Suchergebnisse

PurposeThe paper seeks to determine whether and how the quality of working life (QWL) varies between call centres (CCs) in the in‐house/outsourced, public and private sectors and the implications of these findings on human resource management (HRM).Design/methodology/approachThis paper reports on findings derived through empirical qualitative case study research in two Australian CCs: Govtcall, an in‐house, public‐sector CC, and Salesplus, an outsourced, private‐sector CC. Quality of work life outcomes are determined through in‐depth interviews with CSOs, supervisors and managers, where a comparative approach is utilised.FindingsThe in‐house, public‐sector CC Govtcall emerges as being inferior in terms of job content, working hours and managerial/supervisory style and strategies. Conversely, Salesplus features a management model that is more akin to what would be expected in a CC operating under a professional service model.Research limitations/implicationsThe sample size was limited to two CCs; thus, the findings may not be representative of the wider CC context.Practical implicationsA productivity orientation and employee focus are not a mutually exclusive phenomenon. Union presence and public‐sector status do not guarantee better working conditions and higher QWL. Managerial styles and strategies have a significant impact on QWL in the CC context.Originality/valueQWL is an under‐researched area where CCs are concerned. Similarly, much of the existing CC research is based on the private sector, despite the public sector emerging as a large user of CC operations.

Precarious employment is an increasingly prevalent phenomenon in contemporary labour markets. Research on the call centre industry has not only identified a growing use of non-standard employment arrangements, but also evidence to indicate that precariousness may be a feature of employment in this industry. Despite this evidence, however. There is still little known about the extent to which precarious employment is an integral part of the NZ call centre context. In addition, there has been scant research on the individual experiences of non-standard workers employed in the call centre industry. This paper aims to address the gaps in the literature by essentially 'marrying' these three broad areas of research. A framework for measuring precariousness is introduced and examined in relation to two case study call centres, selected to facilitate a comparative approach. Based on in-depth interviews with case study participants and key stakeholders, this paper examines the applicability of this framework to the NZ call centre context. Key findings from the study indicate that precarious employment is indeed a phenomenon that affects non-standard workers in the NZ call centre industry. A number of policy concerns are raised through the data, particularly where the incidence of precarious employment is associated with the lack of organisational compliance with employment legislation.

Purpose– The purpose of this paper is to bridge a gap in the call centre literature by considering how individual employees perceive their level of voice over workplace decisions. The inclusion of direct voice mechanisms is noteworthy as these are forms that have received much less attentionvis-à-visindirect voice.Design/methodology/approach– A mixed-method approach was utilized comprising focus groups and questionnaires from over 350 respondents in nine call centres in Australia.Findings– The most pervasive type of employee voice found across all call centres was through direct channels. The team leader was viewed as especially important in terms of employees asserting that they have some influence over workplace issues. There was evidence that the greater the number of voice mechanisms available the higher the perception of autonomy and influence over work tasks, pace of work and quality standards.Research limitations/implications– Greater consideration is needed in the voice literature at how employees perceive different mechanisms and how institutionalized and legitimate these are within organizations. There appeared to be minimal positive feedback on how union's influenced the workplace, even in unionized environments. We call for further research on how union representation and direct voice channels work together and the impact on key individual and organizational outcomes.Practical implications– Employees may view the provision of multiple voice channels more favourable than any particular mechanism. The role of the team leader appears especially crucial in positive perceptions of employee voice.Originality/value– Call centre environments may be changing for the better and effective team leader/employee relationships appear to be at the heart of these changes. The paper demonstrates that direct voice mechanisms dominate the case study sites and that employee perceptions of "being heard" are as important as the actual voice mechanisms.