Article BanksRoodt2011 PDF

Page 1 of 17 Original Research
The efficiency and quality dilemma: What drives

South African call centre management
performance indicators?
Authors: Orientation: Call centres have become principal channels of communication with customers.
Diane Banks1
Gert Roodt1
Therefore, companies attempt to reduce costs and improve the quality of their interactions
with customers simultaneously. These objectives are often conflicting and call centre managers
Affiliations: struggle to balance the efficiency and quality priorities of the business.
1
Department of Industrial
Psychology and People
Management, University of
Research purpose: This study explored the key performance indicators that drive management
Johannesburg, South Africa practices in the South African call centre industry in the context of the dilemma between
efficiency and quality.
Correspondence to:
Gert Roodt
Motivation for the study: The South African government has identified call centres as
Email: a method of creating jobs and foreign investment. Management practices affect centres’
[email protected] performance. Understanding these practices will help to achieve these aims.
Postal address:
PO Box 524, Auckland Park
Research design: The researchers used a web-based questionnaire in a survey with South
2006, South Africa African call centre managers in more than 44 different organisations that represented nine
industry sectors.
Dates:
Received: 07 Oct. 2010
Accepted: 12 Jan. 2011
Main findings: This study indicated that the dilemma between efficiency and quality is
Published: 29 Mar. 2011 prevalent in South African call centres and that efficiency key performance indicators drive
management practices.
How to cite this article:
Banks, D., & Roodt, G.
(2011). The efficiency and
Practical/managerial implications: The inconsistencies the study reported mean that South
quality dilemma: What African organisations should assess the alignment between their organisational visions, the
drives South African call strategic intentions of their call centres and the performance measures they use to assess their
centre management call centre managers.
performance indicators?
SA Journal of Human
Resource Management/ Contribution/value-add: This study adds to the relatively small amount of empirical research
SA Tydskrif vir available on the call centre industry in South Africa. It contributes to the industry’s attempt to
Menslikehulpbronbestuur, position itself favourably for local and international outsourcing opportunities.
9(1), Art. #331, 17 pages.
doi:10.4102/sajhrm.
v9i1.331
Introduction
The strategic role of call centres is changing. It has become the primary way of delivering services
and the main source of contact for customers. Companies attempt to achieve customer satisfaction
by offering their customers easy access to their services and products whilst lowering their
costs through a consolidated approach. This approach has its problems and managers struggle
to balance the efficiency and quality imperatives of their businesses. This research focuses on
these conflicting objectives and investigates the performance indicators that drive management
practices in the South African call centre industry.
An array of easily accessible measures, which call centre technology offers, enables efficiency.
These measures focus on call quantities and performance targets and offer data like:
• the number of calls waiting
• the proportion of calls answered
• the average call duration
© 2011. The Authors.
Licensee: OpenJournals • the customer waiting time.
Publishing. This work
Neely, Bourne and Kennerley (2003) suggested that there is too much measuring. Radnor
is licensed under the
Creative Commons and McGuire (2004) found that the role of call centre managers is administrative rather than
Attribution License. managerial.
http://www.sajhrm.co.za doi:10.4102/sajhrm.v9i1.331
Managers focus on efficiency measures rather than on centre managers and that the current literature has not
managing the quality of the customer experience – the investigated the ‘black box’ that links management practices
courtesy, friendliness, and enthusiasm of call centre agents to performance outcomes fully. Therefore, this paper
(CCAs). Call centre managers have to decide on practices aims to offer more insight into South African call centre
that will meet the companies’ expectations of rationalised management practices and to contribute to the industry’s
operations whilst ensuring employee wellbeing and attempt to position itself favourably for international and
customer satisfaction. local outsourcing opportunities.
Numerous researchers have investigated the conflicting In exploring management practices in South African call
nature of these call centre objectives well (Bain & Taylor, centres, the study investigates the following core research
2000; Batt, 1999; Houlihan, 2002; Kinnie, Hutchinson & question: ‘The efficiency and quality dilemma: What
Purcell, 2000; Taylor & Bain, 1999; Wallace, Eagleson drives South African call centre management performance
& Waldersee, 2000). These studies suggest that the two indicators?’ The specific research sub-objectives for this
objectives – efficiency and quality – are contradictory. Dean study are to:
and Rainnie (2009, p. 326) captured the discrepancy in their • establish whether there is a strong emphasis on
reference to the call centre as ‘a unique and contradictory operational efficiency in call centres
service environment’. • determine whether there is a predominant focus on the
quality measures of work performance in call centres
There is an increased interest in the South African call centre • determine whether there is conflict between efficiency
industry as a way of creating jobs and foreign investment. and quality measures
This has given the industry a high level of visibility. Trade • establish which performance management practices call
and Industry Minister Rob Davies stated, at the 2009 launch of centres use.
the Department of Trade and Industry investment call centre
in Soweto, that ‘the call centre is an apex government priority A secondary objective of the study is to compare South
in terms of the Cabinet Plan of Action of 2007’ (Department African call centre management practices with Australian
of Trade and Industry 2009a, para.2). Nimrod Zalk, deputy practices (where possible). This explains the frequent
director-general of the Industrial Development Division, references to Robinson and Morley (2006; 2007).
supported this. At the Business Process Outsourcing Week,
held in November 2009, Zalk suggested that the government The rest of the article is in four parts. It starts with a review
has prioritised and committed itself to the off-shoring of the existing literature relevant to these sub-objectives.
industry (Department of Trade and Industry, 2009b). A description of the research design follows. The study
then presents the results of the survey, a discussion of the
This study contributes to the research on call centres in three theoretical and managerial implications and concludes with
ways: suggestions for further research.
• There have been relatively few empirical studies on the

local call centre industry. The South African government’s Literature review
interest in call centres makes this industry important. The call centre industry has grown rapidly with the
Therefore, the study aimed to add to the body of research. development of telecommunication technology and its
• In an overview of the current literature on call centres, integration with information technology. Companies
Robinson and Morley (2007) and Russel (2008) concluded identify call centres as powerful customer channels. They
that research has concentrated on the labour processes also attempt to reduce costs and improve the quality of their
call centres use and the experiences of CCAs. This study customer interactions simultaneously.
intended to use information from call centre managers to
establish what drives call centre management practices
Holman and Wood defined a call centre as:
in South Africa and how these relate to the dilemma
a work environment in which the main business is mediated
between efficiency and quality.
by computer and telephone-based technologies that enable the
• The third addresses Burgess and Connel’s (2004)
efficient distribution of incoming calls (or allocation of outgoing
suggestion that most call centre literature comes from
calls) to available staff, and permit customer-employee interaction
case studies. This is evident in the empirical studies on simultaneously with the use of display screen equipment and
the call centre industry in South Africa. They suggested the instant access to, and inputting of, information.
that surveys should supplement the current research.
(cited in Holman, Wall, Clegg, Sparrow
This study used a survey that elicited responses from
& Howard, 2002, p. 4)
more than 44 different businesses representing nine
industry sectors. This provided a broad foundation on Christina Wood, the director of the 2007 Inaugural Contact
which to base conclusions. Centre Global Forum, stated that over 80% of all customer
Batt and Moynihan (2002, p. 18) suggested that managing interactions happen through call centres and that the
front-line employees in the technology-intensive call centre industry employs six million people worldwide in this
environment is one of the biggest challenges facing call industry (Khuzwayo, 2007).
In today’s business world, call centres are an inevitable ‘dystopian’ environments supported these opposing views.
component of service delivery. One would rarely speak to Constant monitoring, excessive surveillance, de-motivated
anybody else but a CCA to resolve a query, to find additional CCAs and high production targets characterise the latter.
information, to lodge a complaint or, in some industries, to In contrast, empowered agents, who had the flexibility and
buy a service or product. knowledge to adopt a customer-focused approach, typify
utopian environments.
Call centres have become multi-channelled communication
centres that offer fax, email, web chat and the Internet, in Houlihan (2001) found that call centre managers had become
addition to the traditional telephone, as communication preoccupied with logistics and statistics. Managers focused
channels for the customer. Companies choose call centres on predicting call peaks and used technology to manage call-
as their preferred form of interaction with customers. Call handling patterns proactively:
centres offer the first, and often the only, point of contact we witness a separation of the system management and ‘man’
and they use call centres to differentiate their products management tasks ... the call centre is taking away many of the
and services from those of their competitors (Armistead, choices managers make about how they do their job.
Kiely, Hole & Prescott, 2002). Call centres have moved from
(Houlihan, 2011, p. 212)
occupying a relatively small niche to being a significant part
of the global economy. Call centre managers were expected to maintain required
service levels (the percentage of calls answered within a
specific period) and the quality of service (the courtesy,
The call centre industry in South Africa has also experienced
friendliness, and enthusiasm the CCAs offer) without
tremendous growth. The South African National Business
exceeding operational budgets (Halliden & Monks, 2005).
Process Outsourcing (BPO) and Call Centre Report of
2008 suggested that there were about 1500 operational call
To investigate further the dilemma between efficiency and
centres. They employed between 150 000 and 170 000 CCAs
quality, in which call centre managers find themselves, the
nationally (Multimedia Group & C3Africa, 2008). This report study discusses the literature under the four research sub-
showed that most call centres were based in Gauteng (71.6%), objectives mentioned above.
that there was a tendency towards smaller centres with
fewer than twenty seats, and that South Africa was largely
Operational efficiency in call centres
a captive environment where organisations own the centre
and use it exclusively for their own purposes (65.5%). The The integration of information and computer technologies,
most significant function the centres perform is to address to optimise service delivery to customers, is central to call
the queries of customers. The financial services industry used centres. Taylor and Bain (1999, p. 115) called this integration
call centres the most. the ‘Taylorisation of white-collar work’. This is characterised
by an increase in managers’ powers, highly fragmented tasks
and extensive controlling and monitoring of employees. They
Call centres are highly measured environments. proposed that most call centres relied heavily on technology to
Developments in the computer and telephone-based increase CCAs’ production but stated that these technologies
technologies have allowed call centre managers, from their ‘cannot secure the requisite quality performance’ essential in
desks, to track the number of calls that CCAs take within any a service environment (p. 111). Frenkel et al. (1998, p. 966)
given time, the speed with which they answer the calls, the called these properties of technology ‘informative control’.
duration of the calls, the number of abandoned calls and the Robinson and Morley (2007, p. 250) suggested that the
time that CCAs spend off the phone. In fact, managers are manager’s role has changed from ‘that of active investigator,
able to monitor every minute that CCAs spend in the office. director and overseer of work activities to that of monitor
In addition to these quantitative measures, calls are recorded. and evaluator of the worker’s performance’.
This enables managers to listen to conversations in order to
assess the CCAs’ tone of voice, enthusiasm and friendliness. The development of sophisticated electronic monitoring and
the extensive use of data in managing operational efficiency
The focus on monitoring performance has elicited various resulted in the critical assessment of call centres as the ideal
investigations into the effect that this practice has on CCAs environment to exercise ‘Panopticon’ control (Foucault,
and managers. Some authors defined the CCAs’ work as 1997). Panopticon refers to a prison design that Jeremy
closely monitored and controlled by technology, typically Bentham proposed more than two hundred years ago. This
very routine and monotonous with little opportunity for design allowed the wardens to observe and control prisoners
personal discretion and poorly paid (Bain, Watson, Mulvey, continuously without the prisoners seeing them – ‘the
Taylor & Gall, 2002; Taylor & Bain, 1999). Panopticon induces in the prisoner a state of congruence and
permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning
Others presented a more positive picture. They suggested of power’ (Robinson & Morley, 2007, p. 250). Foucault (1997)
that call centre work varied widely and that there were used this design as a metaphor for describing call centre
environments that offered CCAs some flexibility and practices. Fernie and Metcalf (1998, p. 9) suggested that ‘the
discretion (Deery & Kinnie, 2002; Frenkel, Tam, Korczynski agents are constantly visible and the supervisor’s power
& Shire, 1998; Korczynski, 2002). Richardson and Howcroft has been rendered perfect via the computer monitoring
(2006, p. 60), in their classification of call centres as ‘utopian’ or screen.’
Authors like Bain and Taylor (2000); Barnes (2004); There is a broad stream of literature that suggests that service
Richardson and Howcroft (2006); and Robinson and Morley quality is an important determinant of customer satisfaction
(2007) contested this view. They suggested that the claim and that the level of service differentiates companies from
of complete managerial control denied the existence and their competitors. The type of management practice call
importance of CCAs’ resistance to control structures. In centres use affects employees’ ability to provide the required
addition to this, Robinson and Morley (2007) stated that, service level. This in turn affects the sustainable success of
although it was evident that centres used efficiency data to the centre (Fisher, Milner & Chandraprakash, 2007; Little &
monitor performance, the managers’ intentions were more Dean, 2006; Moshavi & Terborg, 2002; Sergeant & Frenkel,
than pure control. 2000). This survey undertook to explore whether call centres
in South Africa focus on the service quality necessary for
customer satisfaction. Therefore, the second hypothesis of
The Global Call Centre Report (Holman, Batt & Holtgrewe,
this study is:
2007) explored 2500 call centres in 17 countries. They found
that using data from call centre technology was a widespread Hypothesis 2: The customer and the quality of the
activity. In this regard, call centres in South Africa ranked interaction with the customer are important to South
amongst those with the highest degree of call centre African call centre managers.
monitoring (Benner, Lewis & Omar, 2007).
The conflict between efficiency and quality
This study aimed to investigate the extent to which call
The literature indicates that efficiency and quality are both
centres in South Africa used efficiency measures. This led to
important for ensuring customer satisfaction (Armistead
the first hypothesis of the study: et al., 2002; Feinberg et al., 2000; Frenkel et al., 1998). There
Hypothesis 1: There is a high focus on efficiency in South is, however, a concern about balancing the management
African call centres. of efficiency with that of quality. Batt & Moynihan, 2002;
Hart et al., 2009; Houlihan, 2002 suggest that they are two
contradictory objectives and that it is not always possible to
Quality work performance achieve both simultaneously. The interest in the practices
The wide variety of call centre technologies available focuses that call centres use to manage this conflict has resulted in
mainly on a common goal – to offer quality interactions that various research activities.
satisfy customers.
In their study of the information technology (IT) service
Feinberg, Ik-Suk, Hokama, De Ruyter and Keen (2000) company, Fijitsu Services, Marr and Parry (2004) provided
undertook an empirical study to assess the predictors of evidence that a focus on efficiency measures could be
customer satisfaction. They identified 13 critical elements counter-productive to achieving customer satisfaction. In
in general use and assessed how they related to caller support of this, Dean and Rainnie (2009, p. 332) referred to
satisfaction. The data from 514 call centres showed that ‘the clash of operational efficiency with customer demands’
most of the operational measures they use calculated the and used focus groups to identify the organisational factors
efficiency of the call centre. The authors concluded that ‘we that affected service quality. They reported that the measures
make important what we can measure ... the technological call centres used were not necessarily conducive to ensuring
developments in the call centre industry may be the driver quality service and that CCAs favoured productivity targets
of what we think is important in call centres’ (p. 131). In because these measures were more visible, frequently used
their assessment of the call centre literature, Aksin, Armony and linked to job security.
and Mehrotra (2007) proposed that it was necessary for call
centres to develop a better understanding of customers’ A study focusing on call centre management responsibilities
quality expectations and how these relate to the qualitative in Australia found that managers preferred customer
and quantitative management practices call centres use. service as a key performance indicator. However, in their
quest to satisfy company requirements, they paid more
In a competitive business environment, achieving customer attention to quantitative measures (Robinson & Morley,
satisfaction is a strategic necessity and a primary objective. In 2006). Richardson and Howcroft (2006, p. 78) explored the
their exploratory cross-sectional study in seven call centres inconsistency between system objectives and outcomes
in the Western Cape, Hart, Chiang and Tupochere (2009) and talked about ‘the contradictions and tensions that exist
reported that most managers believe that service quality in call centre work’. Deery and Kinnie (2002); Frenkel et al.
was critical to the operational success of the call centres. The (1998); Kinnie et al. (2000); and Taylor and Bain (1999) also
2008 Contact Center Satisfaction Index indicated that 95% highlighted the competing expectations of cost-reducing
of customers who had satisfying experiences with CCAs management practices with the need to make customers feel
would do business with the company again (Teodoru, 2008). important and valued.
The American Customer Satisfaction Index concurred and
illustrated a significant link between customer satisfaction In addition to the evidence from the literature that supports
and organisational profitability (Fornell, Mithas, Morgeson the dilemma between efficiency and quality, call centres
& Krishnan, 2006). employ some practices that promote this conflict.
Most big call centres have electronic information boards that in action. Discretion refers to the extent to which CCAs can
display real-time data about the number of calls waiting, the make personal decisions when dealing with customers. High
proportion of calls answered and the average waiting time commitment practice suggests strategies like high discretion,
– call statistics they use to manage call quantities. It is very job scope, job security and involvement initiatives.
seldom that these boards display any data about the quality
of responses. Benner et al. (2007) found that the boards give This study found little evidence of an in-depth application
feedback on the quantitative performance of CCAs more of high commitment practices and suggested that the focus
often than feedback and coaching related to the quality of was rather on the quantity of calls and performance targets.
the interactions. Managers were reluctant to compromise efficiency for
quality service or employee well-being. Wallace et al. (2000,
In a study of the efficiency and service quality of an Israeli call p. 174) referred to the adoption of a ‘sacrificial HR strategy’.
centre, Raz and Blank (2007) presented the contrast between Managers sacrificed employee well-being to achieve
the verbal declarations of managers about the integration efficiency and accepted burnout and high turnover as part of
of quantity and quality and its collapse in the workplace. the management strategy.
Houlihan (2001, p. 232) proposed that ‘call centres are rooted
in contradictory and structural paradoxes, and confront a Frenkel et al. (1998) offered a more positive picture. They
number of trade-offs on that basis’. In their analysis of the suggested an approach where work organisation was
literature about conflicting call centre objectives, Robinson standardised but which included some elements of flexibility
and Morley (2007, p. 255) concluded ‘the efficiency imperative and discretion.
predominates and most call centres are run along Taylorist
lines’. A more recent study, undertaken by D’Cruz and Noronha
(2007), also reflected this positive portrayal. It focused on the
The literature suggests a tension between call centres’ desire experiences of CCAs who worked in a technical call centre
for customer service and their preferred focus on operational in India. They described an environment with complex
efficiency. Despite the fact that call centres may claim to have tasks that required specialised skills and offered variety,
a focus on service quality, the actual practices offer a different autonomy and less standardised processes. In South Africa,
message. This discrepancy leads to the third hypothesis of Hart et al. (2009) offered evidence that the seven call centres
this study: explored in the Western Cape had a tendency towards a
more empowered approach.
Hypothesis 3: The Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)
allocated to the role of call centre managers in South
In contrast to most studies, Houlihan (2001, 2002) focused
Africa focus on efficiency measures.
on how call centre managers experienced the conflicting
requirements associated with the job. She found that they
Management practices did not always adopt some practices by choice. Instead, the
task-focused environment prescribed them. Work processes
The literature to date has indicated that call centres are not all
were centrally determined within the wider context of the
managed in the same manner and much research has focused
organisation. Managers were ultimately accountable to
on the outcome of the different practices (Frenkel et al., 1998;
the business and unable to ignore the company’s focus on
Taylor & Bain, 1999; Taylor, Mulvey, Hyman & Bain, 2002).
cost efficiency. Houlihan argued that, in many instances,
managers were not empowered to manage and concluded
Call centres tended to adopt the classic mass production
that, like CCAs, managers also faced confusing organisational
model associated with assembly lines. Here functions
demands and conflicting role requirements. Raz and Blank
are highly specialised, skill requirements minimal and (2007) talked about competing directives. Robinson and
discretion disappears in favour of repetitive tasks. Batt and Morley (2006) stated that managers focused on performance
Moynihan (2002, p. 16) suggested that the mass production efficiency to satisfy company requirements. Based on these
model assumed that a job could be designed as ‘turn-over arguments, the study proposes a fourth hypothesis:
proof’ with workers as ‘replaceable parts’. They researched
the economic viability of three models of service delivery Hypothesis 4: Despite the focus on efficiency measures,
and concluded that call centres seldom used a professional South African call centre managers prefer qualitative Key
service model with high quality individualised services and Performance Indicators.
a focus on training and knowledge.
Conclusions about the literature review
In a study of four call centres in Gauteng, Fisher, Miller The quandary that managers face has become more diverse
and Thatcher (2007, p. 48) found that South African call and complex with the ‘two boss phenomenon’ – efficiency
centre management practices ‘have a historic disposition demands from the company and quality demands from the
towards control and Taylorism’ and focused on production customer (Russel, 2008, p. 202). Despite the extensive growth
irrespective of the conceptual service model. and development of the industry, this conflict still appears
to be relevant. The effect of globalisation and the growing
Some studies have investigated the relationship between practice of outsourcing exacerbate it. The rationale for this
control and empowerment. Houlihan (2002) used four British practice is reduced costs and this provides the impetus for
call centres to examine low discretion and high commitment efficiency-driven management practices (Russel, 2008).
Based on the literature that supports this conflict, this the 2010 Call Centre Conference that Knowledge Resources
study aims to explore what drives South African call centre hosted and identified call centres from the telephone
management KPIs and how these indicators relate to the directory as well as the Internet. They approached personnel
dilemma between efficiency and quality in which managers agencies, human resource departments, training companies
find themselves. and consultants operating in the call centre industry. Some
agreed to distribute the questionnaire to their respective
Research design client bases.
This study discusses the research design under the sub- Of the 180 questionnaires circulated, respondents returned
headings of ‘research approach’ and ‘research method’. Where 111 usable questionnaires. This is a response rate of 62%.
similar information was available, it drew comparisons with The 130 questionnaires the Robinson and Morley (2006,
the Australian study of Robinson and Morley (2006, 2007). 2007) survey used showed a similar response rate. Some
organisations have more than one call centre and the
Research approach returned questionnaires represented more than 44 different
The researchers used a quantitative, cross-sectional approach South African businesses.
to develop an outsider’s perspective of the management
practices at call centres in South Africa and gives accurate In terms of the 1342 call centres in the Contact Industry Hub
descriptions of them (Huysamen, 1998). database, the number of responses for this survey does not
seem to represent the whole population. However, most call
The researchers conducted a survey using a web-based centre literature comes from case studies and focuses on a
questionnaire that they adapted from the Robinson and few organisations (Burgess & Connel, 2004).
Morley (2006, 2007) study that assessed the management
responsibilities in Australian call centres. Compared to the Australian survey, on 37 large companies,
the questionnaires the researchers used in this study
Statkon, a statistical consultancy associated with the represent more than 44 different businesses from nine
University of Johannesburg, hosted the questionnaire. It industry sectors. Because most of the empirical studies on
collated all the responses. the South African call centre industry have been case studies,
the number of participating organisations and the variety of
The researchers did correlation data analysis to assess industry sectors in this study is a sufficiently broad base from
whether, and how strongly, variables related to each other. which to describe the management practices call centres in
South Africa use.
Research method
Four headings present the research method: Table 1 gives some insight into the different industry sectors
represented in the sample and indicates that most of the
• sample and sampling procedure respondents came from a financial services environment.
• measuring instrument The South African National BPO and Call Centre report
• research procedure (Multimedia Group & C3Africa, 2008) supports this. It found
• data analysis. that there were more call centres in this sector than in any
other of the industries. The table also shows that most of the
Sample and sampling procedure participating call centres have between 51 and 100 seats and
The target population for this study was call centre managers there was a higher number of smaller call centres. This is
in South Africa. C3Africa Research and The Multimedia consistent with the 2008 report.
Group did a comprehensive market analysis of the local call
centre industry and published the South African National In contrast, Robinson and Morley (2006, 2007) used large call
BPO and Call Centre report (Multimedia Group & C3Africa, centres with a minimum of 100 employees for their study.
2008). This report used the database of their web-based Participating centres managed both in-bound and outbound
information resource, the Contact Industry Hub. It contained calls, 77% have been operational for more than five years and
1342 call centres. 31.3% indicated an annual attrition rate of less than 5%. This
relatively low attrition rate was evident in both the South
The researchers adopted various approaches whilst African National BPO and Call Centre report (Multimedia
developing the sampling frame to target as many call centre Group & C3Africa, 2008). They showed an attrition rate of
managers from as many industries as possible. Andy Quinan, above 45%. The Robinson and Morley (2006, 2007) survey
from C3Africa, placed the survey on the Contact Industry showed that 33% of their participating call centres had an
Hub website and advertised it in its newsletter on 10 March annual attrition rate of less than 5%.
2010.
The responses further reported that most of the call centres
The researchers extracted call centre managers from an existing in this sample operated seven days a week, 24 hours a day.
client and contact list, approached potential participants at As with the Robinson and Morley (2006) survey, the results
TABLE 1: Demographic details of participating call centres. Table 2 gives some characteristics of the respondents for this
Demographic details N % and the Australian survey. The similar results indicate an
Industry sector even spread between male and female call centre managers,
Financial services 49 47.1 with the majority being in the 31 to 40 age group. Most
Telecommunications 36 34.6 participants in the South African study have occupied their
Retail or fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) 12 11.5 current positions as managers for more than four years and
Utilities 6 5.8
have been call centre agents before.
Entertainment or hospitality 5 4.8
Travel 4 3.8
Health 3 2.9 Measuring instrument
IT 2 1.9 The study aimed to describe call centre management
Government 2 1.9 practices in ways similar to those of Robinson and Morley
Total 119a − (2006). Therefore, the researchers developed a questionnaire
Number of seats that contained 33 questions using the 2006 study as a starting
Less than 50 24 24.0
point.
51–100 31 31.0
101–200 16 16.0
Professor Clive Morley offered a copy of, and permission to
201–300 10 10.0
adapt, their survey. The researchers were careful to remove
301–500 4 4.0
unrelated items to ensure that all the questions addressed
More than 500 15 15.0
Total 100 b −
the hypotheses of this study. They drew on the literature to
Call types
design additional questions about performance management
Inbound 23 23.2 practices. The questionnaire included closed and open-ended
Outbound 8 8.1 items. The researchers offered sufficient options to reduce
In or outbound 68 68.7 possible bias and included open-ended questions to elicit
Total 99b − additional insights to supplement the quantitative survey
Annual attrition % data.
Less than 5 30 31.3
5–10 27 28.1 The researchers did a pilot test of the questionnaire with four
10–20 28 29.2 call centre managers, who had extensive experience in the
More than 20 11 11.5 industry, to ensure further validity. These managers gave
Total 96b − feedback about the relevance of each item, the clarity of the
Years operational questions, the structure of the survey and the time that it took
1–5 23 23.0 to complete. Their insights contributed to ensuring that the
More than 5 77 77.0 questions were clear and likely to elicit accurate information
Total 100 b − to measure what the survey intended to. As in the Robinson
a
, some respondents chose more than one sector to describe their call centres. There
was more than one call centre in some organisations; b, not all respondents gave
and Morley (2006) study, the researchers considered the time
responses. constraints of the call centre managers in the design. It took
N, number of participating call centres.
about 15 minutes to complete.
TABLE 2: Characteristics of call centre managers in South Africa and Australia. In an attempt to identify the consistency of the responses
Characteristics South Africa Australia and to explore the concepts from different angles, the
N % % researchers cross-referenced responses with different items.
Gender
They improved the reliability of the data by using a good
Male 55 48.0 48
sample size and ensuring that respondents had the necessary
Female 56 52.0 52
experience as call centre managers to offer meaningful
Age (years)
20–30 28 25.0 16
responses.
31–40 48 43.0 47
Over 40 35 32.0 37 The questionnaire fell into five sections to orientate the
Time in current position (years) respondents and to improve clarity (Babbie & Mouton, 2001).
Fewer than 1 12 11.0 − The discussion that follows offers more information about
1–4 46 42.2 − the content of the different sections of the questionnaire.
More than 4 51 46.8 −
Previously a call centre agent Sections 1, 2 and 3 – The call centre manager, the organisation
Yes 72 64.9 − and the call centre: The first three sections included general
No 39 35.1 − information about the manager, the organisation, and the
N, number of call centre managers. set-up of the particular call centre. This was to give a better
understanding of the context in which the centre used its
indicated that the participating call centres had several management practices.
attributes. This illustrated that the findings were not limited
to a particular type of centre and made the results valid and Section 1 dealt with biographical details about the call centre
reliable. manager. They included age, gender, time in current position
and previous experience as a call centre agent (items 1.1

to 1.5). Section 2 explored the organisation in terms of its
Research results
industry sector, its mission and vision (items 2.1 and 2.2). To present the results of the 111 returned questionnaires,
The third section enquired about the number of seats in the the researchers used the research hypotheses to structure
call centre, the operating hours, the type of calls it handled, the information. Where possible, they compared the results
the number of years that it has been operational, the annual to those from the Robinson and Morley (2006) study. The
agent turnover rate and the focus of the centre (items 3.1 to researchers used the response frequencies to the items to
3.8). assess each hypothesis. They are discussed and a summary
of the results concludes this section.
Section 4 – Performance measurement practices: This section
gathered information about the call centre’s performance Hypothesis 1 – There is a high focus on efficiency in South
measuring practices, like call monitoring, the use of display African call centres: The researchers used a variety of items
boards, the customer satisfaction measures it uses and the to identify which measures call centres in South Africa
coaching activities it undertakes (items 4.1 to 4.11). focused on: items 4.2, 4.4, 4.6, 4.8, and 4.10.
Section 5 – The role of call centre manager: Section 5 The Robinson and Morley (2006, 2007) survey reported that
addressed issues about the role of the call centre manager. 91% of call centres in Australia used call monitoring. Table
Respondents identified those aspects of their jobs that they 3 illustrates this high preference in South Africa as well
enjoyed most and least (items 5.1 and 5.2). The researchers (96%). This table presents the frequency distributions for
grouped these responses into target-driven activities and items that address the most important measures call centres
people-management activities. The researchers explored the use in monitoring calls (item 4.2) and in assessing customer
KPIs firstly by asking the respondents to identify the three satisfaction (item 4.6).
highest-weighted indicators that were allocated to their roles
(item 5.4) and then to write their own KPIs specifying the These results show that respondents identified the quality
three most important indicators (item 5.5). Respondents had of the interactions with customers as the main aspect that
to select measures that they felt determined the success of call centres used in monitoring calls (75.5%) compared to
their call centres (item 5.7) and identify the first performance efficiency measures, like the average call handling time and
measure that they looked at when they had been absent from the number of calls taken. To support this, the researchers
the office. The researchers excluded responses to an item that identified the quality of interactions as the most important
identified the single biggest constraint to executing the role measure call centres used to assess customer satisfaction in
of call centre manager from the study because of a technical item 4.6 (65.9%). The Australian survey indicated that 58%
error on the web-based questionnaire (item 5.3). of call centres used call monitoring, customer surveys and
waiting times as measures of customer service standards.
Research procedure
Table 4 presents the results for item 4.8. This examined
Robinson and Morley (2006) distributed their questionnaire the measures managers use to evaluate the quality of
via mail to two hundred call centre managers. For this survey, service. Contrary to the results presented thus far, 48.9% of
the researchers sent 180 respondents an emailed invitation participating managers ranked compliance with business
to participate in the survey. This clarified the procedures, processes as the most important. The CCAs’ politeness to
offered the link to the website, explained the broad aims of customers (35.6%) followed.
the study and emphasised anonymity and confidentiality.
To increase the response rate, the researchers personalised These two measures were also the most important aspects
invitations where possible and offered the respondents a of the coaching activities of the call centres in item 4.10.
summary of the findings in exchange for their participation. However, it is important to note that businesses usually
The researchers collected data over a period of two months, design their processes to ensure that customers’ requests are
starting in February 2010. They sent two email reminders to managed effectively within the structure of the organisations.
encourage participation during this period. Therefore, these focus on satisfying the organisational
and customers’ needs. This is a possible reason for these
Data analysis apparently different results.
The web-based questionnaire enabled the capture of all data

Table 5 records the results for items 4.3 and 4.4. The
directly into a central database that expedited the processing researchers recorded disparate results for item 4.4. This
of the data. The researchers gave the frequency distributions enquired about the measures call centres used on the
of the responses and did cross tabulations to assess the monitoring display boards. A total of 78% of call centres in
relationship between variables. The frequency distributions Australia and 67.7% of centres in South Africa used display
indicated a clear preference for certain variables, with the boards. Only 12.3% of call centres in South Africa that used
result that there was not the required minimum number of these boards displayed qualitative measures. Table 5 reports
responses in some of the cross tabulation cells to perform the frequencies for the four variables in this item. It suggests
the Chi-Square test. As in the Robinson and Morley (2006, that display boards usually displayed information like
2007) study, the researchers adopted a descriptive approach the number of calls waiting and average waiting time, the
to present the results of the survey. number of available agents and the number of abandoned
TABLE 3: Call monitoring, monitoring measures and customer satisfaction measures.

Item measured Rank importance N %
Item 4.1: Do you use call monitoring in your call centre?
Yes − 96 96.0
No − 4 4.0
Item 4.2: What is the one most important aspect to monitor?
Average handling time − 12 12.8
Quality of interaction − 71 75.5
Number of calls taken − 11 11.7
Item 4.6: Rank the items in terms of their importance in measuring customer satisfaction
Number of abandoned calls 1st 8 9.8
2nd 28 34.1
3rd 46 56.1
Quality of interaction 1st 54 65.9
2nd 18 22.0
3rd 10 12.2
Number of calls answered in x seconds 1st 20 24.4
2nd 36 43.9
3rd 26 31.7
N, used as means of number.
TABLE 4: Measures of service quality and aspects to coach.

Measures Rank importance
Most important 2nd 3rd 4th 5th
N % N % N % N % N %
Item 4.6: Rank the importance of each item in measuring service
quality
Average handling time 4 4.4 16 17.8 16 17.8 31 34.4 23 25.6
Compliance with business processes 44 48.9 21 23.3 17 18.9 5 5.6 3 3.3
Number of calls taken 4 4.4 6 6.7 14 15.6 31 34.4 35 38.9
Politeness towards customers 32 35.6 32 35.6 17 18.9 8 8.9 1 1.1
Adherence to script 6 6.7 15 16.7 26 28.9 15 16.7 28 31.1
Item 4.10: What are the three most important aspects to coach?
Number of calls taken 16 6.6 − − − − − − − −
Average handling time 28 11.5 − − − − − − − −
Adherence to script 46 18.9 − − − − − − − −
Politeness to customers 77 31.7 − − − − − − − −
Compliance with business processes 76 31.3 − − − − − − − −
calls. However, it is important to note that call centres use Of the responses that identified customers as the focus of
some quantitative measures, like the number of calls waiting the call centre, table 7 illustrates that 78.4% also indicated
and average waiting time, as indicators of the level of service the quality of the interaction with customers as the most
they offer to customers. Therefore, the researchers achieved important measure in call monitoring.
the first objective of the study.
The responses to item 2.2 further supported the importance

Hypothesis 2 – The customer and the quality of the
of the customer. Here, most call centre managers (78%)
interaction with the customer are important to South
indicated that their organisations mentioned customer service
African call centre managers: Table 6 presents the results for
in their vision or mission statements. The questionnaire
items 3.6 and 4.5. These asked call centre managers to select
asked respondents to quote sections from the statements that
the most important focus of their centres and whether they
measured customer satisfaction. were most relevant to their call centres. Responses report the
examples that follow:
The results showed that 84.5% of participating call centres • a total focus on customer needs to meet or exceed their
measured customer service. The majority of participants expectations at all times
(77.6%) ranked customers as the most important and statistics • inspiring and leading our clients and our people on a
and agents as the least important focus of the call centres. journey to deliver exceptional customer experiences
The Robinson and Morley (2006, 2007) survey reported that • to allow clients to focus on their core business by
97% of call centres in Australia measured customer service providing tailored and responsive customer service
standards and that 38% of respondents chose ‘customers solutions that improve service quality and exceed client
mattered’ as most descriptive of their call centres. and end-user satisfaction, loyalty and expectations.
TABLE 5: Monitoring boards.

Results N %
Item 4.3: Does your call centre have call monitoring display boards visible to the agents?
Yes 65 67.7
No 31 32.3
Item 4.4: What information is displayed on these boards?
Number of calls waiting or average waiting time 60 36.8
Number of available agents 43 26.4
Qualitative performance scores 20 12.3
Number of abandoned calls 36 22.1
TABLE 6: The focus of the call centre.

Results Rank importance
1st 2nd 3rd
N % N % N %
Item 3.6: What is the most important focus of your call centre?
Statistics matter 11 11.2 23 23.5 64 65.3
Agents matter 11 11.2 58 59.2 29 29.6
Customers matter 76 77.6 17 17.3 5 5.1
Item 4.5: Do you measure customer satisfaction?
Yes 82 − 84.5 − − −
No 15 − 15.5 − − −
The Robinson and Morley study (2006, 2007) confirmed the Eighty participants completed this item. The results in table
importance of customers. Here, 89% of respondents indicated 8 indicate that 26.3% of respondents listed a quantitative
that their companies referred to customer service in their indicator as the highest-weighted KPI allocated to the role of
mission statements, visions or values. The focus on more call centre manager. A financial indicator (23.8%) followed.
qualitative measures, as reported in items 4.2 and 4.6, further
supported the suggestion that customers and the quality The various combinations of KPIs further confirmed the
of the interactions with customers were important to call preference for quantitatively allocated indicators. Of the
centre managers in South Africa. Therefore, the researchers 26.3% of respondents who listed a quantitative indicator as
achieved the second objective of the study. the highest-weighted KPI, 22.2% listed the same category for
the other two KPIs. This suggested that the three highest-
Hypothesis 3 – The Key Performance Indicators allocated
weighted KPIs allocated to the role were quantitative. Of
to the role of call centre manager in South Africa focus on
the 16.3% of responses that indicated a qualitative indicator
efficiency measures: To investigate the roles of call centre
as having the highest weight, 33.3% listed quantitative
managers, item 5.4 asked participants to list the three highest-
indicators for the other two KPIs. When respondents listed
weighted KPIs allocated to their roles. The researchers
a financial indicator as having the highest weight, 22.2% of
identified four categories from the responses. These were:
respondents offered a quantitative indicator for the other
• quantitative indicators, like the number of abandoned two KPIs. The Robinson and Morley (2006) survey reported
calls and service levels similar results. Here 37% of call centre managers listed a
• qualitative indicators, like the quality of audits and quantitative measure as the most important KPI. Only 15%
coaching activities reported a qualitative indicator.
• financial indicators, like gross profit and achieving
budgets Item 5.8 supported the focus on quantitative indicators in call
• indicators that focus on customer satisfaction. centre managers’ KPIs. This enquired about the first single
TABLE 7: Cross tabulation of the measures used in call monitoring and the importance of the customer in the call centre focus.
Results Item 4.2: Most important measure used in call monitoring
Average call handling time Quality of interaction with Number of calls taken
customer
N % N % N %
Item 3.6: The importance of the customer in the call centre focus
Most important 9 12.2 58 78.4 7 9.5
Second most important 3 18.8 10 62.5 3 18.8
Third most important 0 0.0 3 75.0 1 25.0
Item 2.2: Does your organisation mention customer service in its
vision/mission statement?
Yes 81 78.6 − − − −
No 22 21.4 − − − −
TABLE 8: Highest-weighted KPIs allocated to call centre managers. same four categories as for item 5.4 and reported the results in
Item 5.4: Highest-weighted KPIs N % table 11. These suggest that most respondents offered
Quantitative indicators 21 26.3 qualitative (25.7%) and customer satisfaction indicators
Qualitative indicators 13 16.3 (23%) as their preferred KPIs. It also yields similar results
Financial indicators 19 23.8 to the Robinson and Morley (2006) study, where 37%
Customer satisfaction 13 16.3 of respondents listed an indicator related to customer
satisfaction and service measures.
TABLE 9: The first performance measure call centre managers look at if they have Item 5.1 highlighted the South African managers’ preference
been out of the office.
for qualitative indicators. This asked what the managers
Item 5.4: Highest-weighted KPIs N %
enjoyed most in their roles. The results in table 12 suggest
Quantitative indicators 21 26.3
that 60.9% of managers preferred the people management
Qualitative indicators 13 16.3
Financial indicators 19 23.8
activities, like developing and empowering people,
Customer satisfaction 13 16.3
interfacing with customers and staff and working with a
N, used as means of number. group to achieve the required outcomes. In contrast to this,
11.5% of respondents preferred activities, like monitoring and
analysing call centre statistics for projections and scheduling
TABLE 10: Measures reported to senior managers. in order to meet monthly targets.
Item 5.6: Three most important measures N %
reported to senior managers
Number of calls answered within X seconds 40 17.2
Table 13 shows that, of the 26.3% of respondents who listed
Average handling time (call duration 11 4.7
a quantitative indicator as the highest-weighted KPI, 60%
and wrap-up) indicated that they enjoyed people-management activities
Service quality offered by agent 61 26.2 most. Managers also identified the quality of service agents
Number of calls taken 31 13.3 offered (26.7%) and the customer satisfaction rating (25.4%)
Abandoned calls 23 9.9 as measures that determine the success of call centres for item
Customer satisfaction rating 45 19.3 5.7. Robinson and Morley (2006) similarly reported that 58%
Number of coaching sessions 22 9.4 of managers ranked measures related to customer service as
most important for their call centres.
performance measure that managers checked when they had Both studies showed a very clear preference for measures
been out of the office. Table 9 presents the results for this item associated with the quality of service and customer
and suggests that 27.8% of managers looked at the number satisfaction as opposed to those measures that address the
of calls answered within a specific period. The agents’ quantitative aspects of call centres. The frequencies in the
service quality (22.2%) followed. It is interesting to note the South African study for quantitative measures, like the
low customer satisfaction rating (13.3%). A possible reason number of calls agents took (2.5%), the number of abandoned
calls (2.5%), and the average call handling time (3.4%) were
for this could be that service levels are part of the customer
all relatively low.
satisfaction measure. This quantitative measure gives call
centre managers some insight into how long customers wait
The results shown in table 14 are interesting. This is a cross
for service. Therefore, it indicates the level of service that call tabulation of items 5.4 and 4.2. Item 5.4 listed the highest-
centres offer. weighted KPIs allocated to managers and item 4.2 identified
the one most important aspect to measure in monitoring
In the interviews they conducted with six call centre calls. The frequency distribution suggests a strong preference
managers, Robinson and Morley (2006) reported similar for the qualitative measure in monitoring calls, irrespective
results and suggested that most managers first looked of the type of KPI allocated to managers. Therefore, the
at measures related to the productivity of the call centre researchers have achieved the fourth objective of the study.
and considered these more important to report to senior
managers. In contrast, table 10 shows that the three most The results suggest that customers were the focus of call
important measures reported to senior managers in South centres in both South Africa and Australia and that the
African call centres were the quality of service the agents quality of the interaction with customers was important
to call centre managers. This interaction with customers
offer (26.2%), the customer satisfaction rating (19.3%), and
was highly emphasised in the call monitoring activities, as
the level of service (17.2%). Therefore, the researchers have
was assessing the levels of customer satisfaction. Response
achieved the third research objective of this study.
frequencies for quantitative measures, like the number of
calls, the average call handling time, the number of calls
Hypothesis 4 – Despite the focus on efficiency measures, within a specific period and the number of abandoned calls
South African call centre managers prefer qualitative Key were relatively low.
Performance Indicators: Item 5.5 asked the respondents
what the three most important KPIs would be if they had Despite this preference for qualitative measures, the
to write their own indicators. The researchers identified the information offered to CCAs on monitoring display boards
TABLE 11: Preferred KPIs for call centre managers in South Africa and Australia. The care the researchers took in designing the questionnaire,
Preferred KPIs N % the pre-testing and because the sample represented many
Item 5.5: South African preferred KPIs different types of call centres from various industry sectors,
Quantitative indicators 11 14.9 supported the reliability of these results. The responses were
Qualitative indicators 19 25.7 therefore not restricted to a particular type of call centre, its
Financial indicators 12 16.2
size, industry or function.
Customer satisfaction 17 23.0
Australian preferred KPIs
Level of service − 20.0 Discussion
Sales − 17.0
Call centres have become the primary source of contact
Cost − 7.0
for customers for companies attempting to reduce costs
Customer satisfaction or service − 37.0
and improve the quality of their customer interactions
simultaneously. Research has proposed that these objectives
– quality and efficiency – are contradictory and that managers
TABLE 12: Functions and measures that determine success that the managers struggle to balance these company imperatives (Batt, 1999;
enjoyed most.
N %
Bain & Taylor, 2000; Wallace et al., 2000; Houlihan, 2002;
Functions and measures
Item 5.1: What you enjoy most in your role as call
Kinnie et al., 2000; Raz & Blank, 2007; Taylor & Bain, 1999).
centre manager?
Target-driven activities 10 11.5 The purpose of this research was to investigate the
People-management activities 53 60.9 management practices call centres in South African use in
Other 24 27.6 ways similar to the Robinson and Morley (2006) study in the
Item 5.7: Three measures that determine the success
of the call centre
context of the dilemma between efficiency and quality.
Staff turnover 29 12.3
Number of calls answered within X seconds 18 7.6 In South Africa, the call centre industry has been identified as
Number of abandoned calls 6 2.5 an important source of creating jobs and foreign investment.
Average handling time (call duration and wrap-up) 8 3.4 Despite this, there have been relatively few empirical studies
Number of calls taken by agent 6 2.5 on the local industry and, as Burgess and Connel (2004)
Customer satisfaction rating 60 25.4 suggested, most of the literature comes from case studies.
Agent occupancy rate 12 5.1
Service quality offered by agent 63 26.7 This study conducted a survey with call centre managers
Effectiveness of technology 34 14.4
from more than 44 different organisations, representing nine
industry sectors. It aimed to supplement the comparatively
small base of empirical literature and to contribute to the
focused mostly on quantitative measures like the number South African call centre industry’s attempt to position itself
favourably for both local and international outsourcing
of calls waiting and average waiting time, the number of
available agents, and the number of abandoned calls. In opportunities.
addition, the highest-weighted KPIs allocated to call centre
managers in both countries appeared to be quantitative. The researchers explored the core research question – ‘The
efficiency and quality dilemma: What drives South African
Both studies suggested that the number of calls CCAs call centre management performance indicators?’ using these
answered within a specific period was the first performance sub-objectives:
measure that managers checked when they had been out of • to establish whether there is a high focus on operational
the office. In contrast to this, managers reported that their efficiency in call centres
personal choice was qualitative KPIs and indicators that • to determine if there is a predominant focus on the quality
focused on customer satisfaction and that they enjoyed the measures of work performance in call centres
people-management activities associated with their jobs • to determine whether there is conflict between efficiency
most. Further, managers identified qualitative measures, and quality measures
like the quality of service agents offered and the customer • to establish which performance management practices
satisfaction rating, as critical for the success of call centres. call centres use.
TABLE 13: Cross tabulation of the aspects managers enjoyed most and the highest-weighted allocated KPIs.
Item 5.4 Highest-weighted allocated KPIs Item 5.1: Aspects most enjoyed in role
Target driven activities People management activities Other
N % N % N %
Quantitative indicators 5 25.0 12 60.0 3 15.0
Qualitative indicators 0 0.0 10 76.9 3 23.1
Financial indicators 1 5.6 11 61.1 6 33.3
Customer satisfaction 1 7.7 8 61.5 4 30.8
TABLE 14: Cross tabulation of the highest-weighted allocated KPIs and the most important measures in monitoring calls.
Item 5.4: Highest- weighted allocated KPIs Item 4.2: Most important measure to monitor
Average call handling time Quality of interaction with Number of calls taken
customer
N % N % N %
Quantitative indicators 3 16.7 14 77.8 1 5.6
Qualitative indicators 1 7.7 9 69.2 3 23.1
Financial indicators 4 21.1 14 73.7 1 5.3
Customer satisfaction 1 7.7 11 84.6 1 7.7
A secondary objective of the study was to compare South In contrast, Hart et al. (2009) researched seven call centres in
African call centre management practices with Australian Cape Town and found that managers favoured measures that
practices (where possible). This explains the frequent focus on customers’ experiences rather than those that focus
references to Robinson and Morley (2006; 2007). only on agent productivity. Robinson and Morley’s 2006
Australian study confirms this preference. They reported
This section begins with a discussion of the first two objectives that call centre managers regarded customer service as their
under the combined heading of operational efficiency and main responsibility.
the focus on quality in call centres. It also offers findings that
challenge the focus on quality interactions with customers. The results of this survey agree with the findings of these
two studies and suggest that customers are the focal point
A discussion of the efficiency and quality conflict follows. of most of the participating centres. Managers indicated that
This explores the key performance indicators that drive call monitoring activities adopt qualitative measures when
management practices. It makes general observations about assessing agents’ interactions with customers and when
the conflict between efficiency and quality in the industry. determining the level of customer satisfaction.
It explores and locates its premises in the literature and Respondents concur with the Robinson and Morley (2006)
practices that the call centre industry uses. study. They also recorded a preference for qualitative KPIs
and that they enjoyed the people-management activities
Where applicable, the researchers compare it to the Robinson associated with their jobs most. Both these studies identify
and Morley (2006) study. It suggests implications for qualitative measures, like the quality of the service agents
managers and highlights the limitations of the survey. offer and the customer satisfaction rating, as critical features
necessary for the success of call centres.
The discussion concludes with suggestions for future
research. These findings therefore do not support the first hypothesis
of this study: that call centres emphasise efficiency measures.
They rather support the premise that customers and the
Summary of the findings quality of the interactions are important to call centre
Operational efficiency and the focus on quality in the call managers in South Africa.
centre
The literature suggests that the integration of information
and communication technologies, and that sophisticated Findings that challenge the focus on quality interactions
real-time data enables managers to measure almost every However, other practices in Australian and South African
aspect of the centre, (Jack, Bedics & McCary, 2006) is what centres challenge the prevalence of quality customer
defines call centres. interactions. Although participating managers indicated low
preferences for quantitative measures, these studies reported
The widespread use of technology in management has been that the first measure managers checked when they had
the topic of many studies in the last decade and call centres been out of the office was the number of calls taken within
have been accused of providing the ideal environment for a specific period.
the exercise of ‘Panoptican’ control (Fernie & Metcalf, 1998).
Although various authors dispute this, there is evidence This shows the importance that managers attach to this
that measuring productivity and reporting on statistics were productivity measure and contradicts their stated focus on
still the prevalent focus (Houlihan, 2001; Neely et al., 2003). qualitative measures.
Despite the rapid development that has occurred in this
industry, Taylor and Bain (2005) concluded that the rationale The technology call centres use makes efficiency measures
for call centres remained chiefly about containing costs and easily accessible. They offer a real-time glimpse of call centre
that other areas, like improving customer service, were less productivity and they do contribute to the quality of service
important. the centres offer.
As suggested by Robinson and Morley (2007) and Marr and However, the KPIs of call centre managers do not corroborate
Parry (2004), the emphasis that call centre managers in this this. KPIs are specific performance measures that are aligned
survey placed on the number of calls answered within a to the success factors of the organisation and offer employees
specific period seems to indicate that this measure is used as a direction about what is critical and what they should focus
proxy for quality and customer satisfaction. If most calls have on.
been answered within the expected time and there are not
many calls waiting, managers could assume that customers Achieving these KPIs is essential for organisational success
are satisfied with the level of service call centres offer. and its sustainability (De Waal, 2002). The results of this
However, the service level measure simply shows whether survey indicate that, despite the importance that mission
customers had been kept waiting and offers no information statements give to customer service, quantitative and
about how their queries had been resolved. This ultimately financial measures that focus on the production efficiency
creates the customer experience. Participating managers in of call centres were the highest-weighted performance
Australia and South Africa reported that the quality of the indicators allocated to call centre managers. These findings
customers’ experience with CCAs mainly drives the success support the third hypothesis that the KPIs allocated to call
of call centres. The reassurance that managers in both centre managers in South Africa focus on efficiency.
countries derive from this measure is therefore misguided.
Therefore, they should not use it as the first measurement of Robinson and Morley (2006) also report this tendency. A
customer satisfaction. total of 37% of participating Australian managers listed a
quantitative measure as their highest-ranked formal KPI
A further inconsistency was the information that display and identified achieving financial budgets as a key aspect of
boards in South African call centres offer the most. This is the managers’ responsibilities. These results indicate a conflict
number of calls waiting, the number of available CCAs and between the intended strategic focus of organisations in
the number of abandoned calls. As suggested by Taylor and South Africa and Australia and the performance measures
that determine the roles of call centre managers. Despite the
Bain (1999, p. 109), these types of measures encourage CCAs
reported findings, that these call centres focus on customer
to develop an ‘assembly-line in the head’ and create pressure
satisfaction, the efficiency KPIs allocated to managers
to focus on call duration so that they are available to take the
determines the strategic focus of management activities.
next call.
Kaplan and Norton (1992, p. 71) coined the well used phrase
Display boards are generally visible to all CCAs and offer
that ‘what you measure is what you get’ and suggested that
constant reminders of the importance of the information they
organisational measures strongly influence the behaviour
display. The current use of these boards in South African call
of employees. The participating managers’ choice of a
centres presents conflicting messages to CCAs about what
quantitative measure as the most important indication of the
is really important in call centres. It illustrates Taylor and
state of the call centre when they had been out of the office
Bain’s concept of an assembly line and is incongruent with
testifies to the accuracy of this statement. Although managers
the suggested focus on qualitative measures.
suggested that call centres focused on qualitative measures
in most of the monitoring activities, it appears that, as Kaplan
Further, Dean and Rainnie’s (2009) proposal, that CCAs
and Norton (1992) suggest, the nature of the measures
favour productivity targets because these measures are more
allocated to them does in fact affect managers’ behaviour.
visible, raises the question about which of the demands,
customer satisfaction or availability, CCAs prefer in South Another inconsistency emerged in the differences between
African call centres. the allocated KPIs and the managers’ preferred KPIs. When
given the opportunity to list their own KPIs, managers in
Although there was evidence to support the hypothesis that this and the Robinson and Morley (2006) study identified
customers and the quality of interactions are important to qualitative and customer satisfaction indicators as most
call centre managers in South Africa, these inconsistencies important. Houlihan (2002) suggested that managers are
indicated that some call centre management practices are not necessarily empowered to make decisions about the
incongruent with this hypothesis. approaches that they adopt when managing their call
centres. This argument appears to be relevant to call centres
The conflict between efficiency and quality in management in South Africa and Australia and supports the hypothesis
The findings of this study indicate that managers believe that that call centre managers in South Africa prefer qualitative
call centres in South Africa do not emphasise efficiency and KPIs. Although managers attempt to focus on the quality
that the quality of interactions and customer satisfaction take of customer interactions, efficiency measures ultimately
precedence in this industry. Most participating call centre determine their success.
managers reported that their organisations’ vision and
mission statements cited the importance of customer service. The conflict between efficiency and quality in the industry
This reinforces the significance of customers in the Robinson The dilemma between quality and quantity seems to
and Morley (2006) survey. be evident in the prevailing call centre literature and
in technological developments. Although the literature that lead to satisfied customers. Therefore, the number of
highlights the importance of quality in call centres, there is quality assessments and what scores managers attain are
more empirical information on efficiency and the effect of the least important things. Rather, assessments should offer
technology than on the qualitative assessment practices in indications of how call centres satisfy customers’ needs.
the industry.
Limitations of the study
Software vendors continually release tools that are more
sophisticated to measure and report real-time productivity This study set out to investigate what determines the
performance indicators of call centre managers in South
data automatically on each call that call centres handle.
Africa. The results showed a focus on quantitative and
In contrast to this, qualitative measures are not as easily
financial measures. In contrast, managers reported
and readily available. Typically, these measures are not
preferences for qualitative measures and indicated that their
automated. They require human intervention from quality
centres used a customer-focused approach.
assessors who randomly select calls that they assess against
predetermined performance standards. The contradictions this study reported could indicate possible
bias from the participating managers. Managers might have
This is labour- and time-intensive. It requires assessors with indicated what they felt the practices should be instead of
advanced skills that add to the cost per call. They can assess reporting what actually happened in their call centres.
only a small fraction of calls in a period and this contributes
to expensive interventions. Feinberg et al. (2000) suggested The researchers could have explored this possibility in
that technologies made some things easy to measure and interviews, as the Robinson and Morley (2006) study did.
this leads to automatic reporting. This argument, as well
as the apparent industry focus on efficiency, supports the In the light of the results, questions about how managers
hypothesis that the ways of assessing call centre managers implemented the suggested quality approach and how they
focus on quantitative aspects. extracted the quality metrics could have added to the insights
derived from this study. Robinson and Morley (2007) also
reported the possibility of bias in their study of managers’
Implications for managers views on call centres in Australia. They suggested that the
In this study, there seem to be inconsistencies between the managers’ perspective, whether biased or not, contributed to
visions of organisations, the emphasis that KPIs place on other points of view the literature presented.
quantitative performance indicators, the measures that
managers consider important and some management This is also the standpoint of this study.
practices that centres use. The efficiency-driven KPIs do not
empower call centre managers to realise the importance their The researchers regarded the sample size for this study
companies seem to place on quality customer experiences. as acceptable and the results offered some insight into the
Therefore, it is necessary for organisations in South Africa practices 44 different organisations used. However, the clear
to assess alignments between their visions, the strategic preference for certain options meant that the researchers did
focus of their call centres and the performance measures that not get the required minimum number of responses for some
determine the roles of call centre managers. of the cross tabulation cells. This meant that the researchers
could not perform a Chi-Square test effectively.
The information that display boards in South African call
A larger sample would have allowed better analyses of the
centres display and the managers’ use of quantitative
relationships between the different variables.
measures to establish the effectiveness of call centres
contradict the intended focus on quality and present CCAs
with conflicting messages. Therefore, it is essential for call Future research
centre managers to ensure that their management activities This study suggested a possible lack of alignment between
promote quality and that their display boards present the the performance measures for call centre managers and
primary objectives of their call centres. organisations’ mission statements. The researchers suggest
that future research explores the position of call centres
However, organisations should be cautious about how they within their organisations to identify what call centres are
introduce qualitative measures as performance indicators supposed to achieve.
in call centres. Bain et al. (2002, p. 183) wrote about ‘the
application of numerical means of measurement’ and The researchers also suggest that future research investigates
discussed using a list of measures against which to assess the the argument that Houlihan (2002) presents, which is that
quality of interactions. managers are not necessarily empowered to make decisions
about the approaches that they use in their management of
This assessment produced a score as the outcome and call centres.
attached targets to it. The result was to quantify the quality
that promoted the culture of achieving targets. However, In the light of the South African government’s interest in
quality should rather identify the performance criteria developing the business process outsourcing industry sector,
an investigation into the management practices employed

within outsourced call centres could yield valuable
References
information. Aksin, Z., Armony, M., & Mehrotra, V. (2007). The modern call center: A multi-
disciplinary perspective on operations management research. Production and
Operations Management, 16(6), 665–688. doi:10.1111/j.1937-5956.2007.
tb00288.x
Holman et al. (2007) stated that the ownership status of call
Armistead, C., Kiely, J., Hole, L., & Prescott, J. (2002). An exploration of
centres affected the management practices they use. Cost managerial issues in call centres. Managing Service Quality, 12(4), 246–256.
is usually an important consideration in the decision to doi:10.1108/09604520210434857
outsource certain functions. Contracts also often put the host Babbie, E., & Mouton, J. (2001). The practice of social research. Oxford University
Press.
under pressure to increase production and reduce costs. Bain, P., & Taylor, P. (2000). Entrapped by the ‘electronic panopticon’? Worker
resistance in the call centre. New Technology, Work and Employment, 15(1), 2–18.
doi:10.1111/1468-005X.00061
The nature of these agreements requires operational Bain, P., Watson, A., Mulvey, G., Taylor, P., & Gall, G. (2002). Taylorism, targets and the
transparency. This could mean adopting a mass production pursuit of quantity and quality by call centre management. New Technology, Work
and Employment, 17(3), 170−185. doi:10.1111/1468-005X.00103
approach to create an environment that is easily measureable.
Barnes, A. (2004). Diaries, dunnies and discipline: resistance and accommodation to
The question for future research is, therefore, the extent to monitoring in call centres. Labour and Industry, 14(3), 127–137.
which the management practices the outsourced call centres Batt, R. (1999). Work organization, technology and performance in customer
service and sales. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 52(4), 539–564.
use differ from those the hosted call centres adopt. doi:10.2307/2525063
Batt, R., & Moynihan, L. (2002). The validity of alternative call centre
There is relatively little scientific research available on the production models. Human Resource Management Journal, 12(4), 14–34.
doi:10.1111/j.1748-8583.2002.tb00075.x
management practices that South African call centres use. Benner, C., Lewis, C., & Omar, R. (2007). The South African call centre industry: A study
The tremendous growth and the huge investment companies of strategy, human resource practices and performance. Retrieved November 22,
2009, from http://link.wits.ac.za/papers/South%20Africa%20GCC%20Report.pdf
make in this industry necessitate further studies to expand Burgess, J., & Connel, J. (2004). Emerging developments in call centre research.
the extent and depth of empirical theory on this topic. Labour & Industry, 14(3), 1–13.
D’Cruz, P., & Noronha, E. (2007). Technical call centres: Beyond “electronic
sweatshops” and “assembly lines in the head.” Global Business Review, 8(1), 53–
Conclusion 67. doi:10.1177/097215090600800104
Dean, A.M., & Rainnie, A. (2009). Frontline employees views on organizational factors
This study conducted a survey amongst South African call that affect the delivery of service quality in call centres. Journal of Services
Marketing, 23 (5), 326–337. doi:10.1108/08876040910973431
centre managers in more than 44 different organisations Deery, S., & Kinnie, N. (2002). Call centres and beyond: a thematic evaluation. Human
representing nine industry sectors. The aim was to explore Resource Management Journal, 12(4), 3–13. doi:10.1111/j.1748-8583.2002.
tb00074.x
the management practices call centres South in Africa Department of Trade and Industry (2009a). Launch of Department of Trade and
use given the dilemma between quality and quantity the Industry investment call centre at Soweto. Retrieved March 17, 2010, from http://
www.info.gov.za/speeches/2009/09101909051001.htm
literature proposes. Department of Trade and Industry (2009b). South Africa’s Business Process
Outsourcing (BPO) sector reaching greater heights. Retrieved March 17, 2010,
from http://www.info.gov.za/speeches/2009/09113010351001.htm
The results of this study show that: De Waal, A.A. (2002). The human element in performance management systems.
Quest for balance. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
• the visions of organisations promote quality customer
Feinberg, R.A., Ik-Suk, K., Hokama, L., De Ruyter, K., & Keen, C. (2000). Operational
experiences determinants of caller satisfaction in the call center. International Journal of
Service Industry Management, 11(2), 131–138. doi:10.1108/09564230010323633
• managers prefer qualitative measures for most of their
Fernie, S., & Metcalf, D. (1998). (Not) hanging on the telephone: payment system in
call monitoring activities the new sweatshops. Centrepiece, 3, 7–11.
• managers believe that customers are the focus of call Fisher, J., Milner, K., & Chandraprakash, A. (2007). Organisational climate, job tension
and job satisfaction in a South African call centre case study. Ergonomics SA, 19(2),
centres. 22–30.
Fisher, J., Miller, K., & Thatcher, A. (2007). Performance monitoring, supervisory
In contrast, the measures that direct the management support, and job characteristics and their impact on employee well-being
practices of call centre managers demand a focus on cost and amongst four samples of call centre agents in South Africa. In Lecture notes in
computer Science, 4566, 48−56. Retrieved January 20, 2010, from SpringerLink
production efficiency. These measures reinforce the focus on database. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-73333-1_7
efficiency that earlier literature reported. Fornell, C., Mithas, S., Morgeson, F., & Krishnan, M.S. (2006). Customer satisfaction
and stock prices: High returns, low risk. Journal of Marketing, 70(1), 3–14.
doi:10.1509/jmkg.2006.70.1.3
The similarity in results between the Australian study Foucault, M. (1997). Discipline and punish: the birth of the prison. Retrieved July 17,
2010, from http://www.esubjects.com/curric/general/world_history/unit_three/
and this survey suggests that call centre managers in both pdf
countries experience the same kinds of challenges. It Frenkel, S.J., Tam, M., Korczynski, M., & Shire, K. (1998). Beyond bureaucracy?
supports the view that the extensive use of technology limits Work organization in call centres. The International Journal of Human resource
Management, 9(6), 957–979. doi:10.1080/095851998340694
the variation in management practices that call centres can Hart, M.L., Chiang, Y.-A.A., & Tupochere, M. (2009). Balancing agent performance and
use (Russel, 2008; Taylor et al., 2002). The results also imply customer service in contact centres. Journal of Contemporary Management, 6,
151–169.
that call centre managers in South Africa are not necessarily
Halliden, B., & Monks, K. (2005). Employee-centred management in a call centre.
empowered to decide on appropriate management practices Personnel Review, 34(3), 370–385. doi:10.1108/00483480510591480
and that conflicting organisational demands regulate them. Holman, D., Batt, R., & Holtgrewe, U. (2007). The global call centre report: International
perspectives on management and employment. Retrieved January 26, 2010, from
http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globalcallcenter/upload/GCC-Intl-Rept-US-Version.pdf
This study proposes that the dilemma between quality Holman, D., Wall, T.D., Clegg, C.W., Sparrrow, P., & Howard, A. (2002). The new
and quantity, as discussed in the literature, is prevalent workplace. A guide to the human impact of modern working practices. West
Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
in South African call centres and that quantitative KPIs Houlihan, M. (2001). Managing to manage? Stories from the call centre. Journal of
drive the management practices that call centres use. It European Industrial Training, 25(2/3/4), 208–220.
also substantiates Russel’s (2008, p. 213) argument that call Houlihan, M. (2002). Tension and variations in call centre management
strategies. Human Resource Management Journal, 12(4), 67–85.
centres ‘preserve significant features of the past’. doi:10.1111/j.1748-8583.2002.tb00078.x
Huysamen, G.K. (1998). Methodology for the social and behavioural sciences. South Raz, A.E., & Blank, E. (2007). Ambiguous professionalism: managing efficiency and
Africa: International Thomson Publishing. service quality in an Israeli call centre. New Technology, Work and Employment,
22(1), 83–96. doi:10.1111/j.1468-005X.2007.00185.x
Jack, E.P., Bedics, T.A., & McCary, C.E. (2006). Operational challenges in the call center
industry: a case study and resource-based framework. Managing Service Quality, Richardson, H.J., & Howcroft, D. (2006). The contradictions of CRM – A critical
16(5), 477–500. doi:10.1108/09604520610686142 lens on call centres. Information and Organization, 16, 56–81. doi:10.1016/j.
infoandorg.2005.10.001, doi:10.1016/j.infoandorg.2005.10.002
Kaplan, R.S., & Norton, D.P. (1992). The balanced scorecard – measures that drive
performance. Harvard Business Review, 70(1), 71–79. Robinson, G., & Morley, C. (2006). Call centre management: responsibilities and
performance. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 17(3), 284–
Khuzwayo, W. (2007, April 29). SA call centres take on the world. Business Report. 300. doi:10.1108/09564230610667122
Retrieved March 10, 2010, from http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fSectionId
=561&fArticleId=3803048 Robinson, G., & Morley, C. (2007). Running the electronic sweatshop: Call centre
managers’ views on call centres. Journal of Management and Organization, 13,
Kinnie, N., Hutchinson, S., & Purcell, J. (2000). ‘Fun and surveillance’: the paradox of 249–263. doi:10.5172/jmo.2007.13.3.249
high commitment management in call centres. International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 11(5), 967–985. doi:10.1080/095851900422375 Russel, B. (2008). Call centres: A decade of research. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 10(3), 195–219. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2008.00241.x
Korczynski, M. (2002). Human resource management in service work. Hampshire:
Palgrave. Sergeant, A., & Frenkel, S. (2000). When do customer contact employees
satisfy customers? Journal of Service Research, 3(1), 18–34.
Little, M.M., & Dean, A.M. (2006). Links between service climate, employee doi:10.1177/109467050031002
commitment and employees’ service quality capability. Managing Service Quality,
16(5), 460–476. doi:10.1108/09604520610686133 Taylor, P., & Bain, P. (1999). ‘An assembly line in the head’: work and employee relations
in the call centre. Industrial Relations Journal, 30(2), 101–117. doi:10.1111/1468-
Marr, B., & Parry, S. (2004). Performance management in call centers: lessons, pitfalls 2338.00113
and achievements in Fujitsu Services. Measuring Business Excellence, 8(4), 55–62.
doi:10.1108/13683040410569415 Taylor, P., & Bain, P. (2005). ‘India calling to the far away towns’: the call centre labour
process and globalization. Work, Employment and Society, 19(2), 261–282.
Moshavi, D., & Terborg, J.R. (2002). The job satisfaction and performance of doi:10.1177/0950017005053170
contingent and regular customer service representatives. A human capital
perspective. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 13(4), 333– Taylor, P., Mulvey, G., Hyman, J., & Bain, P. (2002). Work organisation, control and the
347. doi:10.1108/09564230210445069 experience of work in call centres. Work, Employment and Society, 16(1), 133–
150. doi:10.1177/09500170222119281
Multimedia Group & C3Africa (2008). South African National BPO & Call Centre
Report. Johannesburg: Multimedia Group. Teodoru, S. (2008). Contact Center Satisfaction Index 2008. Retrieved March 31,
2010, from http://www.retailsolutionsonline.com/article.mvc/Customer-Contact-
Neely, A., Bourne, M., & Kennerley, M. (2003). Dysfunctional performance through Impacts-The-Bottom-Line-0003
dysfunctional measures. Cost Management, 17(5), 41–45.
Wallace, C.M., Eagleson, G., & Waldersee, R. (2000). The sacrificial HR strategy in call
Radnor, Z., & McGuire, M. (2004). Performance management in the public sector: fact centers. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 11(2), 174–180.
or fiction? International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, doi:10.1108/09564230010323741
53(3), 245–260. doi:10.1108/17410400410523783

Article BanksRoodt2011 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article BanksRoodt2011 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article BanksRoodt2011 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 1 of 17 Original Research

The efficiency and quality dilemma: What drives

• There have been relatively few empirical studies on the

and previous experience as a call centre agent (items 1.1

The web-based questionnaire enabled the capture of all data

TABLE 3: Call monitoring, monitoring measures and customer satisfaction measures.

TABLE 4: Measures of service quality and aspects to coach.

The responses to item 2.2 further supported the importance

TABLE 5: Monitoring boards.

TABLE 6: The focus of the call centre.

an investigation into the management practices employed

You might also like