mainly concentrate on the exploration of the main effects. Table 1 Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Work Engagement Service sector employees Call centre employees Step 1 1. Gender (0=men, 1=women) * 2. Age.17***.16*** 3. Married (0=no, 1=yes) Children at home (0=no, 1=yes) R 2.036**.063*** Step 2 5. Supervisory position (0=no, 1=yes).00.09* 6. Education R ** Step Pressures -.14** -.29*** 12. Autonomy.34***.39*** 13. Support.21***.12** R 2.18,1***.283*** R 2.23***.41***

10 Background factors, such as marital status or having children living at home, have only modest effect on work engagement. Thus work engagement relates mainly to work condition factors. Women perceived themselves more engaged in their work than men, but this connection was statistically significant only in the call centre. In addition, age affects work engagement so that older employees are more engaged in their work than their younger colleagues. Unexpectedly, educational level and supervisory position had also a rather limited effect on perceived work engagement. A supervisory position had a significant effect on work engagement, only in call centre. All in all, background factors included in the first and second step explained rather modestly the variation of work engagement. The underlying theoretical model for our study was adopted from Karasek and Theorell (Karasek, 1979; Karasek and Theorell, 1990). Their demand-control-support theory considers the relationship between job demands and resources as a crucial indicator of well-being and job quality. The adjusted R-scores indicate that the model fits differently for call centre and for other service sector organisations. The multivariate model explained 41 % of the total variation of the work engagement variable in call centre. The model fit was clearly poorer (23%) for our comparison group. We found some noticeable differences in the manner of how demands, autonomy and social support affect work engagement in different work environments. Previous studies have consistently shown that job resources such as employee autonomy and social support from colleagues and supervisors are positively associated with work engagement (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008; Halbesleben 2010). Job resources are found to predict work engagement better than job demands (Mauno, Kinnunen, and Ruokolainen 2007). In our data too job autonomy was the best predictor of work engagement. However, in call centre, pressures proved to have a strong negative effect on work engagement too. Call centre employees was found to report higher level of job demand. In addition job demands seems to be detrimental to call centre employees' work engagement. Another interesting result related to role of social support. Working environment with a good atmosphere and the possibility to receive support from supervisors and colleagues was less important factor in facilitating higher work engagement in call centre than in other service sector organisations. Discussion Opportunities to use initiative and skills and develop professionally and personally are thought to be central aspects of work related well-being. In addition, good supportive atmosphere and social relationships are commonly agreed factors increasing well-being of employees. In the circumstances is also work engagement encouraged. On the contrary, too much of controlling and routines are thought to decrease well-being.

11 Findings of this study give moderate support for studies that call centres are characterized by elements of Taylorism such as limited complexity as well as lower control over work pace and work methods. Although it has been acknowledged that service work in general is of lower quality and characterized by unsocial working hours, limited career prospects as well as subject to service sector taylorism, call center work appears as an exceptional case. In the samples under study, call centre employees reported higher pressures and lower autonomy than employees in other service sector organizations. However, call center employees did not appear to have stronger social relationships although in some studies they have been referred as a coping mechanism (resistance) towards the culture of surveillance. What was surprising were the reports of repetitiveness of work, which were on a high level in both of the samples. Service work in general was experiences as repetitive as the call centre work. The result is unexpected in light of earlier studies, which have highlighted the repetitive nature of call centre work as a consequence of the taylorization of the work process. Nevertheless, it has to be noted that the question does not take into account of how short is the cycle of each task. Reformulating the question might give more detailed information. Relationships between supervisors and call centre agents were reported as good and consensual. Given the nature of work of the supervisors, whose role is to monitor the calls, it might be surprising that call centre employees do not report more difficulties with getting along with their supervisors. Supervisors are the ones who do the monitoring as well as coaching, give feedback on individuals and also need to take care of the targets set from senior management are met. This becomes understandable in the light of the interviews as well as earlier studies which have indicated that social distance between supervisors and agents are rather low because supervisors very often are former call agents. Experiencing work engagement is challenging to employees who work in the call centre environment. In general, call center employees experienced less feelings related to engagement than employees in the comparison organizations. According to regression analysis, autonomy was a significant precursor of engagement experiences in both groups under study. Instead social support had weaker boosting effect among call centre workers as in other service employees. Moreover, when compared to earlier studies, work pressures had an exceptionally strong negative association to engagement. The high work pressures seem to inhibit the experience of positive well-being in call centres. These findings could have implications for the organization of work in requiring work environments. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the acquired results are always subject to concepts and methods employed. It could also be the case that concept of engagement does not reveal the mechanisms of well-being in certain type of work. Work engagement is a concept which consists of rather intrinsic types of sources of satisfaction and commitment. It could be the case that those employees who find satisfaction and balance in call center work, are those who have more extrinsic orientations and attitudes towards

12 work. Concept of engagement might not encapture the motivation which relates to pay incentives, rapid performance and for instance, secure employment. Therefore, the issue of well-being at work should be studied with wider and multifaceted concepts and more in detail. Furthermore, for instance possibly curvilinear models could shed more light on the relationships of demands, resources and work engagement.

13 Appendix 1 CALL CENTRE SERVICE SECTOR WORK ENGAGEMENT Always Very Always Very Often Chi-Square Eta often At my work, I feel bursting with ,206 0,265 energy When I get up in the morning, I ,662*** 0,270 feel like going to work I am enthusiastic about my job ,620*** 0,331 My job inspires me ,913*** 0,325 I am proud of the work that I do ,282*** 0,360 I feel happy when I am working ,606*** 0,318 intensely Engagement Index (mean 1-7) 4,15 5,07 *** 0,348 AUTONOMY Are you free to decide Always Often Always Often..how your job is to be done? ,407* 0,319 **..decide what your job involves? ,315* 0,328 **..when you do your work? ,455 n.s. 0,003...to work wherever is best for ,57*** 0,168 you, either at home or at work? Do you get to learn new things in ,850* 0,037 your job? Does your job require creativity? ,63*** 0,169 Does your job involve repetitive ,360 n.s. 0,014 tasks? Does your job require you to ,33*** 0,277 invent your own tasks? Autonomy index (mean 1-4) 1,84 2,03 *** 0,224 PRESSURE Always Often Always Often Chisquare Eta Does your job require you to ,027** 0,221 work fast? * Does your job require you to ,44 0,07 work very hard Do you feel that your job requires ,190** too much input from you? * Do you have enough time to ,26** 0,063 complete your job? Does your job often make ,633** 0,141 conflicting demands on you? * Pressure index (mean 1-4) 2,77 2,61 *** 0,168

14 SOCIAL SUPPORT strongly agree & agree combined strongly agree & agree combined There is a good spirit of unity ,365 n.s. 0,042 My colleagues are there for me ,883** 0,173 * People understand that I can have ,443* 0,031 a bad day I get on well with my superiors ,256* 0,081 I get on well with my colleagues ,641 n.s. 0,023 Social support index (mean 1-5) 3,87 3,84 n.s. 0,001

15 References Bain, P., Watson, A., Mulvey, G., Taylor, P. and Gall, G. (2002) Taylorism, Targets and the Pursuit of Quantity and Quality by Call Centre Management, New Technology, Work and Employment 17(3): Bakker & Demerouti, E. (2007) The Job Demands-Resources Model: the State of Art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3): Bakker, A.B. & Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model of work engagement. Career Development International, 13, Batt, R. and Moynihan, L. (2002) The Viability of Alternative Call Centre Production Models, Human Resource Management Journal 12(4): Belt, V., Richardson, R. & Webster, J. (2002) Women, social skill and interactive service work in telephone call centres New Technology, Work and Employment 17(1): Deery, S., Iverson, R. &Walsh, J. (2010) Coping Strategies in Call Centres:Work Intensity and the Role of Co-workers and Supervisors British Journal of Industrial Relations 48(1): De Jonge, J. & Kompier, M. (1997) A Critical Examination of Demands-Support- Control-model from a Work Psychological Perspective International Journal of Stress Management 4(4) : Demerouti, E., Bakker, A., De Jonge, J., Janssen, P. & Schaufeli, W. (2001a), Burnout and engagement at work as a function of demands and control, Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment Health, 27 (4): Grebner, S., Semmer, N., de Faso, L., Gut, S., Kälin, W. & Elfering, A. (2003) Working conditions, well-being and job related attitudes among call center agents, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 12(4): Green, F. (2006), Demanding Work: The Paradox of Job Quality in the Affluent Economy, Princeton University Press, New Jersey Hakanen, J. & Roodt, G. (2010) Using Job Demands and Resources Model to Predict the Engagement: Analysing a Conceptual Model. In Bakker, A., & Leiter, M. (eds.) Work Engagement. A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research. Psychology Press, New York. Halbesleben, J. R. B. (2010) A meta-analysis of work engagement: Relationships with burnout, demands, resources, and consequences. In A. B. Bakker and M. P. Leiter

16 (Eds.) Work Engagement - A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research, New York: Psychology Press Hallman, D. Frenkel, S. Sorensen, O., & Wood, S. (2008) Work Design Variation and Outcomes in Call Centers: Strategic Choice and Institutional Explanations Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 62, Holman, D., Chissick, C. & Totterdell, P. (2002) The Effects of Performance Monitoring on Emotional Labor and Well-Being in Call Centers Motivation and Emotion, 26,( 1), Holman, D. (2002) Employee Well-Being in Call Centres, Human Resource Management Journal 12(4): Holman, D. (2003) Phoning in sick? An overview of employees stress in call centres. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 24 (3): Frenkel, S., Tam, M., Korczynski, M., & Shire, K. (1998). Beyond bureacracy? Work organisation in call centres. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 9, Karasek, R. (1979), Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: implications for fob redesign, Administrative Science Quarterly, 24 (2): Karasek, R. and Theorell, T. (1990), Healthy Work: Stress, Productivity, and the Reconstruction of Working Life, Basic Books, New York, NY. Kinnie, N., Purcell, J. & Adams, M. (2008) Explaining Employees Experience of Work in Outsourced Call Centers: the Influence of Clients, Owners and Temporary Work Agencies. Journal of Industrial Relations, 50(2), Knights, D. & McCabe, D. (1998) What Happens When the Phone Goes Wild?: Staff, Stress and Spaces for Escape in a BPR regime, Journal of Management Studies, 35(2): Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U., Ruokolainen, M. (2007) Job Demands and Resources as Antecedents of Work Engagement, Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 70, Mulholland, K (2004) Workplace resistance in an Irish call centre: slammin, scammin smokin an leavin Work, Employment and Society, 18(4): Rose, E. & Wright, G. (2005) Satisfaction and dimensions of control among call center representatives. International Journal of Human Resource Management. 16(1):

17 Russell, B. (2007) You gotta lie to it: Software applications and the management of technological change in a call center. New Technology, Work and Employment 22(2), Schouteten, R., Benders J. & Van Den Bosch, E. (2010) The willing, the indifferent, and the unwilling; Call center employees reactions to control. A Paper presented in ILPC conference In Rutgers University, March Schalk, R. & Van Rijckevorsel, A. (2007) Factors influencing absenteeism and intention to leave in a call centre. New Technology, Work and Employment, 22(3): Schaufeli, W., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V. and Bakker, A. (2002) The measurement of engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach, Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), Strandberg, C. & Wahlberg, O. (2007) All call centres are not electronic sweatshops!. The Journal of E-Working, 1: Taylor, P., Baldry, C., Bain, P. and Ellis, V. (2003) A Unique Working Environment : Health, Sickness and Absence Management in UK Call Centres, Work, Employment and Society 17(3): Taylor, P., Hyman, J., Mulvey, G. and Bain, P. (2002) Work Organisation and the Experience of Work in Call Centres, Work, Employment and Society 16(1): Taylor, P. & Bain, P. (1999) An assembly line in the head. Work and employee relations in the call centre. Industrial Relations Journal, 30(2): Townsend, K (2005) Electronic surveillance and cohesive teams: room for resistance in an Australian call centre? New Technology, Work and Employment 20(1), Valverde, M., Ryan, G., & Gorjup, M. (2007) An Examination of the Quality of Jobs in the Call Center Environment. International Advances in Economic Research 13, Van der Doef, M. and Maes, S. (1999), The job demand-control (-support) model and psychological well-being: a review of 20 years of empirical research, Work & Stress 13( 2), Weinkopf, C. (2002) Call Center Work: specific characteristics and challenges for the work organization. Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, 8(3): Weinkopf, C. (2009) Job Quality in Call Centers in Germany International Labour Review, 148(4):

18 Zapf, D., Isic, A., Bechtoldt, M., & Blau, P. (2003) What Is Typical for Call Centre Jobs? Job Characteristics, and Service Interactions in Different Call Centres, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 12(4):