View the step-by-step solution to:

Journal of Management Research ISSN 1941-899X 2011, Vol. 3, No. E1 Stressful Work, Citizenship Behaviour and Intention to Leave the Organization in a...

Create an outline for employee retention in a call center (healthcare)
Overview of Literature Review

Journal of Management Research ISSN 1941-899X 2011, Vol. 3, No. 1: E1 1 Stressful Work, Citizenship Behaviour and Intention to Leave the Organization in a High Turnover Environment: Examining the Mediating Role of Job Satisfaction Pascal Paillé Dept. of Management, Université Laval Québec (QC) G1K 7P4, Canada Tel: 1-418-656-2131 E-mail: [email protected] Abstract This study investigates the extent to which job satisfaction mediates the relationship between job stress work outcomes, such as intention to leave the employer and citizenship behaviour (OCB). Job satisfaction is examined as a mediator between stress and intention to leave, and OCB. The procedure advocated by Baron and Kenny (1986) was selected for the mediation test. The result pattern across both samples was very similar. While no relationship was found between stressful work and OCB, stressful work increased the desire to leave the employer. Job satisfaction had a positive negative effect on OCB and a strong negative effect on intention to leave. Job satisfaction fully mediated the relationship between stressful work and intention to leave the employer. Our data suggest that an employee who experiences job satisfaction can support stressful work induced by his or her professional environment. Keywords: Perceived stressful work, Citizenship behaviour, Intention to leave, High turnover environment, Job satisfaction
Background image of page 01
Journal of Management Research ISSN 1941-899X 2011, Vol. 3, No. 1: E1 2 1. Introduction Increased job stress seems to be related to economic competitiveness (Sauter, Murphy and Hurrell, 1990). Brun and Lamarche (2006) affirm that the cost of job-related stress is evaluated at 20 billion Euros for the European community and 300 billion dollars for the United States. Johnson and Indvik (1996) note that in North America, stress is responsible each year for the loss of some 100 million working days. Perhaps this is why the topic of stressful work has generated abundant literature. Recently, Kelloway, Teed and Kelley (2009) reported that “between 2000 and 2005, the number of articles using the keyword stress has increased by almost 50 per cent (from 4,021 to 5,928).” Later in their article, Kelloway et al. indicate that over 67,000 studies were published on stressful work. Nevertheless, despite extensive research, Ganster and Schaubroeck (1991) affirm that most research on job stress has focused on determinants rather than outcomes (e.g., organizational citizenship behaviour, intention to leave, productivity, etc.). Although determinants of stressful work are well known, earlier research studies show that stressful work decreases wellbeing in the workplace (Danna and Griffin, 1999; Tetrick and LaRocco, 1987), increases psychological distress at work (Van der Doef and Maes, 1999; Sluiter, Van deer Beek, and Frings-Dresen, 1999), fosters violence among colleagues (Mueller, De Coster, and Estes, 2001) and causes burnout (Aspinwall and Taylor, 1997). Moreover stressful work fosters decisions to leave the employer (e.g., Firth, Mellor, Moore, and Loquet, 2004; de Croon, Sluiter, Blonk, Broersen, and Frings-Dresen, 2004), increases absenteeism (Brun and Lamarche, 2006) and affects employee productivity (Jex, 1998; Motowidlo, Packard, and Manning, 1986). Previous empirical research (e.g., Kemery, Bedeian, Mossholder, and Touliatos, 1985; LeRouge, Nelson, and Blanton, 2006; Parasuraman, and Alutto, 1984; Tuten and Neidermeyer, 2004) indicates that stressful work environments increase job dissatisfaction. Although existing empirical research provides many findings showing that job stress is associated with undesirable organizational outcomes, the basic logic behind these findings is that job stress increases job dissatisfaction, thereby motivating decisions to quit and absenteeism. However, rare are the studies that examine job satisfaction rather than job dissatisfaction under work environment pressure (Podsakoff, LePine, and LePine, 2007). Concomitantly, few empirical studies examine the relationship between job stress and organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB). Because OCB has become a major research topic in the last decade, the lack of research associating job stress and OCB is surprising. Recently, Bolino and Turnley (2005, p. 740) pointed out that today “the ideal worker is an employee who not only demonstrates high levels of task performance, but also engages in high levels of contextual performance or OCB as well.” OCB refers to several elements of work activity not fully denoted by the traditional concept of job performance (Harrison, Newman, and Roth, 2006) that enhance organizational effectiveness (Organ, MacKenzie, and Podsakoff, 2006). Moreover, OCB can be viewed as the first step of a withdrawal process, suggesting increases in lateness and absenteeism when an employee dissociates from OCB (Harrison et al. , 2006).
Background image of page 02
Show entire document
Service Management and Employment Systems in U.S. and Indian Call Centers T he explosive growth of call centers in India has gained widespread attention because of its potential impact on employment in the United States and other advanced economies. Media accounts report that Indian operations are more likely to use college-educated workers while paying one-tenth of U.S. wages. Some argue that these advantages may allow Indian centers to outcom- pete U.S. centers on both cost and quality. 1 Nonetheless, complaints about poor quality and security, as well as consumer backlash, have led some Frms to pull out of India, while leaders in the offshoring business such as General Electric have sold their Indian operations altogether. High turnover rates have become a particularly serious problem in recent years as an expanding number of employ- ers compete for a small pool of educated employees, a trend that both increases costs and undermines service quality. With heated debate more prevalent than systematic empirical investigation, our understanding of this emerging sector is based largely on anecdotal evi- dence. National Fgures on employment, industry trends, and the percentage of centers operated in-house (as opposed to outsourced or offshore) are unreliable. 2 335 ROSEMARY BATT VIRGINIA DOELLGAST HYUNJI KWON Cornell University We thank the Alfred P. Sloan ±oundation, the Russell Sage ±oundation, and the Cornell Uni- versity Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies for generous funding that made this study possible. Thanks also to the Survey Research Institute, ILR School, Cornell University, for admin- istration of the U.S. survey and to Priti and Mudit Nopany for conducting the Indian survey. This research is part of a broader international survey of call center establishments in twenty countries in North America, Europe, and industrializing economies, coordinated by Rosemary Batt, David Holman (U. ShefFeld, UK), and Ursula Holtgrewe (U. Duisburg, Germany). 1. See Dossani and Kenney (2004). 2. Data on numbers of call centers and employment come largely from interested parties, such as India’s National Association of Software and Service Companies (NASSCOM), and industry
Background image of page 01
Our own national survey of U.S. call centers suggests that after two decades of rapid growth, the outsourced sector represents less than 15 percent of the mar- ket; and Indian offshore centers cover a tiny fraction of the U.S. market. In addition, there has been little or no research on management and employ- ment practices in this sector, either in the United States or in India. In this paper, therefore, we consider two questions. First, how similar or different are call cen- ter management strategies and employment systems in each country? Here our goal is to map the management practices adopted by three types of operations: in-house centers in the United States, outsourced centers in the United States, and offshore centers that are owned and operated by subcontractors in India and serve the U.S. market. Are there systematic differences in these practices, or is there a call center “production model” that has diffused across very different institutional and organizational contexts? Second, what are the implications of different management practices for outcomes such as turnover? In other words, which practices explain the high levels of turnover in the industry? To answer these questions, we draw on an original establishment-level survey of 330 call centers in the United States and India. We focus on customer contact rather than back-of±ce operations such as check processing or online order ful- ±llment. For each center, the survey provides information on the customer base, market and ownership conditions, organizational characteristics, work functions, workforce skills and training, call center technology, work organization, com- pensation, and outcomes such as absenteeism and turnover. In the next section, we discuss prior research that informs our study. We then present the study meth- ods and analytic strategy and our ±ndings. Finally we outline the study’s limita- tions and implications for policy. 336 Brookings Trade Forum: 2005 consultants such as Datamonitor in the United States. NASSCOM put the number of call center positions in India at 158,000 in 2004. For the United States in 2001, Datamonitor estimated a total call center workforce of 2.5 million, with 88.7 percent located in in-house centers and 11.3 per- cent in outsourced centers. It projected that by 2005 call center employment would grow by 14 percent, reaching a total of 2.86 million, with 13.4 percent located in outsourced centers (Data- monitor 2001). That estimate is close to the 14.6 percent of U.S. centers outsourced that we found in our 2004 national survey. Datamonitor bases its estimates on market research and the sale of call center work stations and other technology. The numbers of work stations may underestimate employment because they may be used for two or three shifts of workers. More recently, Datamonitor (2004) estimated that the U.S. call center employment would fall to 2.7 million positions in 47,500 call centers by 2008. Our calculations, based on Bureau of Labor Statistics data, suggest a U.S. call center work- force in 2004 of 3.97 million, or an upper limit of 3 percent of the workforce. These calculations are limited by the available data. See appendix for a technical note on these calculations.
Background image of page 02
Show entire document
Sign up to view the entire interaction

Top Answer

After working on your question, I... View the full answer

employee retention.docx

The high attrition rate is generally a big cause of worry for call centers. Job stress and job
satisfaction are generally the key factors linked to retention in case of the call center jobs,

Sign up to view the full answer

Why Join Course Hero?

Course Hero has all the homework and study help you need to succeed! We’ve got course-specific notes, study guides, and practice tests along with expert tutors.


Educational Resources
  • -

    Study Documents

    Find the best study resources around, tagged to your specific courses. Share your own to gain free Course Hero access.

    Browse Documents
  • -

    Question & Answers

    Get one-on-one homework help from our expert tutors—available online 24/7. Ask your own questions or browse existing Q&A threads. Satisfaction guaranteed!

    Ask a Question
Ask a homework question - tutors are online