Entrapped by the ‘electronic panopticon’? Worker resistance in the call centre

Abstract

This article presents a thoroughgoing critique of Fernie andMetcalf's perspective, that the call centre is characterised by the operation of an 'electronic panopticon' in which supervisory power has been 'rendered perfect'. Drawing on evidence from a telecommunications call centre the authors analyse the significance of emerging forms of employee resistance.The very recent, and extremely rapid, growth of call centres in the UK is the principal reason for the paucity of academic writing on this major industrial development. Significant early contributions concentrated on the emergence of 'branchless' retail banking and the spatial and regional aspects of growth Richardson and Marshall, 1996), developments in Australia and the growing importance of considerations of quality (Frenkel and Donoghue, 1996) and payment systems (Fernie and Metcalf, 1998). The last of these attracted widespread media attention, although not for the study of payment systems themselves, but rather for the authors' headline-making declarations. They asserted that call centres were the 'new sweatshops' and that managerial powers of electronic surveillance were akin to those systems of dominance which existed in Jeremy Bentham's prison Panopticon.At the same time, with the call centre sector 1 thirsting for self-knowledge, and university research lagging behind developments, consultants' reports achieved considerable influence and authority (

Managing BPO service workers in India: Examining hope on performance outcomes

“…The Indian BPO sector is dominated by captive firms, which cater their services to a single or a few clients (Taylor & Bain, 2005). Client firms demand cost efficiency as well as customer service quality from such captive firms (Bain & Taylor, 2000), which create a stressful environment for employees (Taylor & Bain, 2005). Insufficient control, widespread workplace monitoring, creating difficult work targets, and the structure or lack of time away from the job (e.g., breaks and rest periods) create a pressurized and stressful environment for employees, which often results in negative workplace outcomes (Deery, Iverson, & Walsh, 2002).…”

Technological Frame Incongruence, Diffusion, and Noncompliance

“…Culture and control issues are recorded in other case studies, in particular, studies call centers where the perception is that workforces are closely monitored (Bain and Taylor 2000;Callaghan and Thompson 2001;Lankshear et al 2001;Sewell and Wilkinson 1992). It may be that all workplaces ignore this type of behavior up to a point to allow some breathing space, but within this case study there was a definite management attitude of "as long as we get our data…" and the reflection of actuality was not considered important or perhaps too difficult to confront.…”

Interest Differences and Organizational Learning

“…Second, there is ample evidence, associated with areas of scholarship such as the sociology of work, employee relations and critical accounts of workplace change (e.g., (Brown 2008;Sennett 2006;Clegg et al 2006;Fleming 2005;Thomas and Davies 2005;Bain and Taylor 2000;Ackroyd and Taylor 1999)) of tensions between employers' economic and technical interests and employees' interest in retaining jobs and maximizing income, status and resources. In fields of literature such as these, conflict is assumed to be structurally inherent in the employment relationship, reflected by interest groups pursuing their (to some extent) dissonant agendas against a backdrop of asymmetric power relations and assumed managerial prerogative.…”