Resistance to electronic surveillance: the response of call center team managers

Abstract

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.

Keywords:
Managers’ response; Resistance; Electronic surveillance; Call center