XI INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCE ”MANAGEMENT AND ENGINEERING’13”
TOO MUCH WELL-BEING KILLS WELL-BEING? HERZBERG REVISITED
Denis Monneuse IAE de Paris Sorbonne Graduate Business School France
[email protected]
Abstract. Four detailed case studies conducted in a French insurance company’s call centers highlighted the following paradox: in spite of the well-being policy lead by the HR manager, absenteeism is increasing, becoming slightly higher than in companies that show no interest in comfortable working conditions! The staff turnover, meanwhile, remains incredibly low. The research revealed that focusing on work environment and pay (that is to say hygiene factors in Herzberg’s dual structure theory) while neglecting quality of work (i.e. motivator factors) leads to the “golden jail syndrome”. It would be irrational for employees to resign from such an attractive job even if the lack of recognition and achievement diminishes their motivation. Consequently, absenteeism is their unique “exit” to protest and this kind of well-being policy consists in spending a lot of money for hardly anything! Keywords; well-being, Herzberg, quality of working life, quality of work, work environment
1. Introduction Call centers have a poor reputation on account of the bad working conditions offered to their employees: low wages, system of three eight-hour shifts, low autonomy, and pressure exerted by management, etc. That is why this industry activity has been much surveyed by organizational sociologists, physicians and human resources scholars, who confirmed this reputation in pointing out, among others things, musculoskeletal symptoms (Rocha, Marinho, and Nakasato, 2005), emotional exhaustion (Sawyerr, Srinivas, and Wang, 2009), stress (Ruyter, Wetzels, and Feinberg, 2001), high absenteeism and staff turnover rates (Tuten and Neidermeyer, 2004). Hence, call centers are emblematic of the persistence of Taylorism in the XXIst century. At the same time, researchers examine the main factors affecting call center employees’ health. It has been shown for instance that contract characteristics and workplace attitudes greatly influence both frequency of absenteeism and intention to leave (Schalk and Van Rijckevorsel, 2007). Consequently, managing job quality and career opportunities is a way to follow (Batt, Hunter, and Wilk, 2006). More generally, best management practices linked to call centers are now attentively identified (Holman, Batt, and Holtgrewe, 2007) to develop work redesign programs and training that would benefit the organization by reducing employee costs. Besides, within the framework of their corporate social responsibility policies, some companies are trying to improve their call center operators’ well-being. Issues and concerns of health among them are more and more discussed, even in developing countries such as India (Sudhashree, Rohith, and Shrinivas, 2005), all the more the challenge of attracting and retaining high performing call center employees is significant. Thus, corrective action plans are setting up to enhance their quality of working life. To what extent can such measures strengthen employees’ motivation and well-being? What is their impact on staff turnover and absenteeism? Which ones are the more efficient? The aim of this paper is to provide some possible ways of response. It is drawn from detailed case studies conducted in a French insurance company’s four call centers. This firm is known to deploy an ambitious wellbeing policy. That is why it was chosen to conduct this research. Observation in situ and in-depth interviews were conducted with 20 employees from each site, given each one is composed of around 35 employees in total, among them 3 to 4 managers. The employees met were chosen according to some variables (age, gender, seniority, length of service and absenteeism rate) so that we have access to a representative sample. The Human Resources (HR) manager, his assistant and the well-being manager were also met many times. All in all, 83 people from this insurance company were interviewed. Semi-structured interview guides were used so that the call center operators and managers could express their perception of their quality of working life. Turnover and absenteeism figures over the past few years were also surveyed to scan their movements. First of all, a paradox is going to be highlighted: in spite of the efforts made by the company to improve the working conditions in the call centers, the absenteeism rate keeps increasing. Does it mean, as the HR
manager claimed it, that too much well-being kills well-being? Secondly, the level of satisfaction and motivation observed among the employees will be analyzed through Herzberg’s two factor theory. To what extent is it still relevant and valuable nowadays, that is to say forty years after its elaboration, to understand the paradox? 2.
A strange paradox: an ambitious well-being policy that does not reduce absenteeism
This French insurance company is known to deploy an ambitious well-being policy. Its reputation dates from its origins because of the values shared by its founders. As, by definition, this company takes care of its customers’ health, the health of its employees is also to be taken into account, tells its management. This company still communicates today on its attention paid on the quality of working life of its employees. To tell the truth, this watchword does not seem to be only a marketing delusion. 2.1 An ambitious well-being policy Indeed, its employees’ wages are 15 to 20 % higher than the market average, even for the newcomers. In addition, all the workers benefit from permanent contracts, what is at least seldom in this very competitive business sector. Moreover, all the call centers belonging to this company are located in France, contrary to the plant relocations in low incomes countries such as North African countries where French-speaking people can easily replace French employees. Call centers employees benefit also from low working time (less than 32 hours a week) and only daytime work, all of which is once more very seldom in the sector. Furthermore, commercial and managerial pressures are much lower than among the competitors. In addition, the social climate observed between employees is not bad. Finally, employees of this company have quality equipment and refurbished break rooms at their disposal. 2.2 Employees’ perception of the well-being policy lead by their company The HR manager is quite proud of the well-being policy lead by his company. He never forgets to criticize the traditional call centers such as Téléperformance, the French biggest company in this sector, that are often accused of being more interested in profits than in employees’ health. What is the workers’ point of view? Most of the employees interviewed, operators as well as managers, are conscious of the quality of their working conditions. In particular, those who worked in other call centers before joining this company testify to seeing the differences. Only few people complain about the equipment or the premises quality. This point is all the more seldom given French workers are known to be moaners. 2.3 The deceiving results of this policy What are the consequences of this HR policy? Employees are so conscious of their work environment superior to the average than almost none of them resigned in previous years. The staff turnover is incredibly low. Nevertheless, most of them still complain, especially about a lack of autonomy and recognition, and their sickness absenteeism rate (around 8 %) is slightly higher than in companies that show no interest in well-being! Moreover, this rate increased by 18 % on average in 3 years. This statement leads the HR manager to curse his employees’ ingratitude insofar as the company spends lavishly to no avail. The well-being policy turns out to be expensive and ineffective, even counterproductive! How this paradox could be explained? This firm financed our survey to answer this question. 3.
The current relevance of Herzberg’s two factor theory
The discussions that we had with the HR manager and its team revealed they were mistaking satisfaction for motivation. According to them, high wages and comfortable working conditions offered to the employee should increase as well their job satisfaction as their motivation. Those two terms were considered as equivalent or words going together. Is it really the case in reality? To what extent the employees interviewed expressed as much satisfaction as motivation? 3.1 The two factor theory Motivation is one of the most studied topics in the field of management. Thousands of researchers have produced theories and surveys to scrutinize this phenomenon. The two factor theory elaborated by Frederick Herzberg (1968), also called the motivator-hygiene and the dual structure theory, is one of most famous among them. This approach has the virtue of distinguishing two sets of factors in the workplace influencing people:
Hygiene Factors
Motivator Factors
•
Pay and Benefits
•
Achievement
•
Company Policy and Administration
•
Recognition
•
Interpersonal relations
•
Work Itself
•
Job security
•
Responsibility
•
Working conditions
•
Promotion
•
Supervision
•
Personal growth
Table 1. Herzberg’s two factor theory
Herzberg stresses that job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction act independently of each other. Satisfaction and dissatisfaction are not on a continuum with one increasing as the other diminishes, but are independent phenomena. On the one hand, dissatisfaction results mainly from hygiene factors. Factors like pay and working conditions have an escalating zero point and do not have a final answer. One gets quickly used to a pay rise and keeps it in proportion: our retribution could still be higher compared to our contribution provided to the company. On the other hand, satisfaction comes mainly from the nature of the work performed, that is to say from the motivator factors. Achievement and responsibility make an employee satisfied and motivated to give his/her best at work. 3.2 The “golden jail syndrome”: Herzberg revisited This motivator-hygiene theory can help us to understand the paradox that the HR manager is facing in his company. Herzberg’s approach gives us keys for understanding, indeed. If the well-being policy lead by this insurance company is analyzed through Herzberg’s theory, what can be noticed? The HR manager took care above all of pay, job security and working conditions because he thought these points were the most important according to his employees. On the opposite, his policy tackles neither recognition, nor responsibility nor achievement. In other words, this HR policy only focused on hygiene factors at the expense of the motivator ones. It should be noted that the call center employees do not complain about hygiene factors. They are aware of their benefits. If they moved on to another job, they would certainly work longer and under more pressure to get a lower pay. Consequently, their job dissatisfaction is never high enough to resign. That is why some of them mentioned that they would like to leave but it would be irrational to do so. It is as if they were in a golden jail: they are deprived from one part of their freedom in a sense, but benefit from attractive conditions. Therefore, the turnover rate is almost equal to zero. However, it does not mean that these employees demonstrate a high level of motivation. The well-being policy totally disregards some motivator factors that could really increase their feeling of well-being. Unsurprisingly, all the complaints collected through the interviews evolve around these motivator factors. Call center workers regret that versatility is disappearing since the HR manager decided to abolish the possibility to go off the phone once a week to fill in commercial contracts for instance. They also judge childish the management style encouraged by the company. They evoke the fall in responsibility due to the will of the management to reduce their autonomy in order to prevent any corrupt practice, etc. The grievances that they listed are numerous. Their common point is to limit recognition and achievement. How could they express their lack of motivation? Albert Hirschman (1970) highlights three different ways to react in front of discontent: exit, voice, and loyalty. We have seen that exit, that is to say resigning, would be an irrational behavior due to the attractive working conditions they have. Loyalty is an attitude observed but limited to few workers who are closely attached to their company. Thus, absenteeism is becoming an ordinary means to flee from the workplace and to protest against a lack of professional fulfillment. As their concerns are largely spread, the bellyful is shared, and there is almost no social pressure on the absentees from work. Absenteeism is considered as a legitimate behavior.
4.
Conclusion
If we revisit Herzberg’s two factor theory, two different visions of quality of working life can be opposed: the one that emphasizes work environment and the other that stresses quality of work. The explanation of the paradox raised by the HR manager is therefore the following. The research revealed that this insurance company focused its well-being policy on work environment, that is to say on limiting employees’ dissatisfaction, but not at all on the quality of work, that is to say on increasing employees’ motivation. Consequently, its employees, knowing they could not find a better job on the job market in terms of pay and job security, never resign. By contrast, absenteeism is their unique “exit” to protest, according to Hirschman’s model. Many companies try to enhance their employees’ well-being hoping that it will increase productivity. Unfortunately, the road to hell is paved with good intentions! In other words, focusing on work environment while neglecting quality of work kills well-being! In this case, companies spend a lot of money and energy… for hardly anything! References Rocha, L., Marinho, M., Nakasato, D., Risk Factors for Musculoskeletal Symptoms among Call Center Operators of a Bank in São Paulo, Brazil, Industrial Health, 43, 2005, p. 637-646. 2. Sawyerr, O., Srinivas, S., Wang, S., Call center employee personality factors and service performance, Journal of Services Marketing, 23, 5, 2009, p.301-317. 3. Ruyter, K., Wetzels, M., Feinberg, R., Role stress in call centers: Its effects on employee performance and satisfaction, Journal of Interactive Marketing, 15, 2, 2001, p. 23-35. 4. Tuten, T., Neidermeyer, P., Performance, satisfaction and turnover in call centers: The effects of stress and optimism, Journal of Business Research, 57, 2004, p. 26-34. 5. Schalk, R., Van Rijckevorsel, A., Factors influencing absenteeism and intention to leave in a call centre, New Technology, Work and Employment, 22, 3, 2007, p. 260-274. 6. Batt R., Hunter L., Wilk S., How and When Does Management Matter? Job Quality et Career Opportunities for Call Center Workers, in Low-Wage America: How Employers Are Reshaping Opportunity in the Workplace (Appalbaum, Bernhardt, Murnane eds), 2006. 7. Holman, D., Batt, R., Holtgrewe, U., The global call center report: International perspectives on management and employment, Ithaca, 2007. 8. Sudhashree, V., Rohith, K., Shrinivas, K., Issues and concerns of health among call center employees, Indian Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 9, 2005, p. 129-132. 9. Herzberg, F., One more time: how do you motivate employees?, Harvard Business Review, 46, 1, 1968, p. 53-62. 10. Hirschman, A., Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1970. 1.
