The Significance of Control

Control plays a major role in the EPM setting (Smith and Amick, 1989:275). Control means having an impact on one’s conditions and activities in correspondence with a goal. Task control refers to the possibility of making decisions regarding goals to be achieved, planning the sequence of activities to be performed and processing feedback information. Time control refers to both when and for how long a certain task is performed (Zapf et al., 1999:377). Sewell (1998:4) raises the issue of control in teamwork, claiming that teamwork involves not only issues of obedience but also how

knowledge becomes rationalised and how team activities are normalised around new knowledge.

Stanton and Barnes-Farrell (1996) found that participants who were able to delay or prevent the introduction of EPM had greater feelings of personal control than those who could not. Furthermore, Stanton (2000) has found that EPM control affects perceptions of fairness, while Eddy, Stone and Stone-Romero (1999) have found that control of decisions over disclosure of information has a direct effect on such perceptions (Zweig and Webster, 2002:609). Varca (2006:290) studied the role of perceived control in reducing strain associated with telephone surveillance among service representatives, finding that perceived control is a key element in understanding the negative effects of surveillance. Sewell and Wilkinson (1992) argue that the introduction of surveillance in processes such as JIT and TQM are based largely on detailed control. Electronic surveillance is fundamentally a new and successful model of control. Rose and Wright’s (2005:136) exploration of factors relating to control and other work-based characteristics that impact on employee wellbeing in call centres reveal that control is a significant aspect influencing job satisfaction. Call centres are characterised primarily by control relationships rather than by skills and related dimensions. As with many other organisational innovations, call centre workplaces present an assortment of old, new and complex challenges concerning the management of the employment relationship (Rose and Wright, 2005:137).

Furthermore, the form of control changes over time. Callaghan and Thompson (2013:13) argue that call centre managements have developed a new form of structural control which draws heavily on Edwards’ (1979) concept of technical control, extended,

modified and combined with bureaucratic control, influencing the social structure of the workplace. Contrary to Edwards, such systems are not distinct; rather, they are blended together in a process of institutionalising control. The rationale for this is partly to camouflage control – to contain conflict by making control a product of the system rather than provoking direct confrontation between management and workers. Control is therefore established through technology, and this is strengthened and expanded through the use of bureaucratic control in shaping the social and organisational structure of the workplace (Callaghan and Thompson, 2013:13).

This view relates to the argument that control is often associated with power. Ball and Wilson’s (2000:540) examination of CBPM in two UK financial services organisations concluded that the connection between power, control and resistance is important in explaining reactions to this type of electronic monitoring, which may lead to behavioural control. Spitzmüller and Stanton (2006:245) propose that organisational commitment, organisational identification and attitudes towards surveillance predict intentions, while relationships between attitudes and intentions are moderated by employees’ perceived behavioural control and social norms. Houlihan’s (2000:228) central concern is to explore the underlying assumptions of call centre design and management and to establish whether or to what extent information systems are constructed as means of learning or of behavioural control. When behavioural control is a primary goal, this introduces a climate of resistance, further inflated by the culture of measurement and enforcement that is likely to ensue (Houlihan, 2000:228). However, Koskela (2003) suggests that control seems to become dispersed, and the ethos of mechanistic discipline is replaced by flexible power structures.

Control also plays a role in the exercise of employee autonomy. Worker autonomy has been defined as “the control that workers have over their own work situation” (Brey, 1999:16). Valsecchi (2006:123) claims that popular images of teleworkers’ autonomy, such as the “electronic cottage”, paint unrealistic pictures of the control exercised over them, particularly since these are call centre operators working with highly integrated information and communication technology systems that facilitate pervasive forms of control. However, a study of Italian home-located call centre operators has demonstrated that extensive and multifaceted monitoring practices cannot “solve” the controversial issue of control (Valsecchi, 2006:123). The issue of privacy is also linked to control (Zweig, 2005:106). For instance, Stone and Stone (1990:358) define privacy as:

A state or condition in which the individual has the capacity to control the release and possible subsequent dissemination of information about him or herself.

As implied by this definition of privacy and supported by research evidence, employees need to feel that they have some control over how their personal information is used and how the use of this information will influence outcomes such as performance ratings and distribution of rewards (Zweig, 2012:106).

Control through the use of EPM is implemented in a planned manner. Bond and Bunce (2003:1057) argue that the way in which control is realised depends on the level of acceptance and control of internal events. Acceptance requires a willingness to experience all psychological events (e.g. thoughts, feelings and sensations) without changing, avoiding or otherwise controlling them (Hayes, 1987; Hayes et al., 1996). Stanton and Barnes-Farrell (1996, cited in Zweig and Webster, 2002:609) found that

participants who knew exactly when they were being monitored expressed higher feelings of personal control.

Ball (2007:578) claims that the enactment of control involves governing behaviours and norms:

... to control a wider range of behaviour, from something which is simply illegal (governed by criminal law) to that which is governed by organization-specific, managerially defined behavioural and performance norms. Workers are measured according to their compliance with these norms (Ball, 2007:578).

The type of control exercised under EPM is characterised by mechanisation. A climate is fostered whereby control is rendered possible via strict discipline and mechanisation of tasks (Lyon, 2007:27). In essence, EPM seeks to control not only individuals but groups of people simultaneously (Dandeker, 1990:37).

Call centres are workplaces in which telephones and computers are integrated and controlled by an expert system. Thus, work performance tends to be strictly controlled through a managerial strategy of “direct control” combined with “technical control” (Lindgren and Sederblad, 2006:190). Many call agents have little influence over their own work in terms of work-related resources such as job control, not only over the pace of work, such as time frame of task, succession and duration of actions, but also with regard to planning and organising their own work (Grebner et al., 2003:342).

Frenkel et al. (1999, cited in Deery and Kinnie, 2002:6) argue that the increasing complexity of work and the need to be more customer-focused present a direct challenge to the control model of workforce management. The control model is heavily remedial, reflecting the status quo of many call centres. It is rooted in standard measurement, monitoring, correction and short-term targeting. In this light, the call centre can be characterised as an intensification project. Routines are specific and detailed, and roles are restricted. Agent time is utilised to the maximum in pursuit of call coverage and achievement of shifting goals. When every action is prescribed, there is no ambiguity and little room for imagination, appropriation and development; when all processes are formalised, there is no space or “slack” in the system; when call service levels are the bottom line, even time away from the phones for meetings, training and coaching is under constant threat of erosion (Houlihan, 2000:238).

Rose and Wright’s (2005:136) study of factors relating to control and other work-based characteristics that impact on employee wellbeing in call centres found that CSRs perceive themselves as victims at the “sharp end” of the extreme technological control of the “electronic panopticon”, itself based on a “mass production of services”. Control is facilitated through a combination of IT-generated data and the inculcation of cultural and informal norms, that is, by technical and normative means (Rose and Wright, 2005:145).

Call centres have not only been found to be stressful places of employment, but the work itself places significant demands on agents’ ability to subjugate and control their own emotional responses during telephone contact with customers (Hingst, 2006:7). A German study involving 250 call agents in 14 call centres found that, after controlling

for age, sex, and education level, compared with people in similar but more traditional workplaces, such as administrative clerks and bank clerks, call agents had poorer working conditions in terms of task variability and complexity and lower job control, as well as more frequent psychosomatic complaints (Isic, Dormann and Zapf, 1999). Holman and Wall (2002) also found that low job control predicted depression among inbound call agents of a national UK bank in cross-sectional as well as longitudinal data. Furthermore, in a study of US teleservice centre representatives, lack of job control was associated with musculoskeletal disorders (Grebner et al., 2003:342).

In an early study of monitoring, Smith and Amick (1989) identified three kinds of employee control over monitoring: (1) instrumental control, where they are able to change aspects of the immediate environment; (2) discretionary control, where they are able to complete tasks autonomously; and (3) participatory control, where they have a say in the design of work. They argued that employee influence in these areas may combat stress. Varca (2006) demonstrated that workers are more likely to be stressed by a lack of control over the monitoring process than by the monitoring process itself. In this regard, previous research findings suggest that control over the introduction of monitoring is significant to workers (Stanton and Barnes-Farrell, 1996). Also, workers regard the use of sporadic, as opposed to continuous, monitoring as less “controlling” (Aiello and Kolb, 1995a). Stanton (2000) summarises two studies of participatory control (Pearson, 1991; Westin, 1992) that document its positive effects in terms of increased trust, constructive management-worker relationships and decreased stress levels (Ball and Margulis, 2011:117).

It has been suggested that job mobility and opportunities for exit may mitigate the stressful effects of monitoring. Job mobility manifests itself as a form of control or, as Callaghan and Thompson (2001) argue, offers employees the opportunity to “externalise” their resistance. Furthermore, Holman (2002) demonstrates that increased job control in a call centre setting results in decreased anxiety and depression and increased intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction. Bond and Bunce (2003) report that the beneficial effects of job control are enhanced for call centre employees, with higher levels of acceptance. Acceptance is also associated with better mental health and improved performance (Ball and Margulis, 2011:117).

Specific control strategies are applied in an EPM environment (Yar, 2003:268). Chalykoff and Kochan (1989) developed a model focusing on control strategies as explanatory (rather than dependent) variables that predict attitudes toward computer monitoring, job satisfaction and turnover propensity. Three major elements of control systems were used as predictor variables: performance appraisal, feedback/appropriateness of monitoring, and factors influencing turnover. They found that affective responses to and negative predispositions toward computer-aided monitoring were directly related to job satisfaction (Kidwell and Bennett, 1994:205). Direct control processes are used to influence individuals working under EPM. These largely use fear to achieve obedience, whereas consent is achieved through commitment. Both methods are highly manipulative and obscure (Deetz, 1998:167).

EPM, however, may not always influence individuals negatively. In a study carried out by Deery and Kinnie (2002:9) it was found that performance monitoring may be fairly widely accepted, although such acceptance is contingent on style of supervision. They

conclude that more than half of their respondents were satisfied or very satisfied with the methods of control used and three quarters said the controls helped them to work better.