Cornell University ILR School

DigitalCommons@ILR
Research Studies and Reports ILR Collection

1-1-2007

The Global Call Center Report: International

Perspectives on Management and Employment
David Holman
University of Sheffield

Rosemary Batt
ILR School, Cornell, rb41@cornell.edu

Ursula Holtgrewe
Working Life Research Center, FORBA

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/reports

Part of the Human Resources Management Commons
Thank you for downloading an article from DigitalCommons@ILR.
Support this valuable resource today!

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the ILR Collection at DigitalCommons@ILR. It has been accepted for inclusion in Research
Studies and Reports by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@ILR. For more information, please contact hlmdigital@cornell.edu.
The Global Call Center Report: International Perspectives on
Management and Employment
Abstract
[Excerpt] This report is the first large scale international study of call center management and employment
practices across all regions of the globe including Asia, Africa, South America, North America, and Europe.
Covering almost 2,500 centers in 17 countries, this survey provides a detailed account of the similarities and
differences in operations across widely diverse national contexts and cultures. The centers in the survey
include a total of 475,000 call center employees.

Keywords
call center, global, network

Disciplines
Business | Human Resources Management

Comments
Suggested Citation
Holman, D., Batt, R., & Holtgrewe, U. (2007). The global call center report: International perspectives on
management and employment[Electronic version]. Ithaca, NY: Authors.

Required Publisher Statement

Copyright by the authors.

This article is available at DigitalCommons@ILR: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/reports/13

 The Global Call Center Report:
International Perspectives
on Management and Employment

gy and Perfor
a t e ma
S tr nc
e
ol ogy
c hn
Te S
ki
ll
s
Team
ernance

Managers
Traini
ng
Gov

rs e

e r
Ca Pay

Report of the Global Call Center Network

David Holman, Rosemary Batt, and Ursula Holtgrewe
(US format)
 TheGlobalCall Center Report:
InternationalPerspectivesonManagementandEmployment

ReportoftheGlobalCallCenter Network
(USformat)

DavidHolman RosemaryBatt UrsulaHoltgrewe

InstituteofWorkPsychology ILRSchool WorkingLifeResearch Center
U.ofSheffield CornellUniversity FORBA
Sheffield,UK Ithaca,NY Vienna,Austria

Acknowledgements
TheGlobalCallCenter(GCC)Projectisacollaborativenetworkof over40scholarsfrom
twentycountries.Participatingresearchersarelistedbelow,bycountry.Eachcountry
researchteamhasdeepexpertiseinthecallcentersectorandhasconductedextensivefield
andsurveyresearchforthisreport.Thereportisbasedontheresultsofanidenticalsurvey
administeredtoanationalsampleofcallcentersineachcountry.

Fundingforthisprojectcamefromgenerousgrantsandcontributionsfromuniversities,
governments,andnonprofitfoundationsineachcountry. ParticularthanksgotoTheRussell
SageFoundation,theAlfredP.SloanFoundation,theHansBcklerFoundation,andthe
EconomicandSocialResearchCounciloftheUKforthesupportofinternationalresearch
coordination andconferences. Alistof all sponsorsisfoundinAppendixA.Callcenter
employersassociationsalsoactivelysupportedthestudyinmanycountriesbyencouraging
memberstoparticipate.Thereportisnotbasedonfundingfromprivatecorporationsor
companiesoperatinginthecallcentersector.

FormoreinformationontheGCCnetwork,visitthewebsiteatwww.globalcallcenter.org.
Toobtainnationalreportsorcontactcountryresearchteams,seeAppendixC.

ISBN9780979503603 CopyrightHolman,Batt,andHoltgrewe2007

i
 GlobalCallCenterResearchNetwork

Austria Germany
Dr.JrgFlecker Dr.UrsulaHoltgrewe
AnnikaSchnauer (FORBA)(WorkingLifeResearch Center)
ForschungsundBeratungsstelleArbeitswelt
(FORBA)(WorkingLifeResearch Center) Prof.KarenShire
UniversityofDuisburg
Australia
Prof.Frenkel,Professor JessicaLongen
Dr.MarkusGroth UniversityofTechnologyDarmstadt
UniversityofNewSouthWales
India
Brazil Prof.RosemaryBatt
Prof.MoacirdeMirandaOliveira CornellUniversity
Prof.LeornardoNelmiTrevisan
Prof.ArnoldodeHoyosGuevara Ireland
PontificiaUniversidadeCatolicadeSaoPaulo Prof.MaeveHoulihan
QuinnSchoolofBusiness
Canada
Prof.AnnFrost Prof.StephenDeery
TheUniversityofWesternOntario King'sCollegeLondon

Prof.DaniellevanJaarsveld Prof.NicholasKinnie
U.ofBritishColumbia UniversityofBath

DavidWalker Israel
U.ofBritishColumbia ProfAnatRafaeli
Technion IsraelInstituteofTechnology
China
Prof.FangXu Prof.IrisVilnaiYavetz
RenminUniversityofChina RuppinAcademicCenter

XiangminLiu Japan
CornellUniversity Prof.MichioNitta
UniversityofTokyo
Denmark
Prof.NielsMoeller Prof.HodakaMaeura
TechnicalUniversityofDenmark RikkyoUniversity

Dr.OleHenningSorensen Netherlands
DanishNationalInst.ofOccupationalHealth Prof.AndriesdeGrip
IngeSieben
France MaastrichtUniversity
Prof.HiroatsuNohara
Dr.RobertTchobanian Philippines
Dr.Caroline MorandatLanciano Prof.MaragtasS.V.Amante
UniversityoftheMediterranean UniversityofthePhilippines

ii
 GlobalCallCenterResearchNetwork

SouthAfrica
Prof. ChrisBenner
PennsylvaniaStateUniversity,USA Sweden
Dr.AkeSandberg
Dr.CharleyLewis MITIORProgramme
UniversityoftheWitwatersrand Arbetslivsinstitutet/NIWL

SouthKorea Dr.ChristerStrandberg
HyunjiKwon MidSwedenUniversity
KoreanLaborInstitute
UnitedKingdom
Dr.HyeYoungKang Dr.DavidHolman
POSRI,Seoul Prof.StephenWood
UniversityofSheffield
Prof.ByoungHoonLee
ChungAngU.,Seoul UnitedStates
Prof.RosemaryBatt,
Spain CornellUniversity
Prof.MireiaValverde
Prof.GerardRyan Prof.VirginiaDoellgast
Prof.FerranMae King'sCollegeLondon
MaraTatianaGorjup
NeusMart Dr.HyunjiKwon
MatildeVillarroya KoreanLaborInstitute
UniversitatRoviraiVirgili

iii
 TableofContents

Page

ExecutiveSummary v

Introduction 1

PartI TheGlobalPicture:ConvergentNational Trends 4

PartII TheGlobalPicture:DivergentNational Trends 11

PartIII TheBusinessLevelPicture:Subcontracting&CustomerSegmentation 24

PartIV Call CenterOutcomes 36

PartV Conclusion 44

Appendices

A AcknowledgementofSponsors(bycountry) 46

B TechnicalNotesonResearchMethods 47

C ReferencesforNationalCountryReports 50

iv
 ExecutiveSummary

Thisreportisthefirstlargescaleinternationalstudyofcall centermanagementandemployment
practicesacrossallregionsoftheglobe includingAsia,Africa,SouthAmerica,NorthAmerica,and
Europe.Coveringalmost2,500centersin17countries,thissurvey providesadetailed accountofthe
similaritiesanddifferencesinoperationsacrosswidely diversenationalcontextsandcultures. The
centersinthesurvey include atotalof475,000call centeremployees.

Participatingcountriesinclude:Austria,Brazil,Canada,Denmark,France,Germany,India,Ireland,
Israel,Netherlands,Poland,SouthAfrica,SouthKorea,Spain,Sweden,UK,andtheUS.

Weexaminesuchquestionsas:
Howglobalisthissector?Isthereauniversalbestpracticemodelofmanagementemerging
acrosscountriesorhavemanagersdevelopedalternativeapproachesandinnovativestrategies?
Howsimilarordifferentare managementpracticesacrosscountries,andwhatexplainsdifferences
withincountries?
How doinhouse centerscomparetosubcontractors? And howdo businessfocused centers
compare tomassmarketcenters?
Whatstrategiescontributetobetteroperations,jobquality,turnover,andabsenteeism?

Wecoverawiderangeoftopics:
Adoptionofnewtechnologies
Workforcecharacteristics
Selection,staffing,andtraining
Workdesign,workforcediscretion,andteamwork
Compensationstrategiesandlevelsforemployeesandmanagers
Theextentofcollectivebargainingandworkscouncilrepresentation

Ourfindingssuggestthatthecall centersectorhasemergedataboutthesametimeinmanycountries
aroundtheglobe roughlyinthelast5to10years.Itservesabroadrangeofcustomersinallindustry
sectorsandoffersawiderangeofservicesfromverysimpletoquitecomplex. Itisanimportantsource
ofemploymentandnewjobcreationeverywhere.

Themobilityofcall centeroperationshasledmanytoviewthissectorasaparadigmaticcaseofthe
globalizationofservicework.Andwefindthatthecall centersectorlooksquitesimilaracross
countriesintermsofitsmarkets,serviceofferings,and organizationalfeatures. Butbeyond these
similarities,wefindthatcall centerworkplacestakeonthecharacteroftheirowncountriesandregions,
basedon distinctlaws,customs,institutions,andnorms. Theglobalizationofcall centeractivitieshas
aremarkablynationalface.

Oursummaryhighlightsthesimilaritiesamongcountries,aswellas thedifferencesbetweenthem.It
alsoidentifiesimportantdifferenceswithincountriesbetweeninhouse centersandsubcontractors,
andbetween centersservingdistinctcustomersegments.

v
 SimilaritiesamongCountries
Ineachcountry,thenatureofthecall centersectorisverysimilarintermsofmarkets,serviceofferings,
organizational structure,andworkforce characteristics.

Age. Thecall centersectorisrelativelyyoung,with thetypical call centerbeing 8yearsold.

Markets.Call centerstypicallyservenational ratherthan internationalmarkets.Eightysixpercent

serve theirlocal,regional,ornationalmarket.

Subcontractors. Twothirdsofallcall centersareinhouseoperations,servingafirmsown

customers. Subcontractorsoperatethe remainingonethirdofcenters.

Customersegmentation.Seventyfivepercentofcall centerspredominantlyservemassmarket
customers,while25%servebusinesscustomers.

Serviceversussales. Thelargestproportionofcall centersprovidecustomerserviceonly (49%),

while21%providesalesonly,and30%providesalesandservice.

Inboundversusoutboundcalls. Mostcentersprimarilyhandleinboundcalls(78%),ratherthan
outbound calls.

Call centersorcontactcenters: Theoverwhelmingmajorityofcentersoperateasvoiceonly

centers,ratherthanmultichannelcontactcenters.Thetechnologiesemployedarequitesimilar
andcallstypicallylastfrom34minutes.

Organizationalandworkforcecharacteristics
Thetypicalcall centeremploys49workers.However,themajorityofcall centeragents(75%)
workincall centersthathave230totalemployeesormore. Call centersareflatorganizations,with
managerscomprisingonly12%ofemployees.Seventyonepercentofthecall centerworkforce is
female.

DifferencesbetweenCountries
Despitethesecommonalities,therearesubstantialdifferencesintheorganizationofworkandhuman
resourcepracticesincall centersacrosscountries.

Toaidcomparisonofthemanycountriesinthereport,wegroupthemintothreecategories:
Coordinatedorsocialmarketeconomies,withrelativelystrong labormarketregulationsand
relativelyinfluential labormarketinstitutions.
Austria,Denmark,France,Germany,Israel,Netherlands,SpainandSweden.

Liberal marketeconomies,withmorerelaxed labormarketregulationsandlessinfluential labor

marketinstitutions.
Canada,Ireland,UKandUSA.

Recentlyindustrializedortransitional economies.
Brazil,India,Poland,SouthAfricaandSouthKorea.

Ingeneralwefindthatnational labormarketinstitutionsinfluencemanagementstrategies.Call centers

in coordinatedeconomiestendhavebetterqualityjobs,lowerturnover,andlowerwagedispersion than
call centersinliberalmarketeconomiesandinrecentlyindustrializedones,where labormarket
regulationsandunionsareweaker.Call centersincoordinatedcountriesalsomakegreateruseof

vi
subcontractingandparttimecontractsasstrategiestoincreaseorganizationalflexibility.However,
therearealsoimportantdifferencesamongcountriesineachofthesegroups.

Selection,Training,and Staffing
Selection. Twentytwopercentofcall centerspredominantlyrecruitpeoplewithcollegedegrees,a
relativelyhighproportionforwhatisconsideredtobealowskilljobbutcountryvariationishigh.
Over60%ofcentersinFranceandIndiaprimarilyusecollegeeducatedemployees,comparedto
lessthan10%inmostEuropeancountries.

Training. Newlyhiredworkerstypicallyreceive15daysofinitial training,withsomewhatlessin

coordinatedcountries(14days)thaninliberalcountries(17days). Amuchlargerandsignificant
differenceexistsintheamountoftimeittakesforcall centeragentstobecomeproficientontheir
jobfrom 8weeksincoordinatedcountriesto 12inindustrializingeconomiesand 16inliberal
economies.

Staffing. Twentyninepercentoftheworkforceincall centersisparttimeortemporary,with

coordinatedeconomiesmakingthegreatestuseofnonstandardworkarrangement.Butthereare
alsoimportantdifferencesacrosscountries.Over60%oftheSouthKoreanworkforce and50%of
theSpanishworkforceistemporary,while 100%oftheIndianworkforceisfulltime.

WorkOrganization
Jobdiscretion.Jobdiscretionisgenerallylow,butsubstantialdifferencesexistacrosscoordinated,
liberalmarket,andrecently industrializedeconomies.Inliberalmarketeconomies,theproportion
ofcall centerswithlowjobdiscretionis49%,asopposedto29%incoordinatedeconomies,and
34%in recently industrialized ones.InIndia,75%ofcall centershavelowjobdiscretion.

Performancemonitoring. The frequency ofperformancemonitoring (feedbackonperformance and

callquality,calllistening)variescrossnationally. Thesemonitoringactivitiestypicallyoccurona
monthlybasisincoordinatedcountries,onabiweeklybasisinliberalmarketcountries,andon a
weeklybasisormorein industrializing countries. Monitoringactivitiesin Indiancall centersarethe
mostintenseofanycountry.

Teams.Theuseofselfdirectedteamsislow,with60%ofcentersmakingvirtuallynouseofthese
workgroups. Sweden istheexception,with atleast60%oftheworkforce intheaverage center
involvedinselfdirectedteams.Whilethe reported useofproblemsolvingteamsishigh(80%),
onlyasmallproportionofemployeesineachcall centerisinvolvedinthem.

CollectiveRepresentation
Fiftypercentofcall centersarecoveredbysomeformofcollectiverepresentation,i.e.,collective
bargaining,workscouncils,orboth.However,collectiverepresentationishighestincoordinated
countries(71%ofcall centers),lowestinliberalmarketcountries(22%),and intermediate in
industrializing countries(36%).

Coordinatedcountries,withhigherlevelsofcollectivebargainingcoverage,havesignificantly
lowerwagedifferencesacrosscall centers,comparedtothose ineitherliberalmarketeconomiesor
recentlyindustrializedones.

Theunionwagepremiumvariesconsiderablybycountryandtypeofeconomy: Aunionwage
premiumexistsforworkersinGermany,Canada,theUS,andSouthKorea.

vii
 SubcontractorsandInHouseCallCenters

Invirtuallyallcountriesinthestudy,subcontractorsdiffersignificantly frominhouse centersinthe

typesofservicesoffered,theorganizationofwork,thechoiceofhumanresourcepractices,andturnover
rates.

Comparedtoinhouse centers,subcontractorsaremorelikelytofocusexclusivelyonsalesand
outboundcalls.Theymakegreateruseofparttimeandtemporary workers,offerlowerdiscretionjobs,
havehigherlevelsofperformancemonitoring,paylowerwages,andarelesslikelytobecoveredby
unioncontracts.Thirtythreepercentofallcall centersaresubcontractors,buttheyemploy56%of
employeesinthissurvey.

Training. Subcontractorsprovidelesstrainingthaninhousecall centers(14daysvs.20days).

Wages. Onaverage,subcontractorshave 18%lowerwagesthaninhousecall centers.

Jobdiscretion.Jobdiscretionislowerinsubcontractors,with48%ofsubcontractorsprovidinglow
discretionjobs,asopposedto35%ofinhousecall centers.

Performancemonitoring.Performancemonitoringactivitiesaremoreintenseinsubcontractors,
occurring weekly,asopposedtomonthlyininhouse centers.

Staffing. Comparedtoinhouse centers,subcontractorstypicallyusemoreparttimeworkers(20%

vs.15%)andmoretemporaryworkers(15%vs.10%).

Collectiverepresentation.Twentyninepercentofsubcontractorshavesomeformofcollective
representation,compared to41%ofinhousecall centers.

Target times.Subcontractorstypicallyanswer90%ofcallswithinthesettargettime(20seconds),
whileinhousecall centersanswer85%ofcallswithinthesettargettime(20seconds).

BusinesstoBusinessCenters&MassMarketCenters
Customersegmentationstrategiesaregrowingandtheseinfluencehumanresourcestrategiesandthe
qualityofjobs.

Businesstobusinesscentersdifferinimportantrespectsfrom centersthattargetthemassmarketorthe
generalpublic.Withhighervalueaddedproductsandservices,centersthattargetlargebusiness
customersaremorelikelythanotherstoengageincustomerrelationshipmanagementandtofocuson
servicequality.Asaresult,theyarelikelytohiremoreskilledemployeesandadoptamore
professionalorhighinvolvementapproachtohumanresourcemanagement.

Comparedtocall centersservingthemassmarket,call centersthat servebusinesscustomersmake

greateruseofsophisticatedcustomerrelationshiptechnologies(e.g.,electroniccustomermanagement
systems),offerbetterqualityjobs,payhigherwages,useteamworkmoreextensively,employagreater
proportionoffulltimepermanentstaff,andarelesslikelytobecoveredbyunionrepresentation.

Customer Relationship Management

Relationship building. Call centers serving business customers are more likely to try to build
relationshipswithcustomers.

viii
 Technology.Customerinteractionenhancingtechnologies(CRM,webenablement)aremore
prevalentinbusinessmarketcall centers(38%)thanmassmarketcall centers(22%).Massmarket
centersaremorelikelytousetechnologythatsubstitutesforhumaninteraction.Fortypercentof
massmarketcentersuseIVRorVRU,asopposedto25%ofbusinessmarketcall centers.

Selection,Staffing,and Wages
Selection.Businessmarketcentersaremoreselectiveinwhotheyhire.

Staffing.Businessmarketcentersarelesslikelytousenonstandardformsofemployment.

Wages. Wagesinbusinessmarketcentersare typically10%higherthan thoseinmassmarket

centers.

WorkOrganization
Jobdiscretion. Jobdiscretionishigherinbusinessmarketcenters28%havejobswithhigh
discretion,asopposedto18%inmassmarketcenters.

Performancemonitoring.Performancemonitoringactivitiestypicallyoccuronceamonth in
businessmarketcenters,andseveraltimesamonthinmassmarketcenters.

Teams.Onethirdofbusinessmarketcentershaveatleast50%ofagentsinproblemsolvingteams,
whileonly23%ofmassmarketcentersdo.

CollectiveRepresentation
Collectiverepresentationislowerinbusinessmarketcenters(37%coverage)thaninmassmarket
centers(44%coverage).

CallCenterOutcomes
Totalturnover. Thetypicalcall centerreportsatotalturnoverrateof20%peryear.Thisincludes
promotions,voluntaryquits,retirementsanddismissals. However,thereisgreatvariationin
turnover,rangingfromalowof4%inAustriato40%inIndia.Medianturnoveris15%in
coordinatedcountries,25%inliberalcountries,and23%inindustrializingcountries.

Workforcetenure.Acrossallthecountriesinthestudy,approximatelyonethirdofthe call center

workforcehaslessthanone yearoftenureatwork.Thisvariesmarkedlyfromlessthan10%in
countrieslikeAustriaorSwedentoalmost60%inIndiaandalsobetweenthedifferenttypesof
country from16%incoordinatedcountries,to21%inliberal,and38%inindustrializing
countries.

Costsofturnover. Thecostsofturnoverarehigh.Onaverage,replacingoneagentequals16%of
thegrossannualearningsofacall centerworkerthatis,thesimplereplacementcostsofone
workerequalsabouttwomonthsofatypicalworkerspay.Iflostproductivityistakeninto
account,replacing oneworkerequalsbetween three and fourmonthsofatypicalworkerspay.

Laborcosts.Thecostsofturnoverarehigh,particularlygiventhatlaborrepresentsahighportion
oftotalcostsincall centerstypically70%ofcostsinliberalmarketandcoordinatedeconomies
and57%in industrializing countries.

Turnoverandunions. Acrossallcountriesinthisstudy,call centerswithunioncoveragehave40%

lowerturnoverratesthanthosewithoutcoverage:14%annualturnoverinunionworkplaces
comparedto24%innonunionsites.

ix
 Turnoverinsubcontractors. Onaverage,turnoverratesare 25%peryearin subcontractors,
comparedto 19%amonginhouse centers. Thispatternholdsacrossmostcountriesinthisstudy

Salesgrowth:Acrossallcall centers,managersreportedsalesgrowththataveraged10%peryear,
witharangeof5%to18%peryear,inallbut3countries.ThethreeexceptionswereIndia,(89%),
Brazil(38%),andPoland(23%).Thetypicalormediancall centerhada5%growthrateinannual
sales.

Jobquality.Iftheextenttowhichajobpromotesemployeewellbeingisusedastheprimary
indicatorofjobquality,thenahighqualityjobwillcombinehighjobdiscretionwithlow
performancemonitoring.Usingthisdefinition:

32%ofcall centershavehightoveryhighqualityjobsbutonly 12%ofagentsworkinsuch

jobs.
38%ofcall centershavelowtoverylowqualityjobsand67%ofagentsworkinsuchjobs.

Jobqualityacrosseconomies.Jobqualityishighestincoordinatedeconomiesandlowestin
industrializingeconomies. Incoordinatedeconomies,morecall centershavehightoveryhigh
qualityjobs(41%)thanlowtoverylowqualityjobs(24%).Incontrast,inliberaland
industrializingeconomies,morecall centershavelowtoverylowqualityjobs(48%and50%)than
hightoveryhighqualityjobs(25%and21%),

Jobqualityandsubcontractors. Fiftythreepercentofsubcontractorshavejobsoflowtoverylow
qualityand22%havejobsofhightoveryhighquality.Incontrast,32%ofinhousecall centers
havejobsoflowtoverylowqualityand37%havejobsofhightoveryhighquality

Jobqualityandturnover.Thetypicallevelofturnoverincall centerswithveryhighqualityjobs
(highdiscretion/lowmonitoring)is9%,whereasitis36%forlowqualityjobs(lowdiscretion/high
monitoring).

x
 Introduction

Overthepastdecade,call centershaveexperiencedphenomenalgrowthinvirtuallyevery
countryaroundtheworld.Fuelledbyadvancesininformationtechnologyandtheplummeting
costsofdatatransmission,firmshavefounditcosteffectivetoprovideserviceandsalesto
customersthroughremotetechnologymediatedcenters.

Promiseandcontroversy. Butthegrowthofcall centershasbeencontroversial.Ontheone

hand,consumersmaygainfromnewor lowercostservices,whilegovernmentsinadvanced
andindustrializingcountriesviewcall centersasasourceofjobsandeconomicdevelopment.
Ontheotherhand,consumersoften objecttopoorservicequality,andmanagerscomplainof
thedifficultiesanddilemmasofprovidinghighqualityserviceatlowcost,whiledealingwith
excessiveturnover.Critics,includingtradeunions,alsohavecomplainedthatcall centersare
largeservicefactoriesthatonlyprovidepoorquality jobswithhighlevelsofroutinisation,
andlowwagesandjobsecurity.Thus,manydifferentconstituenciesshareaninterestinthe
developmentofcall centersandhowtheycanbemanagedsuccessfullyintheglobaleconomy.

Convergenceandsimilarity. Commontoallcall centersistheuseofadvancedinformation

technologiestohandlecustomerinquiresremotelyinoperationsthatencompasshighlevelsof
engineeringefficiency. Thereisalsoaperceptionthatcall centersoperateinauniformway
acrosscountriesacall centerintheUKlookslikeoneinSouthAfrica,theNetherlands,or
Brazil whichsuggeststhatcall centersindifferentcountriesareconvergingonastandardset
ofmanagementandemploymentpractices.

Divergenceanddifference. Analternativeviewisthatdespitetherapiddiffusionofnew
technologies,theemergenceofthecall centersectorineachcountryisoccurringinthecontext
ofdiversenationalinstitutionsandculturalnorms,distinctlabormarketconditionsand
consumerdemands.Thesedifferencesleadtodivergentpracticessuggestingthatthe
managementstrategiesandhumanresourcepracticesinthissectorwilldiffermarkedlywithin
andacrosscountriesaroundtheworld.

Thisreporttacklesthequestionsjustraised.Howglobalisthissector?Arecall centers
simplystandardizedoperationsinlargefactorieswithfewopportunitiesformanagerial
innovation?Dotheylargelyofferpoorqualityjobs?Orhavemanagersdevelopedarangeof
alternativeapproaches?Ifso,dothesereflectnationaldifferences,marketdifferences,or
businessstrategies? Andhowdothesedifferencesmatter?

Withthesequestionsinmind,weundertookthisinternational project.Theaimsofthestudy
are:

Tomaptherangeofmanagementpracticesincallcentersaroundtheglobe.
Toexaminewhetherdifferencesinnationalinstitutions,markets,andmanagement
strategiesinfluencetheorganization ofworkandhumanresourcepractices.
Toexplore therelationshipsbetweenmanagementstrategies,humanresourcepractices,
andcall center outcomes.

Thisisthefirststudytoprovideadetailedcomparisonofmanagementandemployment
practicesin call centerswithinandacrossnationalboundaries.Itcoversalmost2,500centers
in17countries,withtotalemploymentof 475,000. Thecountriesparticipatinginthestudyare
presentedinFigureA. Thesurveyitselfwascompletedbyseniorcall centermanagers.

1
 FigureA.Call Centers&EmploymentCoveredinthisReport
NumberofCall
Centers TotalEmployment
CoordinatedEconomies
Austria 96 8,049
Denmark 118 7,162
France 210 15,440
Germany 153 21,600
Israel 80 3,792
Netherlands 118 8,437
Spain 68 13,712
Sweden 139 7,060
Subtotal 982 85,251

LiberalMarketEconomies
Canada 387 71,041
Ireland 43 3,453
UK 167 26,187
US 464 94,938
Subtotal 1,061 195,619

RecentlyIndustrializedEconomies
Brazil 114 122,590
India 60 34,146
Poland 75 9,375
S.Africa 64 5,599
S.Korea 121 22,361
Subtotal 434 194,071

Total 2,477 474,942

Wedrawonanidenticalworkplacesurveyadministeredtoanationalsampleofcall centersin
eachparticipatingcountry.Researchteamsencompassingatotalof45scholarsconductedthe
surveyaswellasextensivefieldinterviewswithcall centermanagers,industryexperts,
economicdevelopmentspecialists,andemployeesandunionrepresentatives.(Ourappendices
providethedetailsofcountryresearchteamsandsponsors,aswellastechnicalnotesonhow
thesurveyresearchwasconducted.)Wehopethisreportwillprovideaninsightful
understandingfortherangeofstakeholdersinvolvedinthissector.

2
 StructureoftheReport

PartI. TheGlobal Picture:ConvergentNational Trends

Thissectionmapstheglobalcall centersector,focusingonitsgrowthanddiffusion.We
examinetheextentofsimilarityinfeaturessuchastheageofthesectorineachcountry,the
marketsitcovers,thetypesofservicesoffered,andbasicorganizationalcharacteristics.

Toaidcomparisonofthemanycountriesinthereport,wedrawonpriorconventionsfor
groupingthemintothreecategories:

Coordinatedorsocialmarketeconomies,withrelativelystronglabormarket
regulationsandrelativelyinfluentiallabormarketinstitutions.Countrieswith
coordinatedeconomiesincludeAustria,Denmark,France,Germany,Israel,
Netherlands,Spain,andSweden.

LiberalMarketeconomies,withmorerelaxedlabormarketregulationsandless
influential labormarketinstitutions.CountriesincludeCanada,Ireland,UK,andUSA.

Recentlyindustrializedortransitional economies.ThesecountriesincludeBrazil,India,
Poland,SouthAfrica,andSouthKorea.

Priorresearchinmanufacturingindustries,forexample,hasshownthatcoordinatedeconomies
withmorecentralizedsystemsofcollectivebargainingtypicallyhavehigherlevelsofskillsand
training,andlowerwageinequalitythandoliberalmarketeconomies.However,call centers
canoftenexistoutsidetheboundariesofthesetraditional labormarketinstitutions,raisingthe
questionofwhethertheseinstitutionsmatterinthecontextofthisemergentsector.Inreporting
ourfindingswethereforegroupcountriesaccordingtothesethreecategories.Readerscan
assessthroughthechartswhethercountrieslookmoresimilarwithinthesethreeclustersthan
betweenthem.

PartII. TheGlobal Picture:DivergentNational Trends

Thissectionexamineswhethertherearesubstantialnationaldifferencesinmanagementand
employmentpracticesincall centers.Hereweexaminedifferencesinselection,staffing,and
trainingtheorganization ofworkindustrialrelationssystemsandpaylevels.

PartIII.TheBusinesslevelPicture SubcontractorsandCustomerSegmentation
Thissectionexaminesthekeyfactorsatthebusinesslevelwithineachcountrythataccountfor
differencesinemploymentandworkpractices. Weexploreinhousecenterscomparedto
subcontractors,andbusinesstobusinesscentersversusmassmarketcenters.

PartIV.CallCenterOutcomes
Thissectionexamineskeycall centeroutcomessuchasturnover,sickrates,laborcosts,
operational measuresandjobquality,anddiscusseshowmanagementpracticesandlabor
marketinstitutionsmightinfluencethem.

3
 PART I

TheGlobalPicture:ConvergentNationalTrends?
Istheresupportfortheideathatthissectorisconvergingtowards onemodelof management
andorganization? Inthissectionwefocusontheextenttowhichcall centersaresimilaracross
thecountriesinourstudy. Wefindthattherearemanysimilaritiesacrosscountries,suggesting
thatthecall centersector hasdevelopedinbroadlysimilarwaysacrossadvancedandrecently
industrializedcountrieswithregardtomarkets,services,andsomeorganizational
characteristics.ButinPartIIweshowthat,beyondthesebroadsimilarities,call centersacross
countriesarequitedifferentinthetypesofworkandemploymentpracticestheyuse.

Development,Markets,andServices
Oneindicatorofthedevelopmentofthissectorincountriesaroundtheworldisthetypicalage
ofcall centers.Acall centerinthisstudyistypically 8yearsold(in2007),rangingfromahigh
of14yearsintheUStoalowof 6yearsinIndiaand7yearsinPolandandSouthKorea
(Figure1.1).

Figure1.1.AgeofTypicalCallCenter(Years) Aust ria

Denmark
France
15
Germany
Israel
Sp ain
Swed en
10

Canada
Ireland
UK
5
US

Brazil
0 Ind ia

CoordinatedLiberalIndustrializing Po land
S.Af rica
TypeofEconomy S.Ko rea

Thispatternsuggeststhatthesectorisarelativelynewphenomenoneverywherenotonlyin
Indiaalthoughitdoesappeartohaveemergedslightlylaterinrecentlyindustrializing
countries.Whatexplainsthispatternof development?Makingservicetransactionsreliable
andefficient ofturninghighcontactservicesintolowcontactonesisalongstanding
goalofoperationsmanagement.However,thishasonlybecomepossibleonalargescale
throughthedeclineintelecommunicationstransmissioncosts,broughtonbyindustry
deregulation,andtheglobaldisseminationofcall center technologiesandadvanced
informationsystems.Countriesaroundtheworldarenowtakingadvantageoftheseregulatory
andtechnologicalchanges.

Markets:nationalversusinternational. Animportantfeatureofcall centersistherelativeease

withwhichworkflowscanberoutedtodifferentgeographiclocations,organizations,or
employeeswithinthesameorganization.Thishasallowedcompaniestoshiftservicedelivery

4
fromlocalinteractionstomoreremoteones.Oursurvey showsthat30% of centersprimarily
servelocal or regionalmarkets,while56%servetheirownnationalmarket.

Thus,despitethemobilityofcallflowsandthescaleeconomiesofservinglargegeographic
markets,mostcall centermarketsarenotinternational:while86%of centersservethelocal,
regional,ornationalmarketintheirowncountry,only14%servetheinternationalmarket
(Figure1.2).Theexceptionstothispatternarethosecountriesthathavespecializedasglobal
subcontractors India,andtoalesserextent,IrelandandCanada.Inthissurvey,theproportion
ofcall centersservinginternationalcustomersis73%inIndia,37%inIreland,and35%in
Canada.Canadaisrarelynoticedasamajorproviderofsubcontractingservices,butits
proximitytotheUSandsharedlanguage,timezone,culture,governmentprovidedhealthcare,
andlowexchangeratetotheUSdollarhasmadeitanincreasinglyimportantlocusof
subcontractorsforUScorporations.

Thespreadofcall centerservicesisalsooccurringinawaythatisdifferentfromthatfoundin
manufacturing.Thus,whilecall centersaregeographicallymobile,theirspreadisquite
uneven,shapedparticularlybylanguageandculture.Mostcentersprovidinginternational
servicesfollowhistoricpatternsoflinguisticties:betweenFranceandMoroccobetweenSpain
andLatinAmericabetweentheUKandUSandotherEnglishspeakingcountries(Ireland,
India,Canada,andSouthAfrica).

Businessstrategy:subcontractorsversusinhouse. Thegeographicmobilityofcallflowsalso
makesitrelativelyeasytooutsourceworktothirdpartyvendorsratherthanretainworkin
house.Despitethewideattentionthatcall centeroutsourcinghasreceived,themajorityofcall
centersinalmostallcountriesareinhousecenters,withIndiaprovidingtheexceptiontothe
rule. Sixtyseven percentofcall centersareinhousecenters,while33%aresubcontractors
(Figure1.3).Nonetheless,themajorityof employeesworkforsubcontractors,asonaverage
theseworkplacesarelargerinsize.AswediscussingreaterdetailinPartIII ofthisreport,
subcontractorstendtobeundergreatercostpressuresthaninhousecentersandthequalityof
jobsandpayislower.

5
 Figure1.3.PercentofCentersthatareInhouse
A ustria
Denmark
90% France
Germany*
Israel
75% Net herland s
Spain
Swed en
60%

45% Canad a
Ireland
UK
30% US

15% B razil
India
0% Poland
SouthA frica
CoordinatedLiberalIndustrializing
SouthKorea

TypeofEconomy

*Germany:Estimated

CountrieswithasignificantlyhigherproportionofsubcontractorsincludeIndia(80%),Brazil
(53%),andSpain(50%).Bycontrast,theUSandIsraelhaveahigherproportionofcall
centerswhohaveretaineddeliveryinhouse(83%and88%respectively).

Customersegmentation. Call center technologymakesitpossibletoaccessalarge,

geographicallydispersedcustomerbase,soorganizationsarenowabletotargetparticular
groupsofcustomers,ratherthanservingthegeneralpopulationorallcustomersinagivenarea
(oftenreferredtoasuniversalservice). Customersegmentationstrategiesincall centersare
becomingwidespread.InPartIII ofthisreportwedescribethesestrategiesinmoredetailand
theimplicationstheyhaveformanagementandemploymentpractices.Fornow,itisworth
notingthatamajordistinctioninallcountriesisbetween centersthatprimarilytargetbusiness
customersandthosethatprovideuniversalserviceorservethemassmarket.

6
Onaverage,75%of centersservethegeneralormassmarket(Figure1.4).Thesearethe
marketswherethevolumeofserviceandsalestransactionsisthehighest.Bycontrast,about
25%of centersservebusinesscustomers,i.e.,arebusinesstobusinesscenters.Over80%of
theworkforceislocatedin centersservingthemassmarketorgeneralmarket,andlevelsof
standardizationandthequalityofjobsaretypicallymuchlowerinmassmarketcentersthanin
businesstobusinesscenters.

Sectors. Anothercommonfeatureofcall centersacrosscountriesisthattheleadactorsineach

casehavebeenthetelecommunicationsandfinancialservicesindustries(Figure1.5).
Telecommunicationsfirmswereearlyadoptersofcall centersforlongdistanceoperatorsand
telephonedirectoryassistance.Systemsengineersdevelopedtechnicalinnovationsfor
efficientlyhandlinglargevolumesofcustomerinquiries.Withderegulationoverthelast
decadeortwo,dependingonwhichcountryweobserve,thesetelecommunicationsfirmshave
experimentedwithexpandingthecall centermodelfromsimpletransactionstohandling
increasinglymorecomplexserviceandsalestransactions.

Figure1.5.PercentofCentersinBanking&Telecommunications
Aust ria
Denmark
75 France
Germany
Israel
60 Netherlands
Sp ain
Sweden
45

Canada
30 Ireland
UK
US
15

Brazil
0 Ind ia

CoordinatedLiberalIndustrializing Po land
So ut hA f rica
TypeofEconomy So ut hKo rea

Similarly,financialservicesfirmswereearlyadoptersofcall centersinmostcountries,with
deregulationprovidingincentivestoreducecostsandimprovesaleschannels.Unlikethe
telecommunicationsindustry,wherecall centerswerecommonplaceandsubsequently
expandedtoincludeawidervarietyoffunctions,fewbankshadcustomerfacingcall centers
beforethe1990s.Manybanksunderwentdramaticorganizationalchangebyshiftingservices
fromlocalbranchestoremotecentersandoutsourcingservicestothirdpartycall centers.
Currently,thefinancialservicesindustry isthelargestuserofcall centersinallofthecountries
inthisstudy.

Telemarketingfirmswerealsoearlyadoptersofcall centers,butinsomecountries,consumer
protectionlawsthatprohibitorlimitcoldcallingtonewcustomershavereducedthe
distributionoftelemarketingcentersinrecentyears.

Serviceprovision. Earlyadoptersofcall centerstendedtofocusonthecostsavingsstemming

fromserviceautomationandprocessengineering.Byconsolidatingservicesintolarge,remote
centers,companiesachievedeconomiesofscalecoveringlargernumbersofcustomersand

7
greaterefficienciesintheallocationof labor.Thus,call centerswerecostcenters,designedto
makeservicedeliverymoreefficient.Thelargestportionofcall centersinthisstudy,49%,
focusesonservicealone.However,asubstantialminority(30%)focusesonsalesandservice,
whileaminority(21%)concentrateon salesonly.Manythereforeappeartohaveembraceda
profitcenterapproachtomanagement(Figure1.6).

Mostcentersalsodealmainlywithinboundcallsfromcustomers(79%)ratherthanmaking
outboundcallsorsolicitationstocustomers(21%) (Figure1.7).

8
CommonOrganizationalFeatures
Inadditiontosimilaritiesinmarketsandservices,call centershavecertain organizational
featuresincommon.Theyareflatorganizations,withrelativelyfewlayersofmanagement.
Managersconstituteonly12%ofemployeesinthetypicalcall centerinthisstudy andthere
islittlevariationinthisnumberacrosscountriesrangingfromalowof 9% toahighof 15%.
Mostcall centersalsoarepartoflargercorporations,ratherthansmallindependentlyowned
firms.Eightyonepercentofthecentersinthisstudyarepart ofalargerorganization,witha
rangeof66%to98% amongcountries.

Workforcecomposition.Anothercommonfeatureacrossallofthecountriesinthestudyisthat
thefrontlineworkforceispredominantlyfemale(69%).

Figure1.8.PercentoftheWorkforcethatisFemale
Aust ria
Denmark
90 France
Germany
75 Israel
Netherland s
Sp ain
60 Sweden

45 Canad a
` Ireland
UK
30 US

15
Brazil
Ind ia
0 Po land
So ut hAf rica
CoordinatedLiberalIndustrializing
So ut hKo rea

TypeofEconomy

Managershaveoftenreportedsimilarreasonsforhiringwomen:theyhaveanonthreatening
customerservicedemeanourandvoicethereareculturalassumptionsthatwomencanbe
trustedandtheyhavegoodkeyboardingskills.

Hoursofoperation: Ascall centerscompetetoprovidegreaterconveniencetocustomers,

thereispressuretoincreasehoursofoperationto24hourcoverage,7daysperweek.
However,oursurveyfindsthat20%haveadoptedthisschedulingpatternwithrelativelylittle
variationacrosscountries.TheratesofusearesomewhathigherintheUS,Poland,andIsrael,
whereaboutonethirdof centersarealwaysopen,andIndia,whereamajorityof centersreport
24/7hoursofoperation.

Callcentersorcontactcenters? Call center technologiesareamajorsourceof

standardizationinworkpractices.Ascall center technologiescontinuetoadvance,therehas
beenconsiderablediscussioninthesectorabouttheshiftawayfromcall centers whichonly
usetelephony tomultichannelcontactcenters whichallowfirmstoservecustomers
throughavarietyofmedia:voice,email,fax,voiceoverinternetprotocol(VoIP).Weasked
managersinthisstudytoidentifythetypesoftechnologyusedintheircall centers.Included
were:email,fax,webenablement,VoIP,mediablending,andelectroniccustomerrelationship
management.Surprisingly,however,despitemuchdiscussionofthesetechnologiesinindustry
magazines,onlyasmallminorityof centerstakeadvantageofthesetechnologies.Thetypical

9
centerinmostcountriescontinuestobelowtech usingtelephony,supplementedbyfaxand
emailandwefindlittlevariationinthispatternacrosscountries.

Callmetrics. Call centertechnologyalsohasthestandardizingeffectofmakingquitesimilar

performancemetricsavailabletocall centermanagers. Electronicmonitoringsystems,for
example,recordthecallhandlingtimeandnumberofcustomersperemployeeperdayfor
everycall centeremployee.Call centerskeeptrackofthepercentofcallshandledina
specifiedtargettimetypically2030seconds.Theavailabilityofthesemetricsallows
managerstodevelopquitestandardizedrequirementsforemployeeworkperformanceand
behaviour.

Figure1.9.CallHandlingTime(Seconds)ofTypicalCallCenter
A ustria
300 Denmark
France
Germany
250 Israel
Netherland s
200 Sp ain
Sweden

150
Canad a
Ireland
100 UK
US
50
B razil
0 India
CoordinatedLiberalIndustrializing Po land
So uthAf rica
So uthKo rea
TypeofEconomy

Thecallhandlingtimeofthetypical centerprovidesoneindicatoroftherelative
standardizationofworkacrosscall centersindifferentcountries.Thetypicalworksiteinthis
reporthasanaveragecallhandlingtimeof190seconds,or3minutesand10seconds.Thereis
surprisinglylittlevariationinthisnumberacrossthewiderangeofcountriesinthisstudy.

Insum,whenweexaminethemarkets,services,andbroadorganizationalfeaturesofcall
centers,weseeanemergingsectorthatlooksquitesimilaracrossverydifferentcountriesand
nationalinstitutionalenvironments.

Inturningtothenextsectionofthereport,however,wewillshowhowcountrydifferencesand
institutionalnormsdo,infact,matter,forparticulardimensionsoftheemploymentsystem
especiallythenatureofworkandemploymentrelations,paysystems,andindustrialrelations
systems.

10
 PARTII

TheGlobalPicture:DivergentNationalTrends
PartIshowedthatmanyaspectsofthecall centersectorhavedevelopedinsimilarwaysacross
thecountriesinthisstudy:thatcall centershaveemergedinasimilartimeperiod,are mainly
orientedtowardstheirdomesticmarkets,operateprimarilyasinhouse,inboundoperations,
andemployaprimarilyfemaleworkforce. Indeed,whetheracountryseconomyisclassified
ascoordinated,liberalorrecentlyindustrializeddoesnotseemtomakemuchdifferencefor
thesefactors.

Therearereasonstobelieve,however,thatnationaldifferenceswillplayamoreimportantrole
intheorganization ofwork,humanresource,andindustrialrelationspractices.Here,
differencesbetweencoordinatedandliberalmarketcountriesarelikelytomattermore.
Nationallabormarketinstitutionsandculturalnormsarelikelytoshapeorconstrainalternative
managementapproachesandoutcomesforemployees.Staffingstrategiesareinfluencedbythe
qualityoftheeducationalsystemsandlocal labor marketconditions. Laborlawsand
regulationssetrulesgoverningtheuseofnonstandardworkarrangementsandpay. Trade
unionsmayalsoinfluencethequalityofworkdesignbyresistingworkpracticesthought
deleterioustoemployeewelfare.

Webeginbyexaminingselection,staffing,andtrainingstrategiesthenmovetoworkdesign,
performancemanagement,andpaysystems andcollectiverepresentation.

Selection
Employershaveattheirdisposal anumberofcriteriaformakingselectiondecisions.
Psychologistshavedevelopedanarrayofsystematictests(psychometrictests,aptitudetests,
realisticjobpreviews)designedtoselectthemosttalentedapplicantsorthosethatbestfitthe
demandsofthejob.Useoftheseselectiontestsisoneindicatorthatmanagementtakes
recruitmentandhiringseriouslyandisattemptingtobeselectiveinthechoiceofentrylevel
workers. Centersusethemeitherforallemployeesornoneatall.Overall,about50%ofcall
centersarehighusersofselectiontests.Call centersinliberalandindustrializingcountriesuse
selectiontestsmoreextensivelythatthoseincoordinatedcountries(seeFigure2.1).For
examplesomeofthehighestusersareusersareBrazil,India,theUK,andSouthAfrica,
althoughexceptionsareFranceandIsrael.

Theselectionrateistheproportionofpeopleactuallyhiredrelativetotheoverallpoolof
applicants. Arelativelylowselectionratemeansthatacompanyismoreselectiveorsaid
differently thattheemployerisabletohirethebestapplicantsfromalargepool.Thetypical
(ormedian)centerinthisstudy hasaselectionrateof20percent,meaningthateveryonein
fiveapplicantsishired.FromFigure2.2,itisevidentthatthecountrieswiththelowest
selectionrates thatisthemostselectiveincludeIndia(7%)andGermanyandSweden
(10%),whereasNetherlands(40%),andKorea,BrazilandSpain(all30%),aretheleast
selective. Differencesbetweencountriesdonotseemtodependonwhethertheyareclassified
ascoordinated,liberal,orrecentlyindustrialized.

11
 Figure2.1.PercentofCenterswithExtensiveUseofSelection
Tests
Aust ria
90 Denmark
France
Germany
75 Israel
Netherlands

60 Sp ain
Sweden

45
Canada
Ireland
30 UK
US
15
Brazil
0 Ind ia
CoordinatedLiberalIndustrializing Po land
So ut hA f rica
TypeofEconomy So ut hKo rea

Figure2.2.SelectionRateofTypicalCallCenter(Percentof
ApplicantsHired) A ustria
Denmark
40 France
Germany
Israel
Netherland s
30 Sp ain
Sweden

20 Canad a
Ireland
UK
US
10

B razil
India
0 Po land
CoordinatedLiberalIndustrializing So uthAf rica
So uthKo rea
TypeofEconomy

Butwhatarethetypicalskilllevelsofthosebeingselected?Whilecall centeremploymenthas
theimageofbeinglowskilledclericalwork,most centershireindividualswithatleasta
secondaryeducationdegree(exceptionsareBrazilandSouthAfrica). Moreover,aminorityof
centersinthisstudy 22%relyprimarilyonauniversityeducatedworkforce. However,
givendifferencesinnationaleducationsystems,countriesvarysubstantiallyinthisregard. In
India,wherecollegeeducationisathreeyearprocess,over70% of centersinourstudyreport
relyingprimarily on collegegraduates(apatternconsistentwith otherreports).Franceisa
closesecond(atover60% of centersrelyingonemployeeswith 2yearsofschoolingat
universitylevel). Spain,Sweden,Ireland,andtheUKhavebetween28%and39%of centers
thatprimarily useuniversityeducatedworkerswiththreeyeardegrees. IntheUS,20% ofcall
centersprimarily useemployeeswitha4yearuniversitydegree,andanother12%employ
workerswithatleasttwoyearsofcollege.Othercountriesmakelessuseofuniversityeducated
individuals.

12
 Figure2.3.PercentofCentersthatPrimarilyHireCollegeGraduates
Aust ria
Denmark
80 France
Germany
70 Israel
Netherland s
60 Sp ain
Sweden
50
40
Canad a
30 ` Ireland
UK
20 US

10
0 Brazil
Ind ia
CoordinatedLiberalIndustrializing
Po land

TypeofEconomy So ut hAf rica

So ut hKo rea

Theremaybemanyreasonsfor theuseofcollegeeducatedworkers.Somecall centershave

specificallylocatednearcollegecampusestotakeadvantageofstudentlabor,andatleastsome
ofthesestudentsmaycontinueworkingincall centersaftergraduating. Somecollege
graduatesmayviewcall centerworkasatemporaryortransitionaljobbeforefullyenteringthe
labormarket,whileothersmayfaceatightlabormarketandworkinjobsthatunderutilize
theirskills.Finally,somecall centerjobssuch asthoseprovidingtechservicesorserving
largebusinessmayrequirerelativelyprofessionalskills.

Training
Employerinvestmentsintrainingareanimportantsupplementtoselectionstrategiesincall
centersbecausejobskillsandrequirementsareoftenbasedonfirmspecificproductsand
processes.Fewcountrieshavedevelopedpublictrainingcoursesorcertificationproceduresfor
call centerworkers.EvenincountriessuchasGermany,Austria,theNetherlands,and
Denmark,which areknownfor theirapprenticeshipsystems,theoccupationissonewthat
trainingsystemshavenotbeendevelopedorinstitutionalized.Thus,employersneedtoprovide
initialtraininginspecificproducts,softwaresystemsandtechnicalprocesses,andsalesor
customerinteractionskills.

Newlyhiredworkerstypicallyreceive15daysroughlythreeweeks ofinitialtraining(see
figure2.4).Thisestimateisfairlyconsistentacrosscountries.Beyondinitialtraining,ittakes
anaverageof11.5weeksoralmostthreemonthsfornewworkerstobeproficientattheir
jobs.Buthere,weseelargedifferencesacrossdifferentcountriesfromalowof4weeksin
Israelto25weeksinIrelandandtheUK andalsoacrossdifferenttypesof economies.
Managersreported thatagentstake8weekstobecomeproficientincoordinatedeconomies,16
weeksinliberal marketeconomies,and12weeksinindustrializingeconomies.Thisvariation
couldbeduetoseveralfactors:differencesintheformaleducationallevel ofnewhiresinthe
complexityofproducts,servicesortechnicalsystemsinmanagementstrategiesregarding
servicequality and,inmanagementstandardsforwhatitmeanstobeproficientorfully
competent.Wecannotshedlightonthesedifferentexplanations,butitisworthwhilenoting
thatthelevelofcomplexityandtimetobecomeproficientinthesejobsishighlyvariable
acrosscountries.

13
Beyondinitialtraining,employeesneedongoingtrainingtoremainproficientandfully
productiveatwork.Ongoingtrainingmayalsobeneededforupdatesinproductsand
processes. Inthetypicalcall center,experiencedagentsreceiveanaverageof6daysof
trainingperyear.Thereis,however,aclusterofcountriesinwhichexperiencedagentsreceive
10daystrainingayear.TheyincludeGermany,India,Korea,Poland,SouthAfricaandSpain,
whileinBrazilexperiencedagentsreceive15daysperyear.

Staffing,NonstandardWorkArrangements,andFlexibility
Apartfromdecisionsoverselectionandtraining,staffingdecisionsalsoentailwhattypeof
employmentcontractsemployerschoosetouse:whetherfulltime,parttime,orsometypeof
temporarycontract.Demandforecastingisdifficultforcall centermanagersbecauseoflarge
fluctuationsincallvolumes.Thesefluctuationsmayoccuronadaily,weekly,orseasonal
basisandtheyareoftenexperiencedmorebysubcontactorsthanbyinhousecentersbecause
theformeroftenjuggleseveralcontractsatonceanddonotknowwhenaclientmaydecideto
terminateacontract.Asaresult,call centersareknownfortheirextensiveuseofparttimeand
temporary laborcontractstohandledemandfluctuations,aswellastokeeplaborcostslow.

Intheaveragecall center,71% ofemployeesarefulltime,17%areparttime,and12%are

temporaryworkers. However,thedifferencesinstaffingpatternsacrosscountriesare
substantialandmeritcloserexamination. TheaverageIndiancall centerhasthehighest
proportionofpermanentfulltimeagents(with 97%),followedby SouthAfrica(with 88%),
andthisisprobablyrelatedtoemployerinvestmentsintrainingandlanguageneutralisation.

Coordinatedeconomiesmakethegreatestuseofnonstandardworkarrangements,with the
averagecenteremployingtemporaryorparttimeworkersin 33%of thejobs.Particularly
largeusersofparttimeworkersincludecall centersin Israel(48%)andtheNetherlands(46%),
whiletheaverageSpanishcall centerhas44%ofitsworkforceunder temporary contracts(see
Figure2.5).Somehaveexplainedthishighusageasareactiontorestrictiveemployment
protectionlawsthatmakeitdifficulttofirepermanentemployees,andourfieldresearch
suggeststhatthisisthecaseinthesecountries.Moreimportantly,inmostofthesecountries,
laborlawsrequirethatparttimeemployeesreceivethesamehourlypayasfulltime

14
employees.Thus,usingparttimecontractsallowsemployersgreater labormarketflexibility,
butnotattheexpenseoflowerhourlywagesforemployees.Denmark,bycontrast,resembles
thepatternsfoundintheliberalmarketeconomies,perhapsinpartbecauselabormobilityis
comparabletothatfoundintheUSandCanada.

Amongrecentlyindustrializedeconomies,therearelargedifferencesamongcountries:inIndia,
virtuallyall ofthecall centersinthestudyreliedonfulltimeworkerswhileinSouthKorea,
theaveragecall centerhad60%ofitsworkforceundertemporarycontracts.Ourfieldresearch
suggeststhatthesepatternsdependnotonlyonlabor marketregulationbutonthespecific
historiesandmarketconditionsincountriesatthetimethecall centersectoremerged.InIndia,
employerspreferfulltimeworkersbecauseofthehighinitialinvestmenttheymustmakein
languageneutralizationandtraining.InSouthKorea,call centersemergedjustaftertheAsian
economiccrisisin1997,andemployerssoughtwaystocutlaborcostsandavoidunion
contracts.Temporary laborcontractsspread rapidly,becominganormthroughoutthecall
centersector.

Figure2.6.PercentofCenterswithFlexibleWorkArrangements
Aust ria
Denmark

60 France
Germany
Israel
Netherlands
Sp ain
Sweden
40

Canada
Ireland
UK
20
US

Brazil
Ind ia
0 Po land
CoordinatedLiberalIndustrializing So ut hA f rica
So ut hKo rea
TypeofEconomy

15
Finally,whetheremployersprovideflexibleworkarrangementssuchasjobsharing,
telecommuting,andflexitimecanbeanimportantsourceofflexibilityforworkersin
balancingdemandsforworkandfamily.Here,wefindthat35% ofcall centersdonotoffer
employeesanyoftheseworkarrangements.However,over40% ofcall centersinAustria,
Germany,theNetherlands,Sweden,andtheUKdoprovidethesealternatives(Figure2.6).

Work Organization
Workorganizationisacontroversialdimensionofemploymentincall centers.Ontheone
hand,call center technologiesallowforhighlevelsofstandardizationandscriptingoftexts,
whichcanraisecallhandlingefficiencies.Ontheotherhand,employeesfrequentlycomplain
ofboredomorstressfromhighlevelsofroutinisationandrepetition.Priorresearchoncall
centersdemonstrates thatlowjobdiscretion andhighperformancemonitoringisassociated
with higherlevelsofanxiety,depression,emotionalexhaustion,andlowerlevelsofjob
satisfaction.

Figure2.6.PercentofCenterswithFlexibleWorkArrangements
Aust ria
Denmark

60 France
Germany
Israel
Netherlands
Sp ain
Sweden
40

Canada
Ireland
UK
20
US

Brazil
Ind ia
0 Po land
CoordinatedLiberalIndustrializing So ut hA f rica
So ut hKo rea
TypeofEconomy

Weexaminedthreeaspectsofwork organizationinthisstudy:jobdiscretion,performance
monitoring,andteamwork.

Jobdiscretion. Jobdiscretionreferstotheamountofchoicethatagentshavewhendoingjob
tasks.Weaskedaboutdiscretionoverthepaceofwork,workmethodsandprocedures,the
timingofbreaksandlunches,howagentscompleteatask,andhowtheyrespondtocustomers.
Onaverage,managersrate agents'jobsashavingrelativelylowdiscretion:2.6ona5point
scalewhere1isnoneatalland5isagreatdeal.Thatis,call centerjobsingeneralprovide
relativelyfewopportunitiesforemployeestoexercisetheirindependentjudgment.This
findingisconsistentwithresearchbasedonagents perceptionsoftheirjobs.

However,therearesubstantial differencesacrosscountries. InFigure2.7,weshow the

percentageoflowdiscretionjobsineachcountry(definedas2.6orloweronthe5pointscale).
Ingeneral,comparedtocoordinatedeconomies,liberalmarketeconomieshaveamuchlarger
shareofjobswithlowdiscretion anaverageof51% ofjobscomparedtoonly30%inthe
coordinatedeconomies. In Austria,Denmark,Germany,Spain,andSweden,call center

16
workershavehigherlevelsofjobdiscretion.Bycontrast,over55% ofthejobsinCanadaand
theUKofferfewopportunitiesforemployeestomakeindependentdecisions.Amongthe
recentlyindustrializedcountries,thereislargevariation.Amongallcountries,Indiastandsout
asunique,withalmostthreequartersofthejobsofferingvery littleopportunityforemployees
tomakeindependentdecisionsabouttheirwork.

Figure2.7.PercentofCenterswithLowDiscretionJobs Aust ria

Denmark
France

80 Germany
Israel
70 Netherlands
Sp ain
60 Sweden

50
40 Canada
Ireland
30 UK
US
20
10
Brazil
0 Ind ia
CoordinatedLiberalIndustrializing Po land
So ut hA f rica
TypeofEconomy So ut hKo rea

Performancemonitoring. Performancemonitoringiswidespreadincall centersastechnology

providestoolsfor theongoingcollectionofagentproductivity datasuchascallhandling
times,tasktimes,andcallwaitingtimes.

Managershaveconsiderablechoice,however,inhowtheyusethattechnology.Supervisors
canlisteninonemployeescallsandprovidefeedbackonperformanceonadaily,weekly,
monthly,orquarterlybasis.Performancemonitoringprovidesamechanismforqualitycontrol,
andwhenusedconstructively,foremployeeskilldevelopment.However,frequent
performancemonitoringandfeedbackcansignaltoemployeesthatmanagementdoesnottrust
themtodotheirjobwell.Andemployeesoftencomplainthatthelackofprivacyandconstant
exposuretomanagementobservationincreasesstressatwork.Monitoringsystemsincall
centersareoneofthemorecontestedareasintheorganization ofworkincall centers.

Toassessthelevelofperformancemonitoring,weaskedhowfrequentlysupervisorsmonitor
agentscallsandhowfrequentlyagentsreceivedfeedbackonproductivityandonqualityona
scalerangingfromnevertoquarterly,monthly,weekly,todaily.Wecombinedthese
questionstocreatean averagemonitoringscore.Figure2.8showsthatinthetypicalcall center
eachoftheseperformancemonitoringactivitiesoccursonabiweekly basis,butdifferences
acrosscountriesandeconomiesareevident.Theintensityofmonitoringisconsiderably
greaterintherecentlyindustrializedeconomieswhereeachperformancemonitoringactivity
typicallyoccursatleastonceaweekormore thanitisineitherthecoordinatedorliberal
marketeconomies.Performancemonitoringactivitiestypically occurmonthlyincoordinated
countries,andbiweekly inliberalcountries.Indiahasthehighestperformancemonitoring
activityofseveraltimesaweek.

17
 Figure2.8.FrequencyofPerformanceMonitoringActivities
Aust ria
Denmark
8
Dai ly France
Germany
Israel
Netherlands
Sp ain
6
We e kly Sweden

Canada
Monthly Ireland
4 UK
US

Brazil
2 Ind ia
CoordinatedLiberalIndustrializing Po land
So ut hA f rica
TypeofEconomy So ut hKo rea

Teamwork. Workandtechnologyincall centersareorganizedprimarilytomanagehow

individualemployeesinteractwithcustomershencethecarefulattentiontoindividualjob
designandperformancemanagement.Otherapproachestoorganizingwork theuseofself
directedteamsorqualityimprovementgroups havebecomewidespreadinmanyindustries.
Managersofcall centers,however,havebeenslowtoadoptthesetechniques.Manyviewthem
asunderminingtheefficiencyofthecall centerproductionmodel withitshighlevelsof
standardizationandindividualmonitoring,andlowlevelsofdiscretion.However,these
alternativeapproacheshavebeensuccessfullyadoptedinmassproductionmanufacturing,
whereconformanceto operationsmanagementstandardsisclearlyasimportantasitisincall
centers. Researchincall centershasshownthatproductivityandsalesarehigheratworksites
organizedonthebasisof selfdirectedteams.

Figure2.9.PercentofCenterswithatLeastHalfofWorkforcein
SelfDirectedTeams Aust ria
Denmark

70 France
Germany
Israel
60
Netherlands
Sp ain
50 Sweden

40
Canada
30 Ireland
UK

20 US

10
Brazil
Ind ia
0 Po land
CoordinatedLiberalIndustrializing So ut hA f rica
So ut hKo rea
TypeofEconomy

18
Semiautonomousteamsareworkgroupsinwhichemployeesmaketheirowndecisionsabout
taskassignmentsandworkmethods.Usageratesarelow.Withtwoexceptions,about60%of
call centersineachcountryreportthattheymakelittleornousetheseteams.Thoseworksites
thatdomakeuseofteams,however,seemtoinvolvealargeproportionoftheworkforce.
Thus,almost30%ofworkplaceshaveatleast50%oftheworkforceorganizedintoteams.The
leaderisSweden,longknownforitsexperimentsinselfdirectedworkteams,withover60%
ofcall centersorganizingamajorityoftheworkforceintoteams(Figure2.9).SouthAfrica
alsohasahigh rateofuse,with46%ofmanagersreportingtheuseofteamsforamajorityof
employees.

Problemsolvinggroupsprovideopportunitiesforemployeestomeetwithsupervisorsona
regularbasistheycanbethesourceoflearning,problemsolving,andperformance
improvement.Weaskedmanagerswhethertheyusedtheseteams,andifso,whatproportion
oftheworkforcewasinvolved.Incontrasttoselfdirectedteams,almost80% ofcall centers
useproblemsolvinggroups.However,thepercentageoftheworkforceinvolvedisquitelow,
suggestingthattheseteamsareusedonanadhocbasiswithsmallnumbersofemployeesto
discussparticularissuesratherthanaspartofaformalcontinuousimprovementprogramme
(Figure2.10). Problemsolvingteamsarenotaregularfeatureofworklifeforthemajorityof
employees.

Figure2.10.PercentofCenterswithatLeastHalfofWorkforcein
ProblemSolvingTeams Aust ria
Denmark

70 France
Germany
Israel
60
Netherlands
Sp ain
50 Sweden

40
Canada
30 Ireland
UK

20 US

10
Brazil
Ind ia
0 Po land
CoordinatedLiberalIndustrializing So ut hA f rica
So ut hKo rea
TypeofEconomy

CompensationStrategies
Payforperformancecompensationstrategieshavebecomepopularoverthelastdecadeorso,
andwefindthattheyhavespreadtocall centersinmostcountries. Onaverageacrossall
countriesinthisstudy,15.3%ofagentspayisperformancebased.However,becausethese
centersareoftenfocusedonsales,anddonotuseteambasedformsofwork organization,
individualsalesincentivesorcommissionplansaremoreprevalentthangroupbasedplans,and
wefindthistobetrueacrossallofthecountriesinthestudy. Individualincentivesaccountfor
12.5%ofpay,onaverage,whilegroupincentivesamountto2.9%.

However,theproportionofanagentspaythatisperformancebaseddiffersmarkedlyacross
countriesfromalowof 4.4%inSpaintoahighof41%intheNetherlands.Differencesin

19
useofincentivepaydonotseemtovaryaccordingtowhethercountrieshavecoordinated,
liberal,orrecentlyindustrializedeconomies.Theyvaryonacountrybycountrybasis.

Asimilarpatternexistsformanagerialpay,butsurprisingly,managershavelowerlevelsof
performancebasedpaythandoagentsinmostofthecountriesinthestudy.Incentivepay
averages12.8%ofmanagerialpay,dividedbetweenindividualincentives(8.5%)andgroup
incentives(4.3%).Again,thevariabilityinstrategiesacrosscountriesisnotable(seeFigure
2.12).

20
CollectiveRepresentation
Industrialrelationssystemsdiffersubstantiallyfromonecountrytoanotherintermsofthe
extentofunioncoverageandtherulesgoverningcollectivebargaining.Thesedifferenceshave
importantimplicationsforthelevelofwagesandwageinequalityacrosscountries.

Oneofthemostimportantdifferencesisthelevelofcentralizationorcoordinationincollective
bargaining.Inthecoordinatedeconomies,collectivebargaininghistoricallyhasoccurred
betweenunionsandemployersassociationsattheindustryorsectorallevel.Thenegotiated
wageoftenisextendedtootheremployers,regardlessofwhethertheyarepartiesto
negotiationsorwhethertheiremployeesareunionmembers.Thistendstoreduceoverallwage
inequality.Intheliberalmarketeconomies,bycontrast,industrialrelationssystemsarequite
decentralized,andcollectivebargainingtypicallyoccursatthefirmlevelorlower,resultingin
largedifferencesinwagesacrossindustries,acrossfirmsinthesameindustry,andevenacross
worksitesinthesamefirm.Therecentlyindustrializedeconomiesinourstudyalsotendto
haverelativelydecentralizedsystems,withlargedifferencesinwagesandworkingconditions
acrossfirms.

Whetherthesehistoricdifferencesapplytothecall centersector,however,hasbeenasubject
ofdebate.Ontheonehand,wherefirmsarealreadycoveredbycollectivebargaining,thenthe
inhouse centerssetupbythosefirmsshouldalsobecoveredbycollectiveagreements.
Unioncoverageincall centerswouldreflectthelevelofunion organizationinthesectorasa
whole.Ifaggregatedacrosssectors,wewouldexpectcollectivebargainingcoverageincall
centerstoreflectnationalpatterns.Thus,call centersincoordinatedeconomiesshouldhave
higherlevelsofunionrepresentationandlowerwageinequalitythanthoseinliberaland
recentlyindustrializedmarkets.Ontheotherhand,ifcall centersaresetupassubsidiariesor
asoutsourcedcenters,thentheyareunlikelytobecoveredbyunionsorcollectiveagreements
eveninthecoordinatedeconomies(excepttheNetherlandsandFrancewhereanational
bargainingstructuresforoutsourcedcentershaveemerged).

Workscouncilsprovideanotherformofcollectiverepresentation.Whiletheregulations
governingworkscouncilsdifferfromonecountrytoanother, thesecouncilsgenerallyprovide
aforumforelectedemployeerepresentativestoconsultwithmanagementoverworking
conditionsandworkplacerestructuring.Unionrepresentativesmayserveasworkscouncil
representatives,butthetwoformsofrepresentationaredistinct.Someworkplaceshaveactive
unionsandactiveworkscouncils,whileothershaveonlyunions,onlyworkscouncils,orno
representationatall.Canada,theUS,India,andSouthKoreahavenoworkscouncil
legislation.

Ingeneral,wefindarelatively highlevelofcollectivebargainingandworkscouncilactivityin
call centers.Fortypercentofcall centersarecoveredby collectivebargainingagreementsor
bargainingagreementsplusworkscouncils.Justover50%havesomeformofcollective
representation.Andasexpected,thecoordinatedeconomieshaveconsiderablyhigherlevelsof
representationthaneithertheliberalmarketorrecentlyindustrializedeconomies.Amongthe
continentalEUcountries(exceptPoland),62% of centershavecollectivebargaining
agreementsorcollectivebargainingagreementsplusworkscouncils,and77%havesomeform
ofcollectiverepresentation (seeFigure2.13).

21
Liberalandrecentlyindustrializedeconomies,bycontrast,lookquitedifferent:whileIreland
andtheUKhaveconsiderablecollectivebargainingcoverage(35%and46%respectively),
CanadaandtheUShavequitelowcoverage(16%andlessthan10%respectively).Similarly,
whileBrazilhasconsiderablecollectivebargainingcoverage(70%),andSouthKoreaand
Polandhavelessthan10%each.

Earningslevelsandcollectivebargaining. Annualearningsweredefinedasbasicpayplusall
performancerelatedpay,(includingindividualandgroupcommission,andprofitsharing)but
excludingovertimepay.WeconvertedthesepaylevelstoUSdollarsusingtheexchangerate
currentatthetimeofthecountryssurvey. Itisnotmeaningfultocompareearningsacross
countriesbecausetheyfailtotakeintoaccounttaxlevels,benefitlevels,andthecostofliving,
amongotherdifferences.However,itismeaningfultocomparetheearningsofdifferent
groupsofemployeeswithineachcountry,andinFigure2.14wepresenttheannualearningsof
employeesin centerscoveredbycollectivebargainingversusthosethatarenot.Wereportthe
typical annualearningsof fulltimeagentsandmanagers. Bytypical(median),wemeanthat
abouthalfofthesampleispaidmoreandhalfispaidless.

Figure2.14showsthat, incall centerscoveredbycollectivebargaining,wagesarehigherthan

incall centersnotcovered. Thedifferencesforagentwagesarestatistically significantinall
countriesexceptAustria,Sweden,Israel,Poland,SouthAfrica,andtheUK(thereisnounion
dataforIndiaandSpain).Thesedifferencesinearningsmaybeduetovariousfactors,suchas
sectorlocation,customermarketsserved,whetheracenterisinhouseoroutsourced,the
complexityoftasks,orhumancapital factorsthatarenottakenintoaccountinFigure2.14.
InBrazil,unioncall centersshowsignificantlylowerwages,althoughthismaybedueto
sectoralor otherfactors thatwewereunabletoaccountfor.

Theearningsdifferentialformanagersissmallerinmagnitude,andthedifferencesare
statisticallysignificantinAustria,Ireland,Canada,andtheUS.

22
 Figure2.14.Earningsof Agents& Managers,byCollectiveBargainingCoverage

AgentsMedianPay(US$) ManagersMedianPay(US$)
Coveredby NotCovered % Coveredby NotCovered %
Collective byCollective Difference Collective byCollective Difference
Bargaining Bargaining Bargaining Bargaining
Col.A Col.B Col.A/B Col.D Col.E Col.D/E
Coordinated
Austria 16,075 15,181 6% 60,241 48,193 20%
Denmark 44,516 40,323 9% 66,567 62,581 6%
France 22,386 19,188 14% 40,590 39,360 3%
Germany 34,776 26,208 25% 79,380 69,300 13%
Israel 10,000 8,800 12% 18,667 16,000 14%
Netherlands 16,022 12,526 22% 61,920 56,889 8%
Spain(NA) 14,640 14,640 0% 63,440 63,440 0%
Sweden 30,375 30,375 0% 42,606 42,606 0%
Average 23,599 20,905 11% 54,176 49,796 8%
Liberal
Canada 40,000 29,000 28% 70,000 51,000 27%
Ireland 29,400 26,730 9% 67,500 48,000 29%
UK 27,300 25,480 7% 49,140 49,140 0%
US 35,000 27,250 22% 64,000 60,000 6%
Average 32,925 27,115 18% 62,660 52,035 17%
Industrializing
Brazil 3,415 4,484 31% 23,630 21,525 9%
India(NA) 2,489 2,489 0% 8,222 8,222 0%
Poland 7,613 6,344 17% 18,300 17,538 4%
SouthAfrica 11,029 10,588 4% 24,044 32,059 33%
S.Korea 19,105 13,026 32% 34,736 30,394 13%

23
 PARTIII.

TheBusinesslevelPicture:DriversofDifferencesbetween Firms

Inthispartweconsiderbusinesslevelfactorsthatexplainwhycall centersdiffer.Wefocuson
twobusinessstrategiesthatinfluenceworkorganizationandhumanresourcepractices:
outsourcingandcustomersegmentationstrategies.Aswehaveshown,allofthecountriesin
thisstudyhavesomeproportionofcall centersoperatedbysubcontractors averagingabout
onethirdofall centers,andrangingfromalowof13%intheUSto80%inIndia.Customer
segmentationstrategiesallowcompaniestodifferentiateserviceactivitiesaccordingtothe
demandcharacteristicsofcustomergroups typicallybyproduct,task,orvalueadded.This
differentiation,inturn,allowsthecall centertotakeadvantageofspecializationinworkforce
skillsandlaborallocation.

SubcontractorsandInhouseCall Centers
Priorresearchshowsthatcompaniesfrequentlyusesubcontractorstoreducecostsortocarry
outtasksthataretransactionalinnatureorthatthefirmconsidersnottobecorecompetencies.
Pressurestokeepcostslowmay reducewageratesandtheuseofhighcostsophisticated
humanresourcepractices,whileincreasingtheneedforhigherefficiencies(e.g.,morecallsper
person,shortercalllengths).

Outsourcingalsoinvolvesrisksforcompanies,astheyhavelittledirectcontroloverthequality
ofoperations.Asaresult,clientfirmsofteninsistonvendoragreementsthatspelloutingreat
detailtheprocedurestobeusedbysubcontractorstoensurequalitycontrol.Thismayresultin
clientscloselymonitoringtheoperationsofsubcontractorsandtoanoverallreductioninthe
discretionofboththemanagersandtheagentsin subcontractors.Subcontractorsalsojuggle
multiplecontractsandfaceconsiderableuncertaintyindemandastheydonotknowwhenthey
maygetnewcontractsorloseexistingones.Hence,theyarelikelytousemoreflexible
staffingstrategiescomparedtoinhouseoperations.

Thefindingsinthissectionshowthatsubcontractorsaredifferentfrominhousecentersin
virtuallyallofthecountriesinthestudy:theyarenewermarketentrantsandmorelikelyto
servetheinternationalmarkettheyarelargerinsizeandmorelikelytofocusexclusivelyon
salesandoutboundcalls.Theymakegreateruseofparttimeandtemporaryworkers,offer
lowerdiscretionjobs,havehigherlevelsofperformancemonitoring,paylowerwages,andare
lesslikelytobecoveredbyunioncontracts.Wedescribethesepatternsindetailbelow.

Marketsandorganization. Subcontractorsdifferfrominhousecentersinthemarketsthey
serve.Twentythreepercentofsubcontractorsserveinternationalcustomerscomparedto9%
ofinhousecall centers.However,amongthecountriesinthisstudy,international
subcontractorsaredisproportionatelylocatedinthreecountries:Canada,India,andSouth
Africa.Whenthesethreecountriesareexcluded,thedifferencesbetweensubcontractorsand
inhousecentersintherestofthecountriesaresmaller:11% ofsubcontractorsversus6%ofin
housecentersserveinternationalmarkets.Subcontractors,onaverage,arealsonewerentrants
tothemarket:thetypicalsubcontractorisabouttwoyearsyoungerthanthetypicalinhouse
center.

Subcontractorsaretypicallylargerthaninhousecenters.Thetypicalsizeofasubcontractoris
77,comparedto41employeesforinhousecenters.Thispatternholdsacrossallthecountries

24
inthestudy(exceptSouthAfrica).Subcontractorsalsoemploy56%ofallcall center
employees,eventhoughtheyonlymakeup33%ofallcall centers.

Typesofcustomerservices. Inadditiontodifferencesinmarketorientationandsize,
subcontractorsdifferfrominhousecentersinthetypesofservicestheyoffer:theyare
significantlymorelikelytofocusexclusivelyonsales.Onaverage,36%ofsubcontractors
focusexclusivelyonsalestoexistingandnewcustomers,comparedto14%ofinhouse
centers.Thedifferencebetweeninhouseandsubcontractorsismoremarkedincertain
countries.Forexample,53%ofFrenchsubcontractorsfocusedexclusivelyonsales,whileonly
14%ofFrenchinhousecall centersdosowhilesubcontractorsinSpain(15%)andSouth
Korea(12%)aremuchlesslikelytofocusexclusivelyonsales. Figure3.1showsthat,ahigher
proportioninhousecall centershaveacustomerserviceorientationthatprimarilyinvolves
customerserviceonlyoracombinationofsalesandservice.

Figure3.1.Percentageof CentersProvidingDifferentTypesofServices

Subcontractor InHouse
ServiceType(%)
Salesonlytoexistingornewcustomers 36 14
Service&Sales 22 35
ServiceOnly 43 51

InboundandOutboundCalls
Inbound 59 88
Outbound 41 12

Themajorityofsubcontractorsandinhousecall centersdealprimarilywithinboundcalls,but
subcontractorsaresignificantlylesslikelytodealwithinboundscalls,andmorelikelytodeal
withoutboundcalls.Inthisstudy,88%ofinhousecentersdealwithinboundcalls,whileonly
59%ofsubcontractorsdoso.Overall,thefindingssuggestthatsubcontractorsaremorelikely
tospecializeinoutboundsalesandtelemarketingcomparedtoinhousecenters.

Therearenosignificantdifferencesinthemediancalltimesbetweensubcontractors(3mins,17
seconds)andinhousecall centers(3mins,20seconds)butagentsinsubcontractorstypically
handle80callsperday,whichissignificantlyhigherthanthe65callsperdaythatagentsinin
housecall centerstypicallyhandle.

Humanresourceandindustrialrelationspractices. Subcontractorsandinhousecentersdo
notdiffersignificantlyintheiradoptionofcall center technologiesorintheiruseof
sophisticatedselectiontests, orperformancebasedpay.Butanumberofdifferencesinhuman
resourcepracticesandworkorganizationaresalient.Asthetablesandchartsbelowindicate,
subcontractorsaresignificantlylesslikelytousepermanent,fulltimestaffortoinvestinnew
hiretraining.Thejobsinsubcontractor centerstendtobeoflowercomplexityandtooffer
lowerearningstobothworkersandmanagers.Theseattributesareconsistentwithacost
focusedbusinessstrategy.

Fulltimevs.contingentstaffing. Comparedtoinhousecenters,subcontractorshirea
significantlylowerproportionoffulltimepermanentemployees. Intheaveragesubcontractor,
63%ofagentshavefulltimecontracts, comparedto74%ininhousecenters.Subcontractors
relymoreheavilyonparttimeandtemporarystaff. Theaveragesubcontractoremploys20%

25
ofstaffonpermanentparttimecontracts,asopposedto15%ininhousecall centers andthe
averagesubcontractoremploys15%ofstaffonfulltimetemporarycontracts,asopposedto
10%ininhousecall centers. Figure3.2showsthepercentageoffulltimeemployeesinin
housecentersversussubcontractorsforeachcountryinthestudy.Ascanbeseen,inthe
majorityofcountries,inhousecentershaveahigherpercentageoffulltimeemployeesthan
subcontractors.

Wehavealreadydescribedthedifferencesbetweencountrieswithregardtostaffingstrategies,
butthedifferencesbetweeninhouseandsubcontractorsaremoremarkedincertaincountries.
Forexample,Danishsubcontractorsemploy31%ofemployeesusingparttimepermanent
contracts,comparedto17%ininhousecall centerswhileFrenchsubcontractorsemploy39%
onfulltimetemporarycontracts,comparedto12%ininhousecall centers.

Training. Subcontractorsinvestsignificantlylessintheinitialtrainingofnewhires:almost
50%less.Whilethetypicalsubcontractorprovides14daysofinitialtraining,thetypicalin
housecenterprovides20days.Thispatternisquitesimilaracrosscountries.Itisalsoin
keepingwiththefactthatclientfirmstypicallyoutsourcethemoretransactional,lesscomplex
worktosubcontractors andoneindicatorofjobcomplexityisthetimeonthejobittakesfora
newlyhiredemployeetobefullycompetent.Wefoundconsistentandsignificantdifferences
betweeninhousecentersandsubcontractorsinalmostallofthecountriesinthestudy. In
subcontractorcenters,thetypicalemployeestakesabout14weekstobecomefullyqualified,
whileininhousecentersthetimerequiredis20weeks(Figure3.3).

26
Workdesign. Subcontractorsarealsomorelikelytohavejobsthatofferlowerdiscretionand
higherperformancemonitoring.Theydonotdiffermarkedlyintheiruseofteams.

Figure3.4showsthepercentageofjobswithlowdiscretion.Fortyeightpercentof
subcontractorsreportedjobswithlittleornodiscretion,comparedto35%ofinhousecenter
managers.

Brokendownfurther,itisevidentthatagentshaveverylowlevelsofjobdiscretionin15%of
subcontractors,whereasverylowlevelsofjobdiscretionarefoundinonly6%ofinhousecall
centers.

27
Performancemonitoringistypicallyhigherinsubcontractors.Ittypicallyoccursonaweekly
basisinsubcontractorscenters,comparedtoamonthlybasisininhousecenters.These
patternsareconsistentwiththefactthatclientfirmsarelikelytoinsistonhighlevelsof
standardizationandmonitoringasamechanismforensuringqualitycontrol. Thereislittle
differencewithregardto teamworking.Forexample,28% ofsubcontractorsand30%ofin
housecall centershavemorethanhalfofemployeesengagedin problemsolvinggroups.

AnnualearningsAnotherindicatorofthedifferencesbetweeninhouseandsubcontractors
centersistheannualpaythatemployeesreceive. Figure3.5showsthepercentdifferenceinthe
annualearningsofagentsandmanagersininhousecentersversussubcontractorsforeach
country. Wereportthetypicalannualearningsof fulltimeemployeesinthetypicalcall center.
Bytypical(median),wemeanthatabouthalfofthesampleispaidmoreandhalfispaidless.

Figure3.5.TypicalAnnualEarningsofCall Center Agents&Managers(US$):

InhouseCenters&SubcontractorsCompared
Call Center Agents Managers
Inhouse Sub % Inhouse Sub
Centers contractors difference Centers contractors %difference
Col.A Col.B Col.A/B Col.D Col.E Col.D/E
Austria $16,867 $14,506 16.28 $50,602 $56,626 10.64
Denmark $44,516 $36,774 21.05 $66,129 $56,452 17.14
France $22,755 $18,450 23.33 $41,820 $36,900 13.33
Germany $33,264 $26,208 26.92 $75,600 $66,150 14.29
Israel $9,333 $8,507 9.72 $16,267 $18,667 12.86
Netherlands $16,770 $11,610 44.44 $61,920 $54,180 14.29
Spain $17,690 $12,216 44.81 $62,220 $63,440 1.92
Sweden $30,618 $25,718 19.06 $43,200 $40,500 6.67

Canada $34,165 $25,500 33.98 $60,000 $50,000 20.00

Ireland $28,800 $22,500 28.00 $58,560 $36,000 62.67
UK $27,300 $24,570 11.11 $50,106 $47,320 5.89
US $29,000 $25,000 16.00 $60,000 $49,500 21.21

Brazil $4,484 $3,139 42.86 $26,906 $21,525 25.00

India $2,667 $2,311 15.38 $8,889 $8,111 9.59
Poland $6,954 $5,710 21.79 $18,300 $17,538 4.35
S.Africa $10,588 $10,551 0.35 $31,324 $21,176 47.92
S.Korea $13,816 $12,765 8.23 $34,736 $22,578 53.85

Averageannualearningsarelowerforcall centeragentsinsubcontractorscomparedtoin
housecentersinallbutoneofthecountriesinthestudy(inSouthAfrica,wheretheyare
equal).ThesedifferencesarestatisticallysignificantlydifferentinallcountriesbutAustria,
India,Poland,andtheUK. Thewagesofagentsinsubcontractorsare,onaverage,12%lower
thanthecountrymedian,whereasthewagesforagentsininhousecall centersare6%above
thecountrymedian.Thismeansthatagentsininhousecall centersgetawagethatis,on
average,18%higherthanagentsinsubcontractors. Thesedifferencesinwagesmaybedueto
variousfactors. Subcontractorstypicallyhavelowerunioncoverage,lowertaskcomplexity,
andhireemployeeswithlowerskillsandformaleducation.

28
Thepatternformanagersissimilar,althoughthemagnitudeofdifferenceissmaller.
DifferencesarestatisticallysignificantinDenmark,France,theNetherlands,Ireland,Canada,
theUS,andSouthKorea. Overall,theannualearningsofthetypicalmanagerinsubcontractors
centersare12%lowerthanthoseofmanagersininhousecenters.TwoexceptionsareAustria
andSpain wherethemedian wageinsubcontractorscentersisgreaterthanthatfoundinin
houseworksites.

Collectiverepresentation. Collectivebargainingcoverageof subcontractorsisconsiderably

lowerthan thatfoundininhousecenters.Unionsarerecognisedforcollectivebargainingin
41%ofinhousecall centersand29%ofsubcontractors.Thispatternreflectsthefactthatin
housecentersoperatewithintraditionalindustryboundaries,forexample,inthebankingor
telecommunicationssectors,andthuscall centersmoreorlessreflectthepatternsofunion
densityandcoverageofthesector.Subcontractorstypicallyoperateoutsidetheboundariesof
traditionalindustries,andtherefore,unioncoverageprimarilyexistswhereneworganizing
effortshavebeensuccessful.

AsshowninFigure3.6,collectivebargainingcoverageishigheramonginhousecenters
comparedtosubcontractorsinvirtuallyeverycountryinthestudy. Thirtyfivepercentofthe
call centersinthisstudyhaveworkscouncils,andthatfigureisthesameforinhouseand
subcontractorscenters.However,thedistributionofworkscouncilsvariessignificantlyby
country.InAustria,Denmark,andGermany,inhousecentersare two tothree timesmore
likelytohaveworkscouncils.InFranceandSwedenthedistributionissimilar,whileinthe
Netherlands,Ireland,theUK,Brazil,andSouthAfrica,subcontractorsreportslightlyhigher
levelsofworkscouncilactivity.

CustomerSegmentation
Customersegmentationhasemergedasaneffectivemarketingandorganizationalstrategyfor
matchingthedemandsofparticularcustomergroupstothecapacityofcall centerstorespond
tothosedemands.Historically,many organizationshaveservedallofthecustomersin their
givenregion. Duetolower transmissioncostsand theincreasedcapacity ITsystems,call

29
centershavebeenabletoservelargerterritories,andinturn,differentiatethemselvesby
targetingspecificcustomergroups.

Whilemarketsegmentationisanimperfectart,marketingexpertsaregenerallyabletosegment
theircustomersintobroadgroupingsaccordingtotheirvalueadded,andthatiswhatwehave
usedinthisreport.Wemeasuredcustomersegmentationbyaskingmanagerstodefinethe
primarycustomergroupservedbytheircenter:largebusinessorinstitutions,smallbusiness,
highendretail,massmarketconsumers,orallmarkets.Wherecentersservedmorethanone
segment,weaskedthemtoidentifythegroupthatconstitutesthelargestvolumeofcustomers.

Basedonmanagersresponses,weclassifiedcall centersintofourgroups:

19%primarilyservelargebusinessclients
9%servesmallbusinessorhighendretailcustomers
44%primarilyservethemassmarket
28%servealltypesofcustomer.i.e.,areuniversal centers

Thedistributionoftheworkforcebycustomersegment,however,issomewhatdifferent
becausemassmarketcentersareconsiderablylargerthan centersservingothermarkets.The
typicalmassmarketcenterhas68employees,versus43inlargebusinesscenters,42in
universal centers,and35insmallbusinesscenters.Thelargersizepresumablyallowsmass
marketcenterstohandlehighervolumesandtotakeadvantageofscaleeconomies. Thelarger
sizeandfrequencyofmassmarketcall centersmeansthatthemajorityofallemployees55%
workinthesecenters.Eighteenpercentoftheagentsworkinlargebusinesscenters,4%in
smallbusinesscenters,and21%inuniversal centers.

Customersegmentstendtodifferinthelevelofcomplexityintheproductsandservicesthey
demand,withbusinesscustomersatthehigherendofcomplexityandvalueadded.Giventhe
potentialforhigherprofitmargins,centersthattargetlargebusinesscustomersaremorelikely
thanotherstoengageincustomerrelationshipmanagementandtofocusonservicequality.As
aresult,theyarelikelytohiremoreskilledemployeesandadoptamoreprofessionalorhigh
involvementapproachtohumanresourcemanagement.Thus,wewouldexpectcall centers
servinglargebusinessestomakegreateruseofsophisticatedselectionpractices,hiremore
fulltimepermanentstaff,allowemployeestousetheirindependentjudgementwithcustomers,
andpayhigherwages.

Call centersfocusedonthemassmarket,bycontrast,arelikelytohavelowerprofitmargins,
andthereforetakeacostfocusedapproachtoservice.Thissuggeststhattheyarelikelyto
adoptmorestandardizedworkpracticesandperformancemonitoring,investlessinskillsand
training,andofferlowerpay.

Basedontheseideas,wewouldexpecttofindimportantdifferencesincall centersserving
differentcustomersegmentsandwewouldexpectthesedifferencestobemorepronouncedin
largemarketssuchastheUSandtheUK,wheresegmentationstrategieshavedeveloped
considerablymore,thaninsmallcountriesormarketssuchasDenmarkorSpain.Ouranalysis,
infact,showsthistobetrueinmany,althoughnotallrespects.Inthesectionsbelow,wefocus
primarilyonacomparisonof centersservinglargebusinessesandthemassmarket,asthese
representpolaroppositesintermsofcustomerandproductmarketcharacteristics.Small
businessanduniversal centerstendtofallbetweenthesetwoextremes,andwehighlightthese
patternsinthetextaswell.

30
Customerrelationshipmanagement. Buildingrelationshipswithcustomershasbecomean
increasinglypopularapproachtoservicemanagement:loyalcustomersarethoughttobuy
more,buymorevariedproductsandservices,andyieldhigherprofitmarginsthancustomersin
thesamemarketwithlowercommitmenttoacompanyorbrand.Effectiverelationship
strategiesincall centersentailassigningadedicatedagentorgroupofagentstoaparticular
customer.Employeesneedtobeskilledandwelltrainedtoprovidequalityserviceand
customization.Thisisacostlystaffingstrategy onethatislikelytobereservedforhigh
valueaddedcustomers.Call centersaremorelikelytoadoptthesestrategiesforbusiness
customersthantheyareformassmarketconsumers.

Figure3.7.PercentofCenterswithHighRatesofRelationship
Management
50

40

30

20

10

0
Coordinat ed Liberal RecentlyIndustrialized

TypeofEconomy

LargeBusinessCentres MassMarketCentres

ThispatternisreflectedinFigure3.7. Weaskedcall centermanagershowoften anagenthad

repeatedinteractionswith thesamecustomer,withoutwhichrelationshipsaredifficulttoform.
Agentsinmassmarketcentersweremuchlesslikelytoengagein relationshipbuildingthan
employeesinlargebusiness,smallbusiness,oruniversal centers.Thesedifferenceswere
particularlymarkedforcall centersincoordinatedandliberalmarketeconomies.In
coordinatedeconomies,48%ofservicerepsinlargebusinesscentershadrepeatedinteractions
withcustomers,comparedto18%inmassmarketcenters.Thecomparablefiguresforliberal
economieswere55%and19%,whilethedifferencesinrecentlyindustrializedeconomieswere
notpronounced.

Relationshipstrategiescanbeenhancedbyinvestmentsintechnologiesthatprovideaccessto
centersviamultiplechannels(e.g.,email,webenablement,voiceoverinternetprotocol)and
electroniccustomerrelationshipmanagementsystems.Call centersservinglargebusinesses
makeconsiderablygreateruseofthesetechnologiesthandomassmarketcenters.For
example,while26%oflargebusinesscentersuseatleast4or5ofthesetechnologies,only
15%ofmassmarketcentersdo.Largebusinesscentersalsousemoresophisticated
combinationsoftechnology.Forexample,38%oflargebusinesscentersusebothemailand
faxandeitherCRM,VoIPorwebenablement.Incontrast,only22%ofmassmarketcenters
usesuchacombinationoftechnologies.Overall,massmarketcall centersusefewerandless
sophisticatedcustomerinteractionenhancementtechnologies.Somecountrieswherethese

31
differencesintheleveloftechnologiesusedonotprevailincludeDenmark,Germany,Israel,
theNetherlands,SouthKorea,andSweden.

Atthesametime,automationtechnologiesthatsubstituteforhumaninteractionaremore
prevalentinmassmarketcentersthaninbusinesscenters.Forexample,InteractiveVoice
Recognition(IVR)andVoiceRecognitionUnit(VRU)technologiesaresignificantlymore
likelytobefoundinmassmarketcall centersthaninallothercategoriesofcall center.IVR
andVRUtechnologiesarepresentin40%ofmassmarketcall centersasopposedto32%of
universalcall centers,and25%ofsmallbusinessandlargebusinesscenters.

Humanresourcepractices:selection,staffing,and pay. Selection,staffing,andwagelevels

alsodifferbetweenmassmarketandlargebusinesscenters,whiletheamountoffirmprovided
trainingdoesnot.Massmarketcall centersarelessselectiveinwhotheyhirethanallother
categoriesofcall center,althoughthedifferencesarenotlargeinmagnitude.Massmarket
centershireoneinfourcandidates,whilelargebusiness,smallbusiness,anduniversal centers
hireaboutoneinfive. Massmarketcall centersalsoaremorelikelythanotherstousenon
standardworkarrangements.Threequartersormoreofemployeesinlargebusinessandsmall
businesscentersarefulltime,permanentstaff.Thatnumberdropstotwothirdsofthe
workforceinmassmarketcentersadifferenceofabout15%.Mostofthedifferenceis
accountedforbythegreateruseofparttimestaffinmassmarketcenters.

Figure3.8showsthatpaylevelsdifferaccordingtothecustomersegmentserved.Herewe
presentthepercentagedifferenceinagentspaycomparedtotheaveragepayforagentsintheir
respectivecountries.Agentsinthetypicalmassmarketcenterearn3%belowtheaveragepay,
whilethoseinuniversal centersearn2%abovetheaverage.Thegapbetweenearningsfor
massmarketandbusinesscenteragentsisabout10%points.

Figure3.8.PercentageDifferenceofAgentPayfromCountry
Average
8
6
4
2
0
2
4
6
Largebusiness Smallbusiness Universalcentres Massmarket

CustomerSegment

32
Asimilarpictureisevidentwithregardtomanagerialpaybutthedifferencesarenotso
pronouncedandonlymanagersinlargebusinesscall centersreceiveawagethatis
significantlyhigherthanmanagersinmassmarketanduniversalcall centers(Figure3.9).

Figure3.9.PercentageDifferenceofManagerpayfromCountry
Average

8
6
4
2
0
2
4
6
Largebusiness Smallbusiness Universalcentres Massmarket
CustomerSegment

Workorganization. Theorganizationofworkalsodiffersacrosscentersservingdistinct
customersegments.Thelevelofdiscretionissignificantlyhigherinlargebusinesscenters,
comparedtomassmarketcenters,butthesizeoftheoveralldifferencesisnotlarge.For
example,28%ofjobsinlargebusinesscentershavehighlevelsofemployeediscretionat
work,comparedto18%inmassmarketcenters.Performancemonitoringactivityisalso
higherinmassmarketcenters,althoughagainthedifferencesarenotlarge.Performance
monitoringactivitiestypicallyoccurseveraltimesamonthinmassmarketcenters,asopposed
toonceamonthinlargebusinesscenters.

Figure3.10.PercentofCenterswith50%ofAgentsinSelf
DirectedTeams
50
40
30
20
10
0
Coordinated Liberal Recently
Industrialized
TypeofEconomy

LargeBusinessCentres MassMarketCentres

Overall,largebusinesscentersarealsomorelikelytomakeuseofselfdirectedworkgroups.
While35%oflargebusinesscentershaveatleast50%ofagentsinselfdirectedworkgroups,

33
only24%ofmassmarketcentersdo.Thesedifferences,however,areprimarilyaccountedfor
bythecoordinatedandliberalmarketcountries,asshowninFigure3.10.Incoordinated
economies,thepercentoflargebusinesscenterswithatleast50%ofagentsinteamsis44%,
comparedto28%ofmassmarketcenters.Inliberalmarketcountries,thedifferencesare28%
to21%,butinrecentlyindustrializedcountries,largebusinesscentersaresomewhatlesslikely
tousetheseteams.

Largebusinesscentersarealsomorelikelytouseproblemsolvinggroups,andthispatternis
consistentacrossallthreetypesofeconomiesinthestudy. Averagingacrosscountries,33%of
largebusinesscentershaveatleast50%oftheworkforceinvolvedinthesegroups,while23%
ofthemassmarketcentersdo.

Figure3.11.PercentofCenterswith50%ofAgentsinProblem
SolvingGroups
50
40
30
20
10
0
Coordinated Liberal Recently
Industrialized
TypeofEconomy

LargeBusinessCentres MassMarketCentres

Collectiverepresentation. Largebusinessandmassmarketcentersalsodifferintheextentto
whichtheyarecoveredbycollectivebargaining,withalargerproportionofmassmarket
centerswithunionrepresentation.Whilethisispatternoccursinmostcountries,thelevelof
unioncoverageforthetwotypesof centersdiffersgreatlyacrosscountries,asisevidentin
Figure3.12.Inthischart,thepercentofunioncoverageinlargebusinesscentersiseverywhere
lowerthanmassmarketcentersexceptin SouthAfrica,where20%ofmassmarketcentersare
coveredbyunionsversus40%oflargebusinesscenters.ThecoverageintheNetherlandsand
inSwedenisvirtuallyidentical,astheyhavehighlycoordinatedindustrialrelationssystems.
Therearevery largedifferences,however,inDenmark,Germany,Ireland,andtheUK.Itis
alsonoteworthythatthesedifferencesarenotbasedonwhethercountrieshavecoordinated,
liberalmarket,orrecentlyindustrializedeconomies.

34
Insummary,segmentationstrategiesappeartocreatedifferentiatedjobstructures,which differ
basedonthecustomersegmentserved.Largebusinesscentersofferjobswithrelativelyhigher
discretionanduseofproblemsolvinggroupsandteams,higherpay,andhigheruseof
permanentfulltimestaff.

35
 PARTIV

CallCenterOutcomes
Turnover,Turnover Costs,andSickness
Workforcestabilityisasignificantproblemforcall centermanagers,whocanoftenfind
themselvesinaperpetualsearchforadditionalworkers.Theresearchrecordisclearthathigh
turnoverratesleadtohighcosts ofrecruitment,screening,andtraining.

Turnover.Themedianannualturnoverrateis20%,butratesrangefromverylowratesin
coordinatedcountriestohighratesinliberalmarketandrecentlyindustrializedcountries.For
example,asshowninFigure4.1, inAustriathetypical turnoverrateis4%,whilein Indiaitis
40%.Wedefinetotalturnoverasthatresultingfromalltypesofchanges:quits,dismissals,
promotions,andretirements.Whilepromotionsmaybepositivefortheoverallcompany,as
theyhelpretaintheskillsandcommitmentofemployees,theynonethelessrequirecall center
managerstoreplacefrontlineworkers,andaddtothechallengestheyfaceinongoing
recruitment,screening,andtraining.

Theseratesofturnoverfromthesurveyarelowerthanwhatisoftenreportedanecdotally,and
mayreflectsomeconservativeestimatesinthisregard.Anothermeasureof laborinstabilityis
thepercentageoftheworkforcethathaslowtenure.Researchshowsthatinexperienced
workersarelessproductiveorlessabletoprovidequalityservicebecausetheydonothavethe
knowledgeoffirmspecificproductsandprocessesthatmoreexperiencedworkershave.Here,
wefindthatfullyonethirdofcall centeragentsacrossthecountriesinthestudyhaveonlyone
yearoftenureorless.Thisfigurealsovariesmarkedlyacrosscountries,fromlessthan10%in
AustriaandSwedentoalmost60%inIndia.

36
 Figure4.2.PercentofWorkforcewithLessthan1YearTenure
Aus tria
Denmark
60
France
Germany
Is rael
Netherland s (NA)
45
Sp ain
Swed en

30 C anad a
Ireland
UK
US
15

B razil
Ind ia
0 Po land
CoordinatedLiberalIndustrializing So uthAfrica
S.Ko rea
TypeofEconomy

Turnovercosts.Toestimatetheeffectsofturnoveronoperationalcosts,weaskedmanagersto
reporthowmuchitcostthemtorecruit,screen,and trainatypicalnewemployee.Tomake
thiscostcomparableacrossdifferentcountries,wecalculatedthemasapercentageofthegross
annualpayofthetypicalcall centeragentateachsite.Onaverage,replacingoneagentequals
16%ofthegrossannualearningsofacall centerworker thatis,thesimplereplacementcosts
of oneworkerequalabout twomonthsofatypicalworkerspay,asshowninFigure4.3.

Figure4.3.RecruitmentCostsas%ofAnnualAgentPay
Aus t ria
Denmark
40% France
Germany
Is rael
Netherland s
30% Sp ain
Swed en

20%
Canad a
Ireland
UK
10% US

0% Brazil

CoordinatedLiberalIndustrializing Ind ia
Po land
TypeofEconomy So ut hAfrica
S.Ko rea

Thesepercentagesalsovarymarkedlyacrosscountries,withnoparticularpatternbasedon
whetheraneconomyisclassifiedascoordinated,liberal,orindustrializing.

37
However,inadditiontothesereplacementcosts,newrecruitsarenotasproductiveas
experiencedworkers.Weaskedmanagershowmuchtimeittookforanewlyhiredemployee
tobecomeproficientonthejob thatis,sufficientlyknowledgeableofproducts,processes,and
customerstoadequatelyperformthejob.AsreportedearlierinFigure2.4,beyondinitial
training,ittakesanaverageof11.5weeks(almostthreemonths)foremployeestobecome
proficientatwork.Asaroughestimate,ifnewworkersare50%asproductiveasexperienced
employees,thenanewemployeewouldcostanemployertheequivalentof1.5monthsofpay
(50%*3months)morethanthecostofanexperiencedworker.Whiletheseareveryrough
estimates,andvarybyemployerandcountry,thecombinedcostofrecruitmentandtraining
pluslostproductivitymaybeintheequivalentof threetofourmonthspayofthetypicalcall
centeremployee.

Whenthesecostsaremultipliedbyhighnumbersofemployeeswholeaveeachmonth,thenthe
costsofturnoverareindeedamajorproblemincall centers.Thecostsofturnoveralsotake
theirtollonmanagers,whoendupspendingthemajorityoftheirtimedealingwiththechurn
oftheworkforce,ratherthanonproactivestrategiestoimproveservicequalityand
productivity.

Thecostsofturnoveralsoneedtobeputinthecontextofoveralloperationalcosts. Labor
alreadyconstitutesahighproportionof costsinserviceactivitiessuchascall centers,suchthat
reductionsinturnovercostscanhaveameaningfulimpactonthebottomline.Forexample,in
thisstudy,laborcostsaveraged65%oftotalcostsacrossallcountries.Themedianforall
centerswas70%,asshowninFigure4.4.Theestimatesare,infact,quitesimilaracrossmost
countriesinthestudy,withtheexceptionofBrazil,India,andPoland.

Figure4.4.LaborCostsasPercentageofTotalCosts
Aus t ria
Denmark

80 France
Germany
Is rael
70 Netherland s
Sp ain
Swed en
60

50 Canad a
Ireland
UK
40
US

30
Brazil
Ind ia
20 Po land
CoordinatedLiberalIndustrializing So ut hAfrica
So ut hKo rea
TypeofEconomy

Employeesickrates. Thenumberofsickdaysthatanemployeetakesperyearisanindicator
ofemployeestressanddissatisfactionwiththejob,whichtranslatesintolostproductivity.
Acrossallcountries,themediannumberofsickdaysthatemployeestakeis6.Themedian
numberissignificantlyhigherinIndia(11%)andtheNetherlands(10%),andsignificantly
lowerinSouthKorea(1%),Israel(1%)andBrazil(4%).

38
 Aust ria
Figure4.5.No.ofSickDaysperEmployeeEachYear
Denmark
France
Germany
15 Israel
Netherlands
Sp ain
Sweden

10
Canada
Ireland
UK

5 US(N/ A)

Brazil
Ind ia
0 Po land
CoordinatedLiberalIndustrializing So ut hA f rica
So ut hKo rea
TypeofEconomy

Turnover:HowitisaffectedbyUnions, ManagementStrategiesandJobQuality
Therateofturnoverdifferssubstantially,notonlyacrosscountries,butwithincountriesas
well.Importantexplanationsforthesedifferenceswithincountriesaretheextentofunion
coverageoftheworkforce,subcontractingandjobquality.

Unionandnonunioncall centers. Onaverage,acrossallcountriesinthisstudy,call centers

withunioncoveragehave40%lowerturnoverratesthanthosewithoutcoverage:14%annual
turnoverinunionworkplacescomparedto24%innonunionsites.Inalmosteverycountry,
turnoverratesareconsiderablylowerinworksiteswithunioncoveragecomparedtothose
withoutit,asshowninFigure4.6.

39
Subcontractorandinhouse. Similarly,therearesubstantialdifferencesinturnoverrates
betweeninhouseandoutsourcedcenters(SeeFigure4.7).Onaverage,turnoverratesare19%
peryearininhousecenters,comparedto25%amongsubcontractors.Again,thesepatterns
holdacrossmostcountriesinthisstudy.

Jobquality. Partoftheexplanationfordifferencesinturnoverratesresidesindifferencesin
thequalityofjobsinthesecenters.Thereisalargeandgrowingresearchliteratureon
turnover,whichdemonstratesthatmanagerialchoiceshaveasubstantialeffectonthelevelof
churnintheworkforce.Incall centers,amajorfactorshapingturnoverandabsenteeismisthe
qualityof jobdesign.

Here,wemeasurethequalityofjobsalongtwodimensions:theextentofdiscretionatwork
andtheintensityof performancemonitoring.Employeeswhohavereasonablelevelsof
discretionatworknotonlyfeelasenseofcontrol,buthavetheabilitytoresponddirectlyto
customerdemandsandhaveasenseofresponsibilitytodosoaswell.Theyareabletodeliver
qualityserviceandtakeresponsibilityforqualitycontrol.Theyareheldresponsiblefortheir
output,andso,donotneedtobemonitoredintheprocess.Bycontrast,call centersthatrelyon
standardizedscriptsandlowlevelsofdiscretion,arelikelytoalsorelyonhighlevelsof
performancemonitoring.Indoingso,theysendasignaltoemployeesthatmanagementdoes
nottrustthemtoperformwellorberesponsible.Inaddition,studieshaveconsistentlylinked
highjobdiscretionandlowperformancemonitoringtohigherlevelsofemployeewellbeing.

Assuch,bothjobdiscretionandperformancemonitoringareindicatorsofjobqualityand
assessingtheextentofjobqualityincall centersentailsexaminingtheproportionofjobswith
differentcombinationsofjobdiscretionandperformancemonitoring.Todothis,weanalyzed
theinternationalsurveydataanddividedjobdiscretionintothreelevels:lowtoverylow,
moderateandhightoveryhigh.Wealsosplitperformancemonitoringintothreelevels:
low,i.e.,lessthanmonthly,moderate,i.e.,monthlytoonceaweek,andhigh,i.e.,few
timesaweektodaily. Thelefthandsideof Figure4.6showstheproportionofcall centersthat
havejobswithdifferentcombinationsofjobdiscretionandperformancemonitoring.

40
 Figure4.8.JobQuality
70

60

50
36

40
Performance 13 9
Monitoring 30
9
15 5
20 17
22
7
13
10 14 3
10 11
5 6 4
2
0
Verylow/ Moderate HighVery Verylow/ Moderat e High/Very
HighMonitoring Low high Low high

ModerateMonitoring %OfCallCent res %ofAgent s

LowMonitoring JobDiscretion

Thedistribution ofjobquality is:

11%ofcall centershaveveryhighqualityjobs,i.e.,highdiscretion/lowmonitoring
32%haveveryhightohighqualityjobs,i.e.,thoseinthethreegroupsofhigh
discretion/lowmonitoring,11%moderatediscretion/lowmonitoring,14%andhigh
discretion/moderatemonitoring,7%
13%haveverylowqualityjobs,i.e.,lowdiscretion/highmonitoring
39%havelowtoverylowqualityjobs,i.e.,thoseinthethreegroupsoflowdiscretion/
highmonitoring,13%lowdiscretion/moderatemonitoring,17%andmoderate
discretion/highmonitoring,9%.

Thesefiguresshowthatthereisconsiderablevariationinthequalityofcall centersaroundthe
world.However,largercall centerstendtohavelowerlevelsofjobdiscretionandhigher
levelsofperformancemonitoring.Thusadifferentpictureemergesifweexaminethe
proportionofagentsthatareworkinginjobsofdifferentquality.Thiscanbeseenontheright
handsideofFigure4.6.Fromthisitisevidentthat:

2%ofagentsworkinveryhighqualityjobs
12%ofagentsworkinveryhightohighqualityjobs
36%ofagentsworkinverylowqualityjobs
67%ofagentsworkinlowtoverylowqualityjobs.

Jobqualityacrossdifferenteconomies. Figure4.9illustrateshoweconomiesdifferwithregard
tothedistributionofjobqualityamongcall centersandthepercentageofagentsworkingin
jobsofdifferentquality. Itisevidentthatcall centersincoordinatedeconomieshavehigher
levelsofjobquality.Incoordinatedeconomiestheproportionofcall centerswithhightovery
highjobquality(41%)isgreaterthanthosewithlowtoverylowjobquality(24%),andmore
agentsworkinjobsofhightovery highjobquality(39%)thanworkinjobswithlowtovery

41
lowjobquality(33%).Thesituationforliberalandindustrializingeconomiesisthereverse.
Forexample,inliberaleconomiestheproportionofcall centerswithhightoveryhighjob
quality(25%)islowerthanthosewithlowtoverylowjobquality(48%),andfeweragents
workinjobsofhightoveryhighjobquality(10%)thanworkinjobswithlowtoverylowjob
quality(67%).Moreover,inindustrializingeconomies82%ofagentsworkinjobsofalowto
verylowquality.

Figure4.9.JobQuality acrossEconomies

%OfCallCenters %OfAgents
V.low Lowto V.High Highto V.low Lowto V.High Highto
V. low V.High V. low V.High
Coordinated 6 24 16 41 5 33 4 39
Liberal 15 48 8 25 24 67 1 10
Industrializing 21 50 7 21 60 82 1 2

Jobqualityandsubcontractors. Subcontractorshavelowerjobqualitythaninhousecall
centers.Fiftythreepercentofsubcontractorshavejobsoflowtoverylowqualityand22%
havejobsofhightoveryhighquality.Incontrast,32%ofinhousecall centershavejobsof
lowtoverylowqualityand37%havejobsofhightoveryhighquality

Jobqualityandturnover.Ourresearchshowsthatlowqualityjobsareassociatedwithhigher
turnoverand,inparticular,withhigherquitrates.ThiscanbeseeninFigure4.10,which
showsthatturnoverandquitratesarehigherasjobdiscretionbecomeslowerandperformance
monitoringbecomeshigher.Indeed,thetypicallevelofturnoverincall centerswithveryhigh
qualityjobs(highdiscretion/lowmonitoring)is9%,whereasitis36%incall centerswithlow
qualityjobs(lowdiscretion/highmonitoring).Thetypicalquitrateis0%inveryhighquality
jobsand15%inverylowqualityjobs. Thisisbecauselowjobdiscretionandhigh
performancemonitoringhavebeenshowntoincreaseemployeestress,andasaresultan
employeeismorelikelytoquithisorherjob.

Figure4.10.JobQuality,Turnover,andQuit Rates

Turnover QuitRate

PerformanceMonitoring PerformanceMonitoring

Low Moderate High Low Moderate High

JobDiscretion
LowtoVeryLow 17 29 36 7 10 15
Moderate 15 20 20 3 8 10
HightoVeryHigh 9 20 18 0 5 7

Ourfindingsindicatethatperformancemonitoringincall centersworksbyensuringthat
employeessustainahighleveloftaskeffort.Whilethismaypromoteemployeeperformance,
highlevelsofmonitoringhastenthedepletionofphysicalandmentalresources,whichleadsto

42
lowerlevelsofwellbeing.Jobdiscretionenablescall centeremployeestomanageandcope
betterwithtaskdemands,therebyimprovingwellbeingandeffectiveness.Thesefindingsare
consistentwithpreviousstudies.

Salesgrowth.Justoveronehalfofcallcentresinoursamplewereengagedinsellingproducts
andservices.Salesgrowthforthetypicalcallcentreinthisstudywas5%peryear.The
averageannualgrowthratewas17%however,managersinIndiaandPolandreported
considerablyhigherratesof89%and38%,respectively. Whenthesetwocountriesare
excluded,theaverageannualsalesgrowthwas12percent,withalowof5%intheUS,Israel,
andSouthKorea,andahighof18%inDenmarkand23%inBrazil. Theratesdonotreflect
theoverallgrowthratesofcallcentresalesineachcountry,however,becausetheydonot
indicatetheextenttowhichcallcentreconsolidationmaybeoccurringatdifferentratesineach
country.

Targettime.Eightysevenpercentofcallsareansweredwithinthesettargettime,withasmall
rangeofvariationamongcountries.India,forexample,issignificantlyhigherthanthe
average,at95percent,whileHollandissignificantlylower,at80%.

Theextenttowhichacallcentresmeetsthespecifiedtargettimeislikelytobeinfluencedbya
numberoffactors.Theseincludethesophisticationofthecallforecastingtechnologiesinuse
andtheabilityoftheorganisationtomatchsupplywithdemand.However,callcentresvaryin
theemphasisthatisplacedonachievingthisperformancemetric.Forexample,in
subcontractorsmeetingthetargettimemaybemoreimportantthanininhousecallcentres,as
itisanimportantmeanswithwhichtoreducecostsandshowcontractcompliance.Likewise,
industrialisingeconomiesmayplacegreateremphasisonmeetingthetargettimemetric.

Figure4.11.PercentofCallsAnsweredWithinSetTargetTime Aust ria

Denmark
France
95 Germany
Israel
Netherlands
Sp ain
90
Sweden

85 Canada
Ireland
UK
US
80

Brazil
75 Ind ia
CoordinatedLiberalIndustrializing Po land
So ut hA f rica
TypeofEconomy So ut hKo rea

43
 PARTV

Conclusion

Thisisthefirstreporttoprovideadetailedcomparisonofmanagementandemployment
practicesincall centerswithinandacrossnationalboundaries. Coveringalmosttwenty
countriesinallregionsoftheworld,itdispelscertainmythsaboutthisimportantemerging
sector.

Forexample,mediaaccountstypicallyportray callcentersaslargewarehousesprovidinglow
skill,highturnoverjobs.Outsourcingandoffshoringareviewedasthedominanttrendsin
whatareconsideredlowvalueaddedactivities.

Whilewefindthatasubstantialproportionof centersdofollowacostminimisationapproach,
withhighlevelsofstandardisation,thisportraitisnotuniversallytrue.Rather,thisstudy
providesamorecomplexanddifferentiatedviewofcall center operations.Thevariationin
managementpracticesisnoteworthy.Differencesincludealternativeapproachestothedesign
ofworkandthequalityofjobs(e.g.,thelevelofdiscretion,monitoring,anduseofteamwork),
adoptionof humanresourcepractices(e.g.,systematicselectiontests,performanceappraisals,
training),andcollectivebargainingstructures. Managersadoptarangeofalternative
approachestocustomerservice,from transactionaltoquiteprofessional. Butwhydothese
differencesoccur?Ourresultssuggestthatinstitutional factors,businessstrategies,and
operationalchoicesplayimportantrolesinshapingcall centermanagementandemployment
outcomes.

Differencesinlabormarketinstitutionsareonemajorsourceofdifferentiation.Inthe
coordinatedeconomiesofcontinentalEurope,ahighproportionofcall centersiscoveredby
unionandworkscouncilrepresentation.Inthesecountries,employersandemployee
representativesoftenconsultornegotiateoverworkdesignandhumanresourcepractices.
Comparedtocentersinliberalmarketorrecentlyindustrializedcountries,thoseincoordinated
economieshavebetterqualityjobs,lowerturnover,andlowerwagedispersion. Call centersin
coordinatedcountriesalsomakegreateruseofsubcontractingandparttimecontractsas
strategiestoincreaseorganizationalflexibility,andthisislikelytobeameansof
circumventinglabormarketregulations.

Whileinstitutionsshapevariationacrosscountries,alternativebusinessstrategieshelpto
explaindifferenceswithincountries.Ofparticularimportanceinthissectoristheuseof
customersegmentationstrategies. Centersthattargetauniquecustomergroupareableto
designtheirmanagementandemploymentsystemstomatchthedemandcharacteristicsofthat
group.Thuswefound,forexample,thatcomparedtomassmarketcall centers,call centers
servingbusinessmakegreateruseofsophisticatedcustomerrelationshiptechnologies,offer
betterqualityjobs,payhigherwages,useteamworkmoreextensively,andemployagreater
proportionoffulltimepermanentstaff. Theydothisasitenablesthemtoprovidebetter
qualityserviceandtomeetthemorecomplexneedsofbusinesscustomers.

Thedifferentstrategicandoperationalcontextsofinhousecentersandsubcontractorsalso
explainourfindingthat,invirtuallyallcountriesinthestudy,subcontractorsdiffer
significantlyfrominhousecentersintheirmanagementandemploymentsystems. Compared
toinhousecenters,subcontractoroperationshavemorestandardisedjobswithlowerskillsand
pay,higherperformancemonitoring,higherturnover,greateruseofparttimeandcontingent

44
staff,andlowerunionrepresentation.Theseattributesmaybeexplainedbytheirhigher
strategicemphasisoncostreductionandgreaterfluctuationindemandastheyhandlemultiple
clientcontracts.

Insum,ourfindingshighlightimportantdifferencesinthestrategicpositioningofcall centers
withinandacrosscountriesaroundtheworld.Asthissectorcontinuestogrowinsizeand
importance,employersandpublicpolicymakerswillneedtoconsiderwhatchangesareneeded
toensureitssustainabilityanditsroleineconomicdevelopment.Thereisampleevidenceto
showthatheavyrelianceonacostfocusedmodelnotonlycreateslowqualityjobsbutalso
breedscustomerdissatisfactionandemployeeturnover.Inanageofmasscustomization,
wherecustomerdemandsforhigherservicequalityareontherise,costfocusedstrategiesare
likelytosatisfyaneversmallerportionoftransactions.Employerstrategiestocompeteon
quality,however,dependimportantlyontheinstitutionalcontextsinwhichtheyareoperating.
Forexample,qualitybasedfirmlevelstrategiesarepossibleonlyifcountriesdevelopthe
educationandtraininginfrastructureneededtosupplyaneducatedserviceworkforce
althoughtheeducationandtraininginfrastructureinmostcountrieshasnotkeptpacewiththe
demandforcustomerserviceprofessionals.Encouragingly,therearemanyexamplesacross
thecall centersectorofmanagerssuccessfullyexperimentingwithnewpracticesandstrategies,
andalsoofinstitutionalinnovation,suchaschangestotheeducationsystem.

Insum,theemerginginternationalcall centersectorisacomplexandrapidlychanging
landscape,farfromthestylizedfactsportrayedinthemainstreammedia.Whileongoingcost
pressuresshapemanagementpractices,alternativestrategiesandinstitutionalinnovationsare
emergingthatholdsomepromiseforqualityjobsandserviceandofferopportunitiesfor
constructiveeconomicdevelopment.

45
 AppendixA:AcknowledgementofSponsors

Austria:JubilumsfondsdersterreichischenNationalbank

Brazil:AssociacaoBrasileiradeTelesservicos

Canada: SocialSciencesandHumanitiesCouncilofCanada

Denmark:RussellSageFoundation

France:RussellSageFoundationFrenchNationalResearch CenterAFRC(AssociationFrancoisedes
CentersdeRelationClientFrenchEmployersAssociationofCall Centers).

Germany:HansBcklerStiftung,RussellSageFoundation

India:CenterforAdvancedHumanResourceStudies,CornellUniversity

Ireland:UCDBusinessSchools,UniversityCollegeDublin

Israel: IsraelMinistryofTradeandEmployment

Netherlands:DutchMinistryofSocialAffairs,NCCBPRussellSageFoundation

Poland:HansBcklerStiftung

SouthAfrica:U.ofWitwatersrand,U.oftheWesternCapetotheSouthAfrica, PennsylvaniaState
University,RodJonesStrategicSolutions

SouthKorea:KoreaLaborInstituteCenterforAdvancedHumanResourceStudies,CornellUniversity

Spain:AIREprogram(UniversityRovira&Virgili)CIDEM(CatalanGovernment)

Sweden:Scandinavian CenterforCallandContactServicesSwedishSavingsBanksFoundation ISA

InvestinSwedenAgency4BRconsultantsBrightverksamhetsutvecklingTheSwedishCall Center
Association MidSwedenUniversityNationalInstituteforWorkingLifeKTHRoyalInstituteof
Technology,Stockholm

U.K:EconomicandSocialResearchCouncil,RussellSageFoundationUKCustomerContact
Association

US:AlfredP.SloanFoundation,RussellSageFoundation,CenterforAdvancedHumanResource
Studies,CornellUniversity.

46
 Appendix B:TechnicalNoteonMethods

Thesurvey usedinthisstudyisanestablishmentlevelsurvey,administeredtotheseniormanagerof
eachcall center.Itisarelativelylonganddetailedsurveythatcoversthefollowingtopics:market
conditions,customersserved,businessstrategies,organizationalstructure,workorganization,human
resourcepractices,nonstandardemploymentpractices,wages,tenure,turnover,absenteeism,sickrates,
useofgovernmentprograms,and collectivebargainingcoverage.Thesurveyaskedthegeneralmanager
toanswerquestionsastheyappliedtothecoreoccupationalgroupthatis,thelargestgroupof
employeesservingascall centeragents.

Whileeveryeffortwasmadetotakeaconsistentapproachtosamplingandsurveyadministration,there
wassomevariationacrosscountries.Seetheattachedtableforinformationonresearchmethodsfor
eachcountryinthestudy. Identifyingthepopulationofcall centersfromwhichtodrawthesamplewas
themostdifficultstepbecausemostcountrieshavenogovernmentstatisticsoncall centers.Ineach
country,thesamplewaschosenfromthelargestavailablelistofcall centers.Inmostcountries,that
meantthemembershiplistofthenationalcall centeremployersassociation supplementedbyother
sources.

Wecomparedourdatatootheravailablesurveysofcall centers,andfoundthemtobeconsistentwith
estimatesofthenumberofcall centersbysectorandbyinhouse/outsourcedstatus.However,in
Germany,theuseofassociationlistsledtooversamplingofoutsourced centers.Thesamplingstrategy
intheUSledtoanoverrepresentationofthetelecommunicationsindustryinthesample.

FortherecentlyindustrializedcountriesofBrazil,India,SouthAfrica,and SouthKorea,thesurveys
wereconducted primarily viainterviewsonsitebecausesurveyresearchisrelativelyundevelopedand
mailandtelephonesurveysyieldparticularlylowresponserates.Asaresult,researchersfocusedon
oneorseveral geographicareas(SaoPauloinBrazil,SeoulinSouthKorea,sixprimarycall center
citiesinIndia,twoprimarycall centercitiesinSouthAfrica).Theyidentifiedthelargestlistofcall
centerstheycouldfind(basedonacombinationofemployerassociationlistsandtelephonebooks),and
administeredthesurveyswherevertheycouldgetaccesstoestablishments.Thus,theyarelarge,non
randomsamples.

Ingeneral,usingemployersassociationliststoidentifythepopulationofcall centersbiasesthesample
towardsthebetteroperated centersbecausetheassociationmemberstendtobemoreestablished
operators,oftenpartoflargenationalormultinationalcorporations.Similarly,in theonsiteinterviews
inrecentlyindustrializedcountries,itisprobablethatitwasthebetterrun centersthatwerewillingto
haveacademicresearcherscomeonsiteandconductinterviews.Thisleadsustoexpectthatthe
sample,ingeneral,isbiasedtowardslarger,moreestablished centers,withmoreformalizedhuman
resourcepracticesand higherwagelevelsthanwouldbeexpectedifthesamplesweredrawnfromthe
entirepopulationofcenters.

47
 SurveyMethodology

Country Estimated Estimated SourceofCC No.of Sample Sampling Survey Start & No.of Response
No.Call No.CC database CCsin size Strategy Administration End Completed Rate
Centers Agents database Date Surveys
(2005) (2005)
500 40,000 AustrianCallCenter 165 165 AllCCsin Telephone 0507, 96 58%
Forum,FORBA database 2005
Austria database,Internet
1,000 615,000 250 250 AllCCsin Telephone, 0509, 144 45%
Brazil EmployersAssociation database email,onsite, 2005
AllCCsin 02/2005
database
Canada 13,424 512,867 EmployersAssociation 500 500 Telephone 05/2006 387 77%
AllCCsin Personal
EmployersAssociation, database contactw/email 0609,
Denmark 350 23,000 phonebook,Internet 226 226 response 2004 118 65%
Stratified
randomby
EmployersAssociation, sector, 0508,
France 3,100 200,000 Francetelecomsurvey 900 340 outsourced Telephone 2004 210 60%
Previousdatabases,
RegionalDevelopmnt Random,plus 0910,
Germany 3,000 330,000 Agencylists 2,800 300 addedsites Telephone 2004 155 54%
Nonrandom 07,2003
NAASCOM,Internet, incall center 08,
India N/A 316,000 fieldresearch 100 75 cities Onsite 2004 63 N/A
Previouslist,telephone Allwith
directory,Internet, confirmed 1012,
Ireland 400 19,500 recruitmentagencies 287 188 contactinfo. Mail 2004 43 23%
Telemarketing AllCCsin
Association,phone database
books,Internet,CCmgr 0810,
Israel 500 11,000 forums 80 80 Onsite 2004 80 100%

48
 SurveyMethodology

Country Estimated Estimated SourceofCC No.of Sample Sampling Survey Start & No.of Response
No.Call No.CC database CCsin size Strategy Administration End Completed Rate
Centers Agents database Date Surveys
(2005) (2005)
EmployersAssociation, AllCCsin 0408,
Netherlands 1,500 90,000 relatedlists 800 800 database Mail,internet 2004 118 15%
AllCCsin 1011,
Poland 300 8,700 FederalTradeRegister 112 112 database Telephone 2004 75 67%
Nonrandom 11,2002
South Multipleindustry, incall center Telephone, 06,
Africa 1,200 100,000 Internetsources 1,200 326 cities email,onsite 2004 64 N/A
Telemarketing
Association,S.Korea Allwith
South Mgmt.Association, confirmed Onsite,email, 0609,
Korea 2,500 330,000 Internet,CCmgr.forum 250 250 contactinfo. mail 2004 121 48%
Telmarketing
Association,Official
RegistryofCompanies
inSpain(SABI), All Onsite, 05,2005
Internet,CCmgr companiesin telephone, 01,
Spain 1,500 64,000 forums 224 224 database postal,email 2006 109 49%
All
EmployersAssociation, companiesin Mail,w/
Benchmarking database telephone, 0205,
Sweden 1,200 100,000 Company 642 347 (outsourcing) email,fax 2004 161 46%
All Telephone,
contactable w/mailfollow 0310,
UK 3,500 800,000 EmployersAssociation 500 418 companies up 2004 167 40%
Stratified
Dun&Bradstreet,Call random,by 0209,
US 60,000 4,000,000 CenterMagazine 2,000 682 size,sector Telephone 2003 464 68%

49
NationalCountryReports

Thisinternationalreportdrawsondatacollectedbyresearchteamsineach
participatingcountry.Formoredetailedreportsonacountrybycountrybasis,please
consultthelistbelow.Thesereportsareavailableonthewebsitesindicatedorby
emailingthecontactperson. Inaddition,newteamsinadditionalcountrieshave
joinedthisnetworkandareundertakingongoingresearchprojectsinthissector.
Theyarealsolistedbelow.

Austria
Schnauer,Annika. 2005. QualittderArbeitinCallcentern.FallstudiesterreichimGlobal
Call CenterIndustryProject.FORBAForschungsbericht5/2005(
http://www.forba.at/files/download/download.php?_mmc=czo2OiJpZD0xNDIiOw)

Brazil
MirandaOliveira,M.,HoyosGuevara,A.J.de,NelmiTrevisan,L.,Nogueira,A.J.F.,Giao,
P.R.,FatimaSilva,M.de,ResendeMelo,P.Lde. 2006.BrazilianCallCenterIndustry
Report.[contactMoacirMirandaOliveira, mdmoj@uol.com.br]

Canada
vanJaarsveld,Danielle,AnnFrost,andDavidWalker. 2006.CanadianCall Center
Report.Vancouver,UniversityofBritishColumbia.[contactDaniellevanJaarsveld,
danielle.vanjaarsveld@sauder.ubc.ca]

Denmark
Srensen,Ole,andNadiaElSalanti.2005.Call CentersinDenmark2004:Strategy,HR
Practices,andPerformance.ReportfortheRussellSageFoundation.[contactOleSrensen,
ohs@ami.dk]

France
Lancianomorandat,C.,Nohara,H.andTchobanian,R.2005.FrenchCallCenterIndustry
Report,2004. [contactHiroNohara, nohara.h@univaix.frornohara@netcourrier.com]

Germany
Scholten,JessicaandHoltgrewe,Ursula. 2006.TheGlobalCall CenterIndustryProjekt
Deutschland:ErsteErgebnissederTelefonumfragefrDeutschland.No.2/2006,Duisburger
BeitrzurSoziologischenForschung.
http://soziologie.uniduisburg.de/forschung/DuBei_2_2006.pdf.
[contactKarenShire,shire@uniduisburg.deorUrsulaHoltgrewe,holtgrewe@forba.at]

India
Batt,R.,Doellgast,V.,Kwon,H.,Nopany,P. Nopany.2005.IndianCallCenterIndustry
Report: Strategy,HRPractices,andPerformance.NationalBenchmarkingReport.
http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cahrswp/7/ [contactRosemaryBatt, rb41@cornell.edu]

Israel
Rafaeli,Anat,and VilnaiYavetz,Iris. 2005.IsraelCallCenterIndustry.[contactAnat
Rafaeli,anatr@ie.technion.ac.il]

Netherlands
Sieben,I.,deGrip,A., and vanJaarsveld,D.2005.EmploymentandIndustrialRelationsin
theDutchCall CenterSector.ROAR2005/4E.Maastricht:ROA.[contactAndriesdeGrip,
a.degrip@roa.unimaas.nl]

50
Poland
Piskurek,E.,andShire,K.2005.CallcenterinPolen.TheGlobalCallCenterIndustryProject
ErgebnissederTelefonumfragefrPolen,(Polishcallcenterindustryreport).Duisburg.
http://soziologie.uniduisburg.de/forschung/DuBei_0406.pdf[contactKarenShire,
shire@uniduisburg.de]

SouthAfrica Benner,C.,Rahmat,O.andLewis,C.(2007)TheSouthAfricanCall Center

Industry:NationalBenchmarkingReport,Strategy,HR Practices&Performance.
Johannesburg: SociologyofWorkUnitandLINKCenter,UniversityofWitwatersrand.
[contactChrisBennercbenner@psu.edu,orCharleyLewis,lewis.c@pdm.wits.ac.za]

SouthKorea
Kwon,H.,Lee,B.,andKang,H.2006.KoreanCallCenterReport,2004:Employment,
Management,andWorkingConditions.[contactHyunjiKwonorByoungHoonLee,
bhlee@cau.ac.kr]

Spain
Valverde,M.,Gorjup,M.T.,Mart,N.,Ryan,G.,&Villarroya,M.2006. The Call Center
SectorinSpain:Performance,Strategiesand Human Resource ManagementPractices(El
sectordecall centersenEspaa:Funcionamiento,estrategiasyprcticasderecursos
humanos).GrupdeRecercaFactorHum,OrganitzacionsiMercats(FHOM),Departament
deGestidEmpreses,UniversitatRoviraiVirgili,Reus,Spain.[contactMireiaValverde,
mireia.valverde@urv.net]

Sweden
ChristerStrandbergandeSandberg.2007. CallCentersinSweden.ADescriptionof
Orientation,HumanResourcePracticesandPerformanceinInternalandExternalCall
Centers.Arbetslivsinstitutet/NationalInstituteforWorkingLife,MidSwedenUniversityand
KTHRoyalInstituteofTechnology,Stockholm.Todownloadpublicationsgoto www.ali.se,
andcheck forlinkstoothersites.[contactAkeSandberg,ake.sandberg@gmail.com]

Strandberg,C,Sandberg,Norman,K.2006.CallcentersiSverige.Enbeskrivningav
verksamhetsinriktning,humanresourcemetoderochprestationerArbetslivsrapport2006:20.
Todownloadpublicationsgoto www.ali.se, andcheck forlinkstoothersites.[contactAke
Sandberg,ake.sandberg@gmail.com]

U.K.
Holman,D.,Wood,S.,&Stride,C.2005.Human Resource ManagementinU.K.Call
Centers.InstituteofWorkPsychology inassociationwiththeCall CenterAssociation,
UniversityofSheffield,Sheffield.[contactDavidHolman, d.holman@sheffield.ac.uk]

US
Batt,Rosemary,VirginiaDoellgast,andHyunjiKwon.2005.TheUSCallCenterIndustry:
Strategy,HRPractices,andPerformance.NationalBenchmarkingReport.
http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cahrswp/6/.[contactRosemaryBatt, rb41@cornell.edu]

51
ISBN9780979503603 CopyrightHolman,Batt,andHoltgrewe2007

52