MGMT 9000M Week 6 Interpretation Draft Example

Three Findings Read Against the Literature, Then Turned Toward Practice: An Interpretation Draft for a Dissertation on Abusive Supervision and Defensive Silence Among Call-Center Agents, Naming Each Finding by Number and the Readers the Findings Say Nothing To

Student Name

Walden University

MGMT 9000M: Doctoral Dissertation

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

Three Findings Read Against the Literature, Then Turned Toward Practice: An Interpretation Draft for a Dissertation on Abusive Supervision and Defensive Silence Among Call-Center Agents, Naming Each Finding by Number and the Readers the Findings Say Nothing To

Interpreting the Findings

This study surveyed 538 customer service agents in 61 teams at five nonunion call centers operated by three US firms. Chapter four reported three findings. Finding 1: agents' perceptions of abusive supervision were associated with more defensive silence, withholding concerns or information to protect oneself. Finding 2: that association was weaker on teams that had a formal escalation line, a channel for raising concerns with someone other than the immediate supervisor. Finding 3: agents' tenure did not moderate the association. This chapter interprets each finding in relation to the studies reviewed in chapter two, then draws implications for practice.

Finding 1: Abuse and Defensive Silence

Tepper (2000) defined abusive supervision as a subordinate's perception of hostile words and gestures from a supervisor, sustained over time and stopping short of physical contact. The definition matters for reading Finding 1, because it locates abuse in what subordinates perceive rather than in what supervisors intend. The finding, then, is that agents who perceive sustained hostility from their supervisor report withholding more. That is consistent with the logic of defensive silence: if speaking up to a hostile supervisor seems risky, silence protects the agent.

Morrison (2014), reviewing research on voice and silence, noted that employees weigh the likely efficacy and the likely risk of speaking up, and that perceived risk is a strong reason for silence. Finding 1 fits that account. It also extends work by Xu et al. (2015), who found that abusive supervision was associated with employee silence and that the exchange relationship between supervisor and employee changed how strong that link was. The present study finds the same direct link in call centers, a setting where agents' work is closely monitored and supervisors control schedules and evaluations, which may make the risk of speaking up especially vivid.

The two recent studies flagged in the literature refresh, both of which reported weaker associations between abusive supervision and silence than this study did, deserve attention. Both were conducted in professional settings with more autonomy than call-center work allows. One possibility is that close monitoring strengthens the link, because agents have fewer ways to avoid a hostile supervisor. Another is that the measures differed: one of the two studies measured silence in general rather than defensive silence specifically. This study cannot choose between these explanations, but the difference in setting is a plausible place for future comparison.

Finding 2: The Escalation Line

Finding 2, that the association was weaker on teams with a formal escalation line, suggests that alternative channels can reduce the silencing effect of an abusive supervisor. If an agent can raise a concern with someone outside the supervisory relationship, the risk that made silence protective is lower. This reading fits the weight Morrison (2014) gives to perceived risk, since an escalation line changes the risk without changing the supervisor.

Two cautions apply. First, the study did not measure how often agents used the escalation line, only whether it existed; the finding concerns the presence of a channel, not its use. Second, teams with escalation lines were concentrated in two of the five centers, so center-level differences may contribute. The analysis accounted for center, but with five centers that adjustment is limited.

Finding 3: Tenure Did Not Matter

Finding 3, that tenure did not moderate the association, runs against an expectation stated in chapter two: that longer-tenured agents, who know the system and may feel more secure, would be less silenced by an abusive supervisor. The result suggests that, in this setting, experience does not protect agents. One possible reading is that supervisors' control over schedules and evaluations applies equally to new and experienced agents, so tenure does not change the risk of speaking up. Another is that agents who stayed under abusive supervisors were those most willing to stay quiet. The cross-sectional design cannot distinguish these readings.

How the Three Findings Fit Together

Read together, the three findings describe a setting in which silence is a reasonable response to a hostile supervisor, regardless of experience, and in which an alternative channel is the one feature associated with less of it. That combination has a theoretical implication. Much of the research reviewed in chapter two treats silence as a choice shaped by the individual's own resources, such as tenure, status or confidence. The present findings suggest that, in tightly monitored work, the structure of available channels may matter more than the individual's resources. This is a reading, not a finding: the study did not compare structural and individual explanations directly. It does suggest a comparison worth making in a design that measures both, ideally over time, so that changes in channels can be related to changes in silence.

Implications for Practice

This section is addressed to call-center operations managers. Each implication rests on a numbered finding.

Based on Finding 1, managers should treat agents' silence as a possible sign of supervisory problems, not only as a sign of satisfaction. A team that raises few concerns may be a team that has stopped raising them.

Based on Finding 2, centers without a formal escalation line should consider establishing one, staffed by someone outside the agents' reporting line, and should publicize it. Because the study measured only the presence of such lines, centers that establish one should track how often it is used and what concerns come through it.

Based on Finding 3, managers should not assume that experienced agents will speak up where new agents do not. Efforts to encourage voice should include all agents, not only new hires.

Readers the Findings Say Nothing To

The findings say nothing directly to agents in unionized call centers, which were not sampled and where grievance procedures may already provide alternative channels of the kind Finding 2 describes. They say nothing to supervisors' own accounts, since the study measured agents' perceptions only. And they say little about offshore or outsourced centers, whose management structures and labor markets differ from those of the five US centers studied.

References

Morrison, E. W. (2014). Employee voice and silence. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 173-197. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091328

Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178-190. https://doi.org/10.5465/1556375

Xu, A. J., Loi, R., & Lam, L. W. (2015). The bad boss takes it all: How abusive supervision and leader-member exchange interact to influence employee silence. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(5), 763-774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.03.002