Resistance to electronic surveillance: the response of call center team managers
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2018 |
Outros Autores: | , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | por eng |
Título da fonte: | Cadernos EBAPE.BR |
Texto Completo: | https://periodicos.fgv.br/cadernosebape/article/view/66874 |
Resumo: | Studies show that managers’ responses to resistance to electronic surveillance in the workplace affects the behavior of resistance and its effects on organizations. However, there are few studies about managers’ responses to these behaviors and the following questions remain unanswered: “How do managers respond to resistance to electronic surveillance in the workplace?” and “Why do managers respond in this way?” This study seeks to answer these questions in order to understand managers’ response to resistance to electronic surveillance in the workplace. The theoretical framework adopted combines Coetsee (1999), Lapointe and Rivard (2005), Regan (1996) and Rivard and Lapointe (2012). The data was collected through interviews with nine call center team managers working in companies of different sectors and was analyzed by Content Analysis with the support of Atlas.TI® software. The results suggest that managers respond to resistance to surveillance in three ways: they try to convince the employee to abandon the resistance (dissuasion), they do not act on it at all (inaction) or they change the surveillance system (rectification). Four aspects lead managers to these responses: resistance behavior, frequency of resistance, target technology and size of the managers’ team. The participant with the smallest team did not report resistance to surveillance, which could indicate the absence of these behaviors in some contexts. This study helps researchers to define the theoretical framework of their work, to better understand the issue of control on organizations nowadays, as well as to define new research’ problems. As for managers, this study clarifies aspects regarding technologies targeted by acts of resistance and the resistance behavior that may be present in the workplace. |
id |
FGV-9_ac5f09a897f1e5ad1ba687d9426cbba0 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.periodicos.fgv.br:article/66874 |
network_acronym_str |
FGV-9 |
network_name_str |
Cadernos EBAPE.BR |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Resistance to electronic surveillance: the response of call center team managersResistencia a la vigilancia electrónica: la respuesta de los administradores de equipos de teleatenciónResistência à vigilância eletrônica: a resposta dos gestores de equipes de teleatendimentoManagers’ response. Resistance. Electronic surveillance. Call center.Respuesta del administrador. Resistencia. Vigilancia electrónica. Teleatención.Resposta do gestor. Resistência. Vigilância eletrônica. Teleatendimento.Studies show that managers’ responses to resistance to electronic surveillance in the workplace affects the behavior of resistance and its effects on organizations. However, there are few studies about managers’ responses to these behaviors and the following questions remain unanswered: “How do managers respond to resistance to electronic surveillance in the workplace?” and “Why do managers respond in this way?” This study seeks to answer these questions in order to understand managers’ response to resistance to electronic surveillance in the workplace. The theoretical framework adopted combines Coetsee (1999), Lapointe and Rivard (2005), Regan (1996) and Rivard and Lapointe (2012). The data was collected through interviews with nine call center team managers working in companies of different sectors and was analyzed by Content Analysis with the support of Atlas.TI® software. The results suggest that managers respond to resistance to surveillance in three ways: they try to convince the employee to abandon the resistance (dissuasion), they do not act on it at all (inaction) or they change the surveillance system (rectification). Four aspects lead managers to these responses: resistance behavior, frequency of resistance, target technology and size of the managers’ team. The participant with the smallest team did not report resistance to surveillance, which could indicate the absence of these behaviors in some contexts. This study helps researchers to define the theoretical framework of their work, to better understand the issue of control on organizations nowadays, as well as to define new research’ problems. As for managers, this study clarifies aspects regarding technologies targeted by acts of resistance and the resistance behavior that may be present in the workplace.Los estudios muestran que la respuesta de los administradores a la resistencia a la vigilancia electrónica afecta el formato de la resistencia y Los estudios muestran que la respuesta de los administradores a la resistencia a la vigilancia electrónica afecta el formato de la resistencia y sus efectos en las organizaciones. No obstante, son escasos los estudios sobre las respuestas de los administradores a estos comportamientos, motivo por el cual las siguientes preguntas permanecen sin respuestas: ¿Cómo los administradores responden a la resistencia a la vigilancia electrónica? y ¿Qué les hace responder de esa manera? Para responderlas, este estudio pretende comprender la respuesta de los administradores a la resistencia a la vigilancia electrónica. El marco teórico adoptado combina las clasificaciones de Coetsee (1999), Lapointe y Rivard (2005), Regan (1996) y Rivard y Lapointe (2012). Los datos se recopilaron mediante entrevistas con nueve administradores responsables por equipos de teleatención de empresas de distintos sectores y se sometieron a análisis de contenido con el software Atlas.TI®. Los resultados indican que los administradores responden a la resistencia de tres maneras: tratan de convencer al trabajador a que abandone la resistencia (disuasión), no toman una actitud (inacción) o cambian el sistema de vigilancia (rectificación). Cuatro aspectos los llevan a estas respuestas: formato de la resistencia, frecuencia de la resistencia, tecnología objeto de resistencia y tamaño del equipo del administrador. El participante con el equipo más pequeño no reportó resistencia, lo que puede indicar la ausencia de tales comportamientos en algunos entornos. Este estudio ayuda a los investigadores a definir el marco teórico de sus investigaciones y entender el control en las empresas actualmente. A los administradores, este estudio les sugiere las tecnologías objeto de resistencia y el formato de esos comportamientos.Os estudos mostram que a resposta dos gestores à resistência à vigilância eletrônica afeta o formato da resistência e seus efeitos na organização. Contudo, há escassez de pesquisas sobre a resposta dos gestores a esses comportamentos, permanecendo as seguintes questões sem resposta: “Como os gestores respondem à resistência à vigilância eletrônica?”; e “O que os leva a responder dessa forma?”. Para respondê-las, este estudo busca compreender a resposta dos gestores à resistência à vigilância eletrônica. A base teórica adotada combina as classificações de Coetsee (1999), Lapointe e Rivard (2005), Regan (1996) e Rivard e Lapointe (2012). Os dados foram coletados por meio de entrevistas com 9 gestores de equipes de teleatendimento que trabalhavam em empresas de setores variados e submetidos a Análise de Conteúdo no programa computacional Atlas.ti 7. Os resultados sugerem que os gestores respondem à resistência à vigilância de 3 formas: tentam convencer o trabalhador a desistir da resistência (dissuasão); não tomam uma atitude (inação); ou modificam o sistema de vigilância (retificação). Quatro aspectos os levam a tais respostas: tecnologia-alvo; formato da resistência; frequência da resistência; e tamanho da equipe do gestor. O participante com a menor equipe não relatou resistência à vigilância, o que pode indicar a inexistência desses atos em algumas configurações. Esta pesquisa auxilia os pesquisadores a definir a base teórica de suas pesquisas, entender o controle nas empresas atuais e definir novos problemas de pesquisa. Aos gestores, sugere as tecnologias-alvo de resistência e o formato desses comportamentos.Escola Brasileira de Administração Pública e de Empresas da Fundação Getulio Vargas2018-09-13info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttps://periodicos.fgv.br/cadernosebape/article/view/66874Cadernos EBAPE.BR; Vol. 16 No. 4 (2018); 716-731Cadernos EBAPE.BR; Vol. 16 Núm. 4 (2018); 716-731Cadernos EBAPE.BR; v. 16 n. 4 (2018); 716-7311679-3951reponame:Cadernos EBAPE.BRinstname:Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV)instacron:FGVporenghttps://periodicos.fgv.br/cadernosebape/article/view/66874/73814https://periodicos.fgv.br/cadernosebape/article/view/66874/73815Copyright (c) 2018 Cadernos EBAPE.BRinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessSouza Neto, Rômulo Andrade deRamos, Anatália Saraiva MartinsDias, Gabriela Figueiredo2018-11-23T14:42:46Zoai:ojs.periodicos.fgv.br:article/66874Revistahttps://periodicos.fgv.br/cadernosebapehttps://periodicos.fgv.br/cadernosebape/oaicadernosebape@fgv.br||cadernosebape@fgv.br1679-39511679-3951opendoar:2024-05-13T10:00:03.950927Cadernos EBAPE.BR - Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV)true |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Resistance to electronic surveillance: the response of call center team managers Resistencia a la vigilancia electrónica: la respuesta de los administradores de equipos de teleatención Resistência à vigilância eletrônica: a resposta dos gestores de equipes de teleatendimento |
title |
Resistance to electronic surveillance: the response of call center team managers |
spellingShingle |
Resistance to electronic surveillance: the response of call center team managers Souza Neto, Rômulo Andrade de Managers’ response. Resistance. Electronic surveillance. Call center. Respuesta del administrador. Resistencia. Vigilancia electrónica. Teleatención. Resposta do gestor. Resistência. Vigilância eletrônica. Teleatendimento. |
title_short |
Resistance to electronic surveillance: the response of call center team managers |
title_full |
Resistance to electronic surveillance: the response of call center team managers |
title_fullStr |
Resistance to electronic surveillance: the response of call center team managers |
title_full_unstemmed |
Resistance to electronic surveillance: the response of call center team managers |
title_sort |
Resistance to electronic surveillance: the response of call center team managers |
author |
Souza Neto, Rômulo Andrade de |
author_facet |
Souza Neto, Rômulo Andrade de Ramos, Anatália Saraiva Martins Dias, Gabriela Figueiredo |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Ramos, Anatália Saraiva Martins Dias, Gabriela Figueiredo |
author2_role |
author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Souza Neto, Rômulo Andrade de Ramos, Anatália Saraiva Martins Dias, Gabriela Figueiredo |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Managers’ response. Resistance. Electronic surveillance. Call center. Respuesta del administrador. Resistencia. Vigilancia electrónica. Teleatención. Resposta do gestor. Resistência. Vigilância eletrônica. Teleatendimento. |
topic |
Managers’ response. Resistance. Electronic surveillance. Call center. Respuesta del administrador. Resistencia. Vigilancia electrónica. Teleatención. Resposta do gestor. Resistência. Vigilância eletrônica. Teleatendimento. |
description |
Studies show that managers’ responses to resistance to electronic surveillance in the workplace affects the behavior of resistance and its effects on organizations. However, there are few studies about managers’ responses to these behaviors and the following questions remain unanswered: “How do managers respond to resistance to electronic surveillance in the workplace?” and “Why do managers respond in this way?” This study seeks to answer these questions in order to understand managers’ response to resistance to electronic surveillance in the workplace. The theoretical framework adopted combines Coetsee (1999), Lapointe and Rivard (2005), Regan (1996) and Rivard and Lapointe (2012). The data was collected through interviews with nine call center team managers working in companies of different sectors and was analyzed by Content Analysis with the support of Atlas.TI® software. The results suggest that managers respond to resistance to surveillance in three ways: they try to convince the employee to abandon the resistance (dissuasion), they do not act on it at all (inaction) or they change the surveillance system (rectification). Four aspects lead managers to these responses: resistance behavior, frequency of resistance, target technology and size of the managers’ team. The participant with the smallest team did not report resistance to surveillance, which could indicate the absence of these behaviors in some contexts. This study helps researchers to define the theoretical framework of their work, to better understand the issue of control on organizations nowadays, as well as to define new research’ problems. As for managers, this study clarifies aspects regarding technologies targeted by acts of resistance and the resistance behavior that may be present in the workplace. |
publishDate |
2018 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2018-09-13 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://periodicos.fgv.br/cadernosebape/article/view/66874 |
url |
https://periodicos.fgv.br/cadernosebape/article/view/66874 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
por eng |
language |
por eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://periodicos.fgv.br/cadernosebape/article/view/66874/73814 https://periodicos.fgv.br/cadernosebape/article/view/66874/73815 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2018 Cadernos EBAPE.BR info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2018 Cadernos EBAPE.BR |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Escola Brasileira de Administração Pública e de Empresas da Fundação Getulio Vargas |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Escola Brasileira de Administração Pública e de Empresas da Fundação Getulio Vargas |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Cadernos EBAPE.BR; Vol. 16 No. 4 (2018); 716-731 Cadernos EBAPE.BR; Vol. 16 Núm. 4 (2018); 716-731 Cadernos EBAPE.BR; v. 16 n. 4 (2018); 716-731 1679-3951 reponame:Cadernos EBAPE.BR instname:Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV) instacron:FGV |
instname_str |
Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV) |
instacron_str |
FGV |
institution |
FGV |
reponame_str |
Cadernos EBAPE.BR |
collection |
Cadernos EBAPE.BR |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Cadernos EBAPE.BR - Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
cadernosebape@fgv.br||cadernosebape@fgv.br |
_version_ |
1798943211601788928 |