Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management, Volume 12, Issue 1, 2017

Supervisor’s behavioral complexity: Ineffective in the call center

Federico R. León

Research, Universidad San Ignacio de Loyola

Av. La Fontana 550, Lima 13, Peru

Tel: 51-1-3481262

Email: fleon@usil.edu.pe

Andrés Burga-León

Psychology Faculty, Universidad de Lima

Av. Javier Prado, cuadra 46, s/n, Lima 33, Perú

Tel: 51-1-4376767

Email: andresburgaleon@gmail.com

Oswaldo Morales

Graduate School, Universidad ESAN

Alonso de Molina 1652, Lima 33, Peru

Tel: 51-1-7127200

Email: omorales@esan.edu.pe

Abstract

An ample repertoire of leadership behaviors available to the manager is expected to guarantee his/her

effectiveness transcending situations, but research in the call-center context has identified a specific form of

effective supervision: people-oriented leadership. The purpose of this paper is to compare the effectiveness of

leader behavioral complexity vis-à-vis people-oriented supervision. 268 employees out of 728 of a Peruvian

call center filled in an on-line survey that included, among other questionnaires, the Competing Values

Framework Managerial Behavior Instrument in reference to their front-line supervisor. The study analyzed

the relationships between supervisory leadership and subordinate turnover intention and absenteeism.

Behavioral complexity, like people-oriented leadership, predicted subordinate turnover intention but did not

predict subordinate absenteeism, which people-oriented leadership did when other leadership orientations (to

change, results, processes) were held constant. Our explanations consider that absenteeism is a concrete

behavior and turnover intention an abstract attitude. The findings are consistent with the call-center literature,

suggest important boundaries to the concept of manager behavioral complexity, and highlight the need for

contingency theories of leadership effectiveness.

Keywords: leader behavioral complexity, people-oriented leadership, absenteeism, competing values

framework

Acknowledgements: We thank Juan Ramos, Álvaro Goyenechea, Paul Rojas, and José Meza for their

contributions to the research.

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

1 INTRODUCTION

Managerial leadership - the process whereby managers influence the behavior of their subordinates - is

regarded as effective when it leads to the achievement of organizational goals. Two types of leadership

effectiveness models are found in the managerial literature: one-size-fits-all models and situational models.

Whereas the former propose specific forms of leadership as solutions for any organizational situation, the

latter assume that a form of leadership may be effective in some situations and ineffective in others. The

research gap identified in this article is the absence of empirical challenges to a recently proposed one-size-

fits-all model of managerial leadership. The study presented addresses the gap by identifying in the

organizational literature a specific context which seems to call for only part of the proposed model – a part

which is relevant to the situation - and tests the effectiveness of the proposed model, in whole and in part, in

that organizational context.

1.1 Leader behavioral complexity and Hypothesis 1

One-size-fits-all models of leadership effectiveness have prevailed in research on managerial leadership

in recent decades (Bryman, Collinson, Grint, Jackson, & Uhl-Bien, 2011). Using transformational leadership,

the manager convinces his/her personnel to transcend their self-interest for the sake of the organization while

elevating employees’ needs from concerns for safety and security to concerns for achievement and self-

actualization. The transformational leader gives subordinates autonomy over specific jobs, training and tools

to succeed, and authority to make decisions, and serves as an empathetic role model who inspires them to

achieve remarkable results. In transactional leadership, the leader promotes compliance by followers through

rewards and punishments. With transactional leadership, the manager emphasizes extrinsic rewards and

motivates subordinates through contractual agreements to pursue organizational goals while workplace

anxiety is minimized and follower self-interest is fulfilled. Whereas the transformational leader shows that old

patterns are ineffective and works to change the system, the transactional leader solves challenges by fitting

experiences to a known pattern and works within the system. Whereas the former wants to know what has to

change, the latter wants to know the step-by-step approach. Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory focuses

in the dyadic leader-member relationship. It is a combination of the two previously described models which

begins as transactional exchange and evolves into transformational exchange. Research motivated by these

models has achieved a high degree of theoretical sophistication (e.g., Kimura, 2012; Li, Furst-Holloway,

Gales, Masterson, & Blume, 2017; Mao, Chiang, & Gao, 2017), but a major problem with one-size-fits-all

theories is that they do not specify the generalized impacts of situational and context variables that may

influence leadership effectiveness (Yukl, 2011; see also House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004).

An original twist of the one-size-fits-all approach to leadership effectiveness is brought by the concept of

leader behavioral complexity, which recognizes that specific types of leadership are required by specific types

of situations and yet assumes the existence of a leadership trait which would assure effectiveness across

situations. The theory is based on the Competing Values Framework (CVF), a model of organizational

cultures (Cameron, Quinn, DeGraff, &Thakor, 2006; Hartnell, Ou, & Kinicki, 2011; Quinn & Rohrbaugh,

1983). The CVF consists in the orthogonal crossing of a structural factor of stability and control versus

flexibility and discretion and a focus factor of internal orientation and integration of persons versus external

orientation and differentiation of persons. The crossing originates four types of organizations (see Figure 1).

The CVF guides the specification of leadership roles according to mutually exclusive values which define the

behavioral breadth with which a manager might act (Quinn, Spreitzer, & Hart, 1992). One of the pairs of

opposed values or capabilities contrasts priorities of relationships versus results (internal- versus external-

orientation axis). The second pair contrasts behaviors that create continuity versus change (stability versus

flexibility axis). Because opposing quadrants are viewed as mutually exclusive, their coexistence in an

individual manager presents a paradox. The CVF emphasizes the inherent difficulty of addressing competing

demands and gives a theoretical structure to the requisite behaviors for satisfying each quadrant’s demands.

People-, change-, results-, and process-oriented leadership, respectively, would be required by the

cooperation, creation, competition, and control cultures of the CVF (Lawrence, Lenk, & Quinn, 2009).

However, there would be a trait that permits the leader to perform adequately across CVF quadrants.

Behavioral complexity is defined as the capacity of a given leader to engage in a wide repertoire of behaviors

(Hooijberg & Quinn, 1992). More precisely, behavioral complexity is “the ability to exhibit contrary or

opposing behaviors (as appropriate or necessary) while still retaining some measure of integrity, credibility,

and direction” (Denison, Hoijberg, & Quinn, 1995, p. 526). The concept of behavioral complexity implies that

Federico R. León, Andrés Burga-León and Oswaldo Morales

it is possible for a leader to transcend the CVF paradoxes. A behaviorally complex leader would both

maintain continuity and lead change; likewise, a behaviorally complex leader would transcend the paradox of

results versus relationships.

Figure 1: The four cultures of the Competing Values Framework

Lawrence et al. (2009) developed the 36-item CVF Managerial Behavior Instrument (CVFMBI) and

reported significant correlations between behavioral complexity and the job performance of 407 managers of

an international service firm operating in diverse countries around the globe. Their results were based on self-

ratings and ratings from supervisors, subordinates, peers, and internal customers and were cross-validated

among 123 participants entering an elite executive MBA course in North America. Perceived behavioral

complexity has also been found related to the internal and external effectiveness of non-governmental

organizations in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (Mussallam, 2011). On the other hand, in a state

university in Turkey, the strongest predictor of faculty leadership effectiveness was the create leadership

function (Akbulut, Seggie, & Börkan, 2015) and Robinson (2016) has reported that behavioral complexity

does not operate according to theoretical expectations in virtual environments.

The literature has not addressed the effectiveness of managers’ behavioral complexity in an

organizational context in which research suggests that non-complex leader behaviors are needed, as is the

case of the call center. Moreover, the outcomes of the behavioral complexity variable have been assessed

considering achievements of the manager, not in terms of specific subordinate behaviors which hinder

organizational effectiveness, such as worker absenteeism. In the research presented in this article we evaluate

in a specific organizational context - that of the call center – the validity evidences related to the predictive

capabilities of the behavioral complexity concept.

Hypothesis 1. Call center supervisor’s behavioral complexity is associated with reduced turnover

intention and absenteeism of call center personnel.

Turnover and absenteeism are forms of withdrawal behaviors in organizations which also include

lateness. Whereas movement ease and desirability were the mechanisms which explained turnover in March

and Simon’s (1958) highly formalized model, Mobley (1977) conceived elaborate mechanisms linking

affects, mainly job satisfaction, to quits. More recently, Hom, Mitchell, Lee, & Griffeth (2012) have focused

on proximal withdrawal states derived from desired employment status (whether employees want to stay or

leave) and perceived volitional control (whether quit or stay decisions are completely up to them or at least

partially under external regulation); as a result, enthusiastic leavers and stayers and reluctant leavers and

stayers can be identified. It has been shown that the strongest determinants of employee turnover are job

satisfaction, organizational commitment, job search, comparison of alternatives, withdrawal cognitions, and

quit intentions (Griffeth, Hom, & Gartner, 2000). Effective leaders reduce employees’ turnover intentions

(Elci, Sener, Aksoy, & Alpkan, 2012), apparently because leadership behavior and leader-follower

relationships are significant determinants of stress and burnout in subordinates (Harms, Credé, Tynan, Leon,

& Jeung, 2017). As for absenteeism, researchers early noticed the fact that it is more frequent among women

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

than men, which they attributed to the demands of being a wife and mother, and identified also other objective

sources, such as transportation problems (Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982). The main focus, however, has

been on its relationships with job attitudes, mainly job satisfaction (e.g., Hacket, 1989). For example, in a

study which controlled for very detailed demographic, job, and firm characteristics (including workplace

practices), dissatisfaction with contracted hours was shown to be a significant determinant of absence (Dionne

& Dostie, 2007). Different leadership styles are associated with differing levels of employee absenteeism

(Elshout, Scherp, E., & van der Feltz-Cornelis, 2013), but an encompassing theory of the relationship between

the two variables is lacking. Thus, the research has targeted isolated determinants (e.g., Mayfield & Mayfield,

2009).

1.2 The call center context and hypothesis 2 and 3

By the end of the past century, the call center servicing clients was a new form of work organization

which grew rapidly thanks to the combination of improved computer technology and reduced

telecommunications costs. Whereas in-house call centers are a specific unit within a larger organization

focusing on other core business (manufacturing, retail, etc.), outsourced call centers are run by firms that

specialize in providing inbound and outbound communication services. In the call center, client service

representatives (CSRs) are expected to meet certain standards regarding the time they take to call a client

and/or resolve a client’s query, which includes a talking-time and a holding-time, and provide a solution to the

client at first call. In each call, the CSR must ensure not only that the customer’s inquire is correctly answered

but also that he/she is speaking to a known customer and the details of the call are correctly captured in the

system. Call centers use standardized procedures and processes based on information technology software

such as implementing recorded messages, letting the customer interact with the information system via

telephone keys, and enabling two-way communication between the computer and the customer using

synthetic speech messages (Schalk & van Rijckevorsel, 2007). High levels of stress amongst CSRs are a

common feature because the work tasks and the interactions with customers impose role overload and role

conflict (Cordes & Dougherty, 1993; Kleemann & Matuschek, 2002; Singh, Goolsby, & Rhoads, 1994: Witt,

Andrews, & Carlson, 2004). Wegge, van Dick, Fisher, West, and Dawson (2006) described the specific

challenges posed by the organization of work (working in shifts, postures, computer malfunctioning, high

noise level) and divided attention consuming demands (listening and speaking, inputting data and reading

from the screen). Role conflict arises from the demands to be quick and simultaneously provide a service of

high quality; hence, customer satisfaction and customer throughput often collide. Conflict also arises between

the negative emotions that surge when a customer has a complaint and the obligation to express positive

feelings (Deery, Iverson, & Walsh, 2002, 2010; Grandey, Dickter, & Sin, 2004; Marcoux, 2012). In addition,

the intensity of automated performance monitoring increases emotional labor (Holman, Chissick, &

Totterdell, 2002) and its perceived purpose affects job satisfaction (Welles, Moorman, & Werner, 2007).

Thus, it is the rule to find high levels of lateness, absenteeism and turnover in the call center industry

(Hutchinson, Purcell, & Kinnie, 2000; Kleemann & Matuschek, 2002; Malhotra & Mukherjee, 2004; Rose,

2002; Schalk & van Rijckevorsel, 2007); and psychological and physical symptoms frequently mediate the

job strain-absence connection (Darr & Johns, 2008). On the other hand, the relationship between emotional

labor and job performance is not simple (Hülsheger & Schewe, 2011) and adaptive performance yields higher

overall performance in call centers (Shoss, Witt, & Vera, 2011).

The history of call centers suggests a quest for the adequate leadership style. Early research focused on

the coercive employment systems that were adopted by call centers (Kinnie, Hutchinson, & Purcell, 2000);

these were characterized as an ‘assembly line in the head’ (Taylor & Bain, 1999) and likened to a

‘panopticon’ that controlled virtually every aspect of employee behavior (Fernie & Metcalf, 1998). During a

time, call centers seemed obsessed with control. Yet, along with organizations that emphasized a mass

production model typified by a set of repetitive, routinized and highly scripted tasks, call centers characterized

by a professional service model that maximized the discretion and autonomy of the employees emerged (Batt

& Moynihan, 2002). Since then a number of studies have supported the benefits accruing from the

implementation of high commitment management practices (see Clark, 2007; D’Cruz & Noronha, 2011;

Harney & Jordan, 2008; Malhotra & Mukherjee, 2007; Schalk and Van Rijckevorsel, 2007; Schawfeli,

Bakker, & van Rehnen, 2009) coupled with the creation of state-of-the-art workplaces seeking to

communicate ‘people values’ in mass-production call centers (Barnes, 2007). Using a nationally

representative sample of call centers in the USA, Batt (2002) found that quit rates were lower in

establishments that emphasized employee participation in decision making and in teams. Supervisor coaching

(Liu & Batt, 2010) and support (Liaw, Chi, & Chuang, 2010) positively influence employee performance in

Federico R. León, Andrés Burga-León and Oswaldo Morales

call centers and supervisor support moderates in a complex way the relationship between call center worker

burnout and his/her turnover intention (Choi, Cheong, & Feinberg, 2012). Finally, research has demonstrated

the importance of the employee’s psychological contract with the supervisor as different from the

psychological contract with the call center (Chambel, 2012) and that employee emotional exhaustion relates

negatively to his/her perception of the supervisor among permanent but not temporary call center workers

(Van der Elst, Van den Broeck, De Cuyper, & De Witte, 2014).

Hence, in the CVF perspective, what seems to be the supervisory style adequate for call centers is

person-oriented leadership, that is, one that motivates people by tending to their emotional needs. Since the

call center literature suggests that people-oriented leadership is the relevant supervisory variable in this

industry, the present study tested:

Hypothesis 2. Call center supervisor’s people-oriented leadership is associated with reduced

subordinate’s turnover intention and absenteeism.

Lawrence et al. (2009) postulated the effectiveness of leader behavioral complexity across situations.

Since behavioral complexity is implicitly defined as a sum of people-oriented leadership and other leadership

orientations, it can be assumed that part of the variance of people-oriented leadership is shared with the other

leadership orientations (non-specific people-oriented leadership) whereas another part is not (specific people-

oriented leadership). Thus, we tested:

Hypothesis 3. Call center supervisor’s specific people-oriented leadership is associated with reduced

subordinate’s turnover intention and absenteeism.

2 METHODS

2.1 Organizational context

The organization studied (Org) is part of an international service conglomerate that ranks second in the

world and has 15% of the Latin American market of call centers. Org has operated in Peru during more than

10 years providing employment for more than 5,000 workers in Metropolitan Lima. These are divided into a

Foreign Mobiles division dedicated to attend a foreign phone company and a division that has clients in

various fields (banking, insurance, government, etc.). The Foreign Mobiles division has an average

absenteeism of 7.9% which represents a loss of 5.5% of its income. The majority of employees at Org are

women; with few country exceptions, women prevail in call centers across nations (Holman, Batt, &

Holtgrewe, 2007).

2.2 Participants

The 728 CSRs of Org’s Foreign Mobiles division were invited to participate in an online survey. All of

them had responsibilities entailing calling clients and responding to them. Their employee ID served to link

their responses to their personal and work data in personnel files.

2.3 Measures

2.3.1 Absenteeism

Org measures its employees’ absenteeism using an attendance marker, vacations control, and

administration of medical dispenses. The indicator refers to uncertified absence. Whereas lateness is counted

in hours and minutes, absenteeism is measured in days.

2.3.2 Turnover intention

The following items were translated into Spanish by Alarco (2010): “Lately, I have many wishes to

abandon this organization”, “Despite the obligations I have with this enterprise, I want to abandon my job”, “I

would like to remain in this organization as long as I could” (inverse scoring), and “If I could, I would leave

this job today”. Respondents used a five-point Likert scale.

2.3.3 Behavioral complexity and its components

Lawrence et al. (2009)´s analyses of the CVFMBI items yielded four factors that matched the four CVF

quadrants and, in turn, were defined by three sub-factors each. Encouraging participation, developing people,

and acknowledging personal needs define the people-oriented leadership called for by the cooperation culture.

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

Anticipating customer needs, initiating significant change, and inspiring people to exceed expectations define

the change-oriented leadership required by the creation culture. Focusing on competition, showing a hard

work ethic, and emphasizing speed define the results-oriented leadership required by the competition culture.

And clarifying policies, expecting accurate work, and controlling projects define the process-oriented

leadership required by the control culture. A Spanish version of the CVFMBI was obtained for this research

through forward-back translation of its 36 items, at the rate of 9 items per leadership orientation.

2.3.4 Other Variables

Other variables measured included gender (1 = female, 2 = male), age, education (1= secondary, 2 =

university), number of children, number of hours worked per day by each employee, employee’s time at Org,

and working shift (1 = morning; 2 = afternoon/night).

Table 1 summarizes the measures employed in the study.

2.4 Analytic strategy

Confirmatory factor analysis was applied to obtain validity evidences related to the internal structure of

the CVFMBI, the Lavaan (2012) package in R (R Core Team, 2015) being the analytic tool. Absence data in

Org were highly skewed to the right and not normally distributed. The five leadership measurement scales

were non-normal, too. Hence, we used bootstrapping with 1,000 samples in the analyses.

Table 1: Measures used in the study

Measure

Definition

Source

Number

of items

Cases

Absenteeism

Uncertified absences

Target organization

728

Turnover intention

Desire to quit

Alarco (2010)

268

Behavioral complexity

Sum of four leader

orientations

Lawrence et al. (2009)

379

Person-orientation

Focus on personnel welfare

Lawrence et al. (2009)

379

Change-orientation

Focus on adaptation and

creation

Lawrence et al. (2009)

379

Results-orientation

Focus on outcomes

Lawrence et al. (2009)

379

Process-orientation

Focus on tasks

Lawrence et al. (2009)

379

Gender

Male or female

Own

379

Age

Years lived

Own

379

Education

Secondary, university

Own

379

Number of children

Quantity

Own

379

Hours worked

Number of hours

Own

379

Time in Org

Months

Own

379

Work shift

Morning, afternoon/night

Own

379

Federico R. León, Andrés Burga-León and Oswaldo Morales

Table 2: Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations

Variable

Mean

Gender

Age (years)

Educational level

Number of children

Hours worked

Time in Org (months)

Working shift

Behavioral complexity

People orientation

Change orientation

Process orientation

Results orientation

Absenteeism

Turnover intention

1.352

24.01

1.100

0.390

7.839

14.26

1.500

140.5

34.43

34.56

35.90

35.65

0.043

9.26

0.478

7.089

0.304

0.720

1.833

7.417

0.500

27.87

7.874

7.372

7.402

7.187

0.040

3.29

-.05

.06

-.20***

-.05

-.10

.13*

-.03

-.06

-.03

-.02

.03

.02

.04

.06

.47***

.15**

.27***

-.07

-.03

-.02

-.03

-.02

-.06

-.11*

-.02

.16**

.03

.02

.03

-.06

-.10

-.06

-.04

-.01

.08

.18**

.06

.15**

-.10*

.02

-.00

.03

.01

.07

-.03

.08

-.01

-.08

-.13*

-.07

-.04

-.05

-.15**

-.03

.01

-.11*

-.12*

-.08

-.10*

-.25***

.23***

-.07

-.09

-.08

-.04

-.06

.01

.13*

.92***

.95***

.92***

-.02

-.17**

.86***

.79***

.76***

-.06

-.19**

.89***

.81***

-.00

-.15*

.88***

-.01

-.13*

-.01

-.18**

-.01

Note: N = 379 for variables 1-12, N = 728 for variable 13, N = 268 for variable 14

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

3 RESULTS

3.1 Preliminary analyses

All of the 728 CSRs had information on absenteeism, 379 filled-in the CVFMBI in full, and 268

completed the turnover questionnaire, which reflects the order of presentation of the topics in the

questionnaires. Hence, the response rate for all the questionnaires was only 37%. SCRs who did not respond

to the CVFMBI (Non-responders) presented greater absenteeism (Mean = .0494) than responders (Mean =

.0427), a significant difference (t = -2.118, p = .035). Similarly, non-responders to the employability and

turnover sections of the questionnaire presented greater absenteeism (Mean = .052) than responders (Mean =

.038), a significant difference (t = -2.515, p = .013). The internal-consistency reliability of the CVFMBI

ranged from .94 to .97 across leadership orientations, whereas the α for the total scale was .98. The internal-

consistency reliability of the turnover intention scale reached .78.

Table 2 shows the means, standard deviations, and correlations between study variables. A majority of

the employees were women (65%), average age was 24 years, 10% of the personnel had some university

education, few had children (0.39 children was the average), and the mean number of hours worked per day

was 7.84. The mean SCRs’ 14.26 months with Org (Median = 12 months) reveals a huge level of turnover.

All the leadership scores were highly inter-correlated and did not importantly correlate with the other

variables, except negatively with turnover intention. It can be seen that absenteeism negatively correlates with

age, number of hours worked, and time in Org, whereas turnover intention increases with education, time in

Org, and in the abnormal (afternoon and night) shifts. Education positively influences employability. We

replicated Lawrence et al.’s (2009) hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis (Figure 2), which sought to

render three first-order factors and four second-order factors. The indicators of model adjustment were good

(Tucker-Lewis Index = 0.965) or very good (RMSEA = 0.018; SRMR = 0.028) according to conventional

standards (Schreiber, Stage, King, Notra, & Barlow, 2006).

Figure 2: Replication of Lawrence et al.’s (2009) factor analysis. The names of the second-order factors

used by Lawrence et al. correspond to people-, change-, results-, and process-oriented leadership

Federico R. León, Andrés Burga-León and Oswaldo Morales

Table 3: Standardized coefficients from the regression of turnover intentions and absenteeism on raw leadership scores and other study variables, per

regression model

_________Turnover Intention__________

___________Absenteeism_____________

Predictors

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Leader behavioral complexity

Person-oriented leadership

Other leadership orientations

Gender

-.14*

.02

-.15*

.01

-.11

-.04

.02

-.05

.20**

-.04

-.07

-.06

-.01

-.10*

.01

-.24**

.15

.02

-.09

.08

.13

-.15**

Age

-.06

-.05

-.10

Educational level

.20*

.19*

.09

Number of children

-.04

-.05

.14*

Hours worked

-.06

-.07

-.14*

-.15*

Time in Org

Working shift

Corrected R

.27**

.12*

.11

.26**

.12*

.11

.27**

.12*

.11

-.22**

.01

.08

-23**

.01

.09

-.23**

.00

.09

ANOVA F

(N)

5.05***

(268)

5.09***

(268)

4.52***

(268)

4.93***

(379)

5.29***

(379)

5.02***

(379)

Note. The number of variables in this table is not 14, as in tables 1 and 2, because change-oriented, results-oriented, and process-oriented leadership are part of Other leadership

orientations.

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001 (after bootstrapping).

Federico R. León, Andrés Burga-León and Oswaldo Morales

3.2 Hypothesis testing

Hypothesis 1 was upheld only in part. The results shown in Table 2 indicate that supervisor’s

behavioral complexity is associated with subordinate’s turnover intention but not with absenteeism. In

contrast, Hypothesis 2 was fully upheld: person-oriented leadership is associated with both variables. In

turn, the regression coefficients stemming from the model into which both person-oriented leadership

and the sum of the three other leadership orientations were entered supported Hypothesis 3 regarding

absenteeism. Whereas both variables failed to reach significance in the prediction of turnover, person-

oriented leadership achieved significance predicting absenteeism. This strongly suggests that turnover

intention is affected by what person-oriented leadership and the other three leadership orientations have

in common while absenteeism is affected by something that is specific to person-oriented leadership.

Paradoxically, time in Org was associated with increased turnover intention and decreased absenteeism.

On the other hand, whereas education and working shift affected turnover intention, the number of

hours worked affected absenteeism.

4 DISCUSSION

The main finding of the study is that what is specific to people-oriented leadership predicts the

absenteeism of call-center employees, a subordinate behavior with important financial implications for

call centers. The findings strongly suggest that, at least in the call-center context and at the front-line

supervisory level, the leader behavioral complexity is irrelevant to achieve a positive, corrective

influence on employee absenteeism. In deciding whether to attend or not, the worker probably weights

the consequences of two behavioral options: to attend or not to attend, the option to attend being

probably more attractive, i.e., positively charged in affective terms, to the extent that the work climate

is defined by a people-oriented supervisor who reduces the stress associated with the CSR’s tasks.

Whether the supervisor is oriented to change, results, or processes may be irrelevant to this decisional

context. Behavioral complexity may be useful in other types of organizations. There are organizations

with inherent complexity. To perform on a superior performance level, companies must respond with

internal complexity to extant external complexities; thus Schott, Horstmann, and Bodendorff (2015)

have identified 37 complexity drivers that determine corporate complexity and a number of complexity

management methods. A leader with high behavioral complexity may be required by a complex

organization, but this does not appear to be the case of call centers, at least at the service platform level.

But, why leader behavioral complexity, which failed to predict absenteeism, predicted turnover

intention? A number of studies have shown that the two withdrawal behaviors are differently related to

organizational variables (e.g., Cohen & Golan, 2007). Turnover is more easily predictable than

absenteeism from Fishbein’s attitude-behavior model (Newman, 1974), which suggests that the former

responds to principles of rationality to a greater extent than the latter. Thus, research findings from a

field study concerned with perceived inequity within organizations led Geurts, Schaufeli, and Rutte

(1999, p. 263) to the conclusion that “reporting sick is a rather uncomplicated way of coping

immediately with an inequitable situation, whereas developing thoughts about leaving the organization

involves a long-term process of re-evaluating one’s attachment to the organization, gaining emotional

distance and making a major decision to actually leave.” Similarly, Albion, Fogarty, Machin, and

Patrick (2008) reported from a study of 1097 hospital employees that psychological states mediated the

relationship between organizational climate and intention to leave but not the relationship between

organizational climate and absenteeism. In call centers, job demands are the most important predictors

of absenteeism, through their relationship with exhaustion and health problems, whereas job resources

are the most important predictors of turnover intention, through their relation with organizational

commitment and dedication (Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2003). The main difference between

these two variables is that one constitutes a concrete behavior and the other an abstract attitude. In

responding the questions on job turnover, the employee must make an effort of abstraction of the

attributes of the organization. How is this judgment affected by the supervisor’s behavioral

complexity? Discounting people-oriented leadership, behavioral complexity appears to basically refer

to a preoccupation of the supervisor with getting the core tasks done. We surmise that, if the supervisor

emphasizes aspects of the job in his/her daily behavior, they become salient at the moment of

producing a judgment on the value of the evaluated organization. The call-center employee under a

supervisor with high behavioral complexity may come to recognize that his/her core tasks are

important. Call centers offer low-wage, low skill jobs that attract mainly women and youngsters

(Holman, Batt, & Holtgrewe, 2007). Behaviorally complex supervisors may have a positive impact on

the call-center employee’s identity as a worker who performs valued tasks. This may lift their self-

esteem as workers and the value of being part of the organization. Whereas these interpretive

hypotheses are highly speculative, they are testable.

Federico R. León, Andrés Burga-León and Oswaldo Morales

4.1 Theoretical and practical contributions

Situational leadership theories, which propose that effective management requires a specific

leadership style for a specific type of situation are out of fashion. Hershey and Blanchard (1969),

addressing the traditional leadership concepts of “initiating structure” and “consideration” (Hemphill &

Coons, 1957), postulated that some situations require of the leader to prioritize defining the role for

followers, giving definite instructions, creating organizational patterns, and establishing formal

channels of communication, while other situations require more emphasis on the display of concern for

others, attempts to reduce emotional conflicts, efforts to seek harmonious relations, and effective

regulation of equal participation. The level of professional and psychological maturity of employees

would determine the correct leadership style. This theory’s empirical failures (Bass, 2008; Thompson

& Vechio, 2009) have led to stagnation of research on situational leadership effectiveness. Nonetheless,

the consideration and initiating structure concepts and the situational approach have in some way re-

emerged as part of the CVF and our findings, demonstrating the relevance of call center supervisor’s

people-oriented leadership, have the potential to revitalize situational approaches to leadership

effectiveness.

The study results indicate boundary conditions for the concept of behavioral complexity. It has

been shown in Romania that a single managerial competency, team management, is relevant to

managerial performance among line managers, whereas a number of competencies are relevant to

middle and top management performance (Bucur, 2013). Since this suggests that leader behavioral

complexity may be less relevant at lower management levels, front-line supervisors may not need

behavioral complexity at all in order to affect subordinate absenteeism.

Call centers can learn some lessons from our findings. Absenteeism was the first problem in the

list of top headaches for call center management according to a recent survey (ICMI, 2012) and the

solutions suggested included offering a buy-back program for unused sick-days, move pay-days from

Friday to Monday, bring agents into the planning process to ensure that they understand what the

service level goals are and reach them, and others; supervision oriented to improve worker emotional

status was not mentioned. If people-oriented leadership reduces subordinate absenteeism, it should be

promoted through recognition and strengthened through training.

4.2 Limitations and future research

The main limitation of this study is its poor questionnaire response rate. Only 37% of the SCRs of

the Foreign Mobiles division responded to the study questionnaire in full. Moreover, non-responders

presented greater absenteeism than non- responders; this suggests that it is possible that more clear-cut,

sharper results confirming the trends observed would have been obtained from a more representative

sample. A second limitation is that job stress was assumed to moderate the relationship between

people-oriented leadership and employee’s absenteeism but was not measured in the study. The

implicit tenet is that people-oriented supervision would not be equally successful in preventing

absenteeism in the absence of job stress. While this type of situation may be impossible to observe in

call centers, individual differences in job stress and burnout can be observed to test whether these

variables, in fact, moderate the relationship between person-oriented leadership and worker

absenteeism. There is evidence that personality variables, especially Neuroticism, determine individual

differences in the extent to which persons respond to stressful labor (e.g., Kokkinos, 2007; McManus,

Keeling, & Paice, 2004). Testing the hypotheses in a different organizational setting may be needed to

strengthen the generalizability of the findings; for example, the study could be replicated in the garment

industry, where high levels of stress are present (e.g., Ganster, Kiersch, Marsh, & Bowen, 2011;

Steinisch, Yusuf, Li, Rahman, Ashraf, Strümpell, Fishcer, & Loerbroks, 2013). The study also leaves

open other questions. Is call center supervisor’s people-oriented leadership relevant in other areas

beyond absenteeism? It appears likely that it may also ameliorate lateness and turnover but, does it

promote a work of better quality? The literature suggests that it does, but this has not yet been

demonstrated using the people-oriented leadership scale of the CVFMBI. Research is needed also to

establish the specific levels of management at which the behavioral complexity concept may be

relevant; different levels of behavioral complexity may be required at different levels of management

considering the diverse number of competencies that are relevant to low, middle and top managerial

positions (Bucur, 2013).

4.3 Conclusion

The findings reported in this article significantly advance our understanding of leadership

processes in organizations. Important boundaries were demonstrated with respect to the theory that

leader behavioral complexity is good for all organizational situations and levels. Whereas behavioral

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

complexity was associated with turnover intentions in a call center, it did not predict employee

absenteeism; since the former is a mere abstract attitude whereas absenteeism is a concrete behavior

with very important performance consequences for organizations, this should be regarded as an

important limitation of the leader’s behavioral complexity concept. Future research should determine

whether behavioral complexity is not effective at lower managerial positions in settings other than the

call center service platform, and/or whether specific organizational conditions, such as intense job

stress, limit its effectiveness. The research showed that, at call centers, a specific supervision style,

people-oriented leadership, ameliorates subordinate turnover intentions and absenteeism. Future

research which incorporates measurement of individual differences in job stress and is replicated in

other organizational settings, such as the garment industry, is needed to determine whether job stress in

fact moderates the relationship between person-oriented leadership and absenteeism and the targeted

set of relationships transcends the specificity of the call center setting.

REFERENCES

Akbulut, M., Seggie, N. F., & Börkan, B. (2015). Faculty member perceptions of department head

leadership effectiveness at a state university in Turkey. International Journal of Leadership in

Education: Theory and Practice, 18, 440-463.

Albion, M.J., Fogarty, G.J., Machin, M.A., & Patrick, J. (2008). Predicting absenteeism and turnover

intentions in the health professions. Australian Health Review, 32, 271-281.

Bakker, A.B., Demeuroti, E., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2003). Dual processes at work in a call centre: An

application of the job demands-resources model. European Journal of Work and Organizational

Psychology, 12, 393-417.

Barnes, A. (2007). The construction of control: The physical environment and the development of

resistance and accommodation within call centres. New Technology, Work and Employment, 22:

246–259.

Bass, B. M. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial application

edition). New York, NY: Free Press.

Batt, R. (2002). Managing customer services: Human resource practices, quit rates, and sales growth.

Academy of Management Journal, 45, 587-597.

Batt, R., & Moynihan, L. (2002). The viability of alternative call centre production models. Human

Resource Management Journal, 12(4), 14-34.

Bucur, I. (2013) Managerial core competencies as predictors of managerial performance, on different

levels of management. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 78, 365-369.

Bryman, A., Collison, D., Grint, K., Jackson, B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (Eds.). (2011). The SAGE handbook

of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cameron, K. S., Quinn, R. E., DeGraff, J., &Thakor, A. V. (2006). Diagnosing and Changing

Organizational Culture:bbased on the Competing Values Framework. Northampton, MA: Elgar.

Chambel, M.J. (2012). Does the fulfillment of supervisor psychological contract make a difference?

Attitudes of in-house and temporary agency workers. Leadership and Organizational Development

Journal, 35, 20-37.

Choi, S., Cheong, KJ, & Feinberg, R.A. (2012). Moderating effects of supervisor support, monetary

rewards, and career paths on the relationship between job burnout and turnover intentions in the

context of call centers. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 22, 492, 516.

Clark, E. E. (2007) Characteristics of work organisation in UK and Philippine call centres. Team

Performance Management 13, 227–243.

Cohen, A., & Golan, R. (2007). Predicting absenteeism and turnover intentions by past absenteeism

and work attitudes: An empirical examination of female employees in nursing care facilities.

Career Development International, 12, 416-432.

Cordes, C.L., & Dougherty, T.W. (1993). A review and integration of research on job burnout,

Academy of Management Review, 18, 621–656.

D’Cruz, P., & Noronha, E. (2011). High commitment management practices re-examined: The case of

Indian call centres. Economic and Industrial Democracy.

Darr, W., & Johns, G. (2008). Work strain, health, and absenteeism: A meta-analysis. Journal of

Occupational Health Psychology, 13, 293-318.

Federico R. León, Andrés Burga-León and Oswaldo Morales

Deery, S. J., Iverson, R. D., & Walsh, J. T. (2010). Coping strategies in call centres: Work intensity and

the role of co-workers and supervisors. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 48, 181-200.

Deery, S. J., Iverson, R. D., & Walsh, J. T. (2002). Work relations in telephone call centres:

Understanding emotional exhaustion and employee withdrawal. Journal of Management Studies,

39, 471-496.

Denison, D. R., Hooijberg, R., & Quinn, R. E. (1995). Paradox and performance: Toward a theory of

behavioral complexity in managerial leadership. Organization Science, 6, 524−540.

Dionne, G., & Dostie, B. (2007). New evidence on the determinants of absenteeism using linked

employer-employee data. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 61, 108-120.

Elci, M., Sener, I., Aksoy, S., & Alpkan, L. (2012). The impact of ethical leadership and leadership

effectiveness on employees’ turnover intention: The mediating role of work related stress.

Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 58, 289-297.

Elshout, B., Scherp, E., & van der Feltz-Cornelis. (2013). Understanding the link between leadership

style, employee satisfaction, and absenteeism: A mixed-methods design study in a mental health

care institutions. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, 9, 823-837.

Fernie, S., & Metcalf, D. (1998). (Not) hanging on the telephone: Payment systems in the new

sweatshops. CEPDP, 390, Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics and

Political Science.

Ganster, D.C., Kiersch, C.E., Marsh, R.E., & Bowen, A. (2011). Pwrformance-based rewards and work

stress. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 31, 221-235.

Geurts, S.A., Schaufeli, W.B., & Rutte, C.G. (1999). Absenteeism, turnover intention and inequity in

the employment relationship. Work & Stress, 13, 253-267.

Grandey, A. A., Dickter, D. N., & Sin, H-P. (2004). The customer is not always right: Customer

aggression and emotion regulation of service employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25,

1-22.

Griffeth, R.W., Hom, P.W., & Gartner, S. (2000). A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates of

employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research implications for the next millennium.

Journal of Management, 26, 463-488.

Hacket, R.D. (1989). Work attitudes and employee absenteeism: A synthesis of the literature. Journal

of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 62, 235-248.

Harms, P.D., Credé, M., Tynan, M., Leon, M., & Jeung, W. (2017). Leadership and stress: A meta-

analytic review. The Leadership Quarterly, 28, 178-194.

Harney, B., & Jordan, C. (2008). Unlocking the black box: Line managers and HRM-performance in a

call centre context. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 57, 275–

296.

Hartnell, C. A., Yi Ou, A., &Kinicki, A. (2011). Organizational culture and organizational

effectiveness: A meta-analytic investigation of the Competing Values Framework’s theoretical

suppositions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 677-694.

Hemphill, J. K., & Coons, A. E. (1957). Development of the Leader Behavior Description

Questionnaire. En R. M. Stogdill & A. E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its

description and measurement. Columbus, OH: Ohio Stare Univdersity. Hershey, P., & Blanchard, K.

H. (1969). Life cycle theory of leadership. Training & Development Journal, 23, 26.

Hooijberg, R., & Quinn, R. E. (1992). Behavioral complexity and the development of effective

managers. In R. L. Phillips & J.G. Hunt (Eds.), Strategic management: A multiorganizational-

level perspective. New York: Quorum.

Holman, D., Batt, R., & Holtgrewe, U. (2007). The global call center report: International perspectives

on management and employment. Ithaca, NY: Authors. Downloaded from

https://works.bepress.com/rosemary_batt/18/ on July 25, 2016.

Holman, D., Chissick, C., & Totterdell, P. (2002). The effects of performance monitoring on emotional

labor and well-being in call centers. Motivation and Emotion, 26, 57- 81.

Hom, P.W., Mitchell, T.R., Lee, T.W., & Griffeth, R.W. (2012). Reviewing employee turnover:

Focussing on proximal withdrawal states and an expanded criterion. Psychological Bulletin, 138,

831-858.

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership, and

organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hülsheger, U.R., & Schewe, A.F. (2011). On the costs and benefits of emotional labor: A meta-analysis

of three decades of research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16, 361-389.

Hutchinson, S., Purcell, J., & Kinnie, N. (2000). Evolving high commitment management and the

experience of the RAC call centre. Human Resource Management Journal, 10, 63–78.

Kimura, T. (2012). Transformational leadership and job satisfaction: The mediating effects of

perceptions of politics and marketing orientation in the Japanese context. International Journal of

Business Science and Applied Management, 7, 29-42.

Kinnie, N., Hutchinson, S., & Purcell, J. (2000). ‘Fun and surveillance’: The paradox of high

commitment management in call centres. International Journal of Human Resource Management

11, 967–985.

Kleemann, F., & Matuschek, I. (2002). Between job and satisfaction: Motivations and career

orientations of German “high quality” call centre employees. Electronic Journal of Sociology, 6,

Kokkinos, C.M. (2007). Job stressors, personality and burnout in primary school teachers. British

Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 229-243.

Lavaan, R. I. (2012). An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of Statistical Software,

48, 1-36.

Lawrence, K. A., Lenk, P., & Quinn, R. E. (2009). Behavioral complexity in leadership: The

psychometric properties of a new instrument to measure behavioral repertoire. Leadership

Quarterly, 20, 87-102.

Liaw, Y-J, Chi, N-W, & Chuang, A. (2010). Examining the mechanisms linking transformational

leadership, employee customer orientation, and service performance: The mediating role of

perceived supervisor and co-worker support. Journal of Business Psychology, 25, 477-492.

Li, J., Furst-Holloway, S., Gales, L., Masterson, S.S., & Blume, B.D. (2017). Not all transformational

leadership behaviors are equal: The impact of followers’ identification with leader and modernity

on taking charge. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 24, 318-334.

Liu, X., & Batt, R. (2010). How supervisors influence performance: A multilevel study of coaching and

group management in technology-mediated services. Personnel Psychology, 63, 265-298.

Malhotra, N., & Mukherjee, A. (2004). Satisfaction on service quality of customer contact employees

in banking call centres. Journal of Services Marketing, 18, 162–174.

Mao, J-Y, Chianf, J. T-J, Zhang, Y., & Gao, M. (2017). Humor as a relationship lubricant: The

implications of leader humor on transformational leadership perceptions and team performance.

Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 23, 494-506.

March, J.G., & Simon, H.A. (1958). Organizations. New York, NY: Wiley.

Marcoux, G. (2012). The work of customer service representatives in a Canadian call center: Role

distance and management of emotions at work. Business Studies Journal, 4, 1-20.

Mayfield, J., & & Mayfield, M. (2009). The role of leader motivating language in employee

absenteeism. Journal of Business Communication, 46, 455-479.

McManus, I.C., Keeling, A., & Paice, E. (2004). Stress, burnout and doctors attitudes to work are

determined by personality and learning style: A twelve year longitudinal study of UK medical

graduates. BMC Medicine, 2, 29-

Mobley, W.H. (1977). Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction and employee

turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 237-240.

Mowday, R.T., Porter, L.W., & Steers, R.M. (1982). Employee-organization linkages: The psychology

of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Mussallam, N. (2011). Examining the perceived internal and external effectiveness of NGOs in the

Palestinian territories: the role of complexity, resilience, and job adaptability. PhD Thesis,

Columbia University. URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10022/AC:P:9947.

Newman, J.E. (1974). Predicting absenteeism and turnover: A field comparison of Fishbein’s model

and traditional job attitude measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 610-615.

Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: Towards a competing

values approach to organizational analysis. Management Science, 29, 363-377.

Federico R. León, Andrés Burga-León and Oswaldo Morales

Quinn, R. E., Spreitzer, G. M., & Hart, S. L. (1992). Integrating the extremes: Crucial skills for

managerial effectiveness. Executive and organizational continuity: Managing the paradoxes of

stability and change. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

R Core Team. (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing, R Foundation for

Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, https://www.R-project.org/.

Robinson, J. (2016). Look before you lead: Seeing virtual teams through the lens of games. Technical

Communication Quarterly, 25, 178-190.

Rose, E. (2002), The labour process and union commitment within a banking services call centre. The

Journal of Industrial Relations, 44, 40–61.

Schalk, R., & van Rijckevorsel, A. (2007). Factors influencing absenteeism and intention to leave in a

call centre. New Technology, Work and Employment, 22, 260-274.

Schawfeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & van Rehnen, W. (2009). How changes in job demands and

resources predict burnout, work engagement, and sickness absenteeism. Journal of Organizational

Behavior,

Schott, P., Horstmann, F., & Bodendorf, F. (2015). Context specific complexity Management: A

recommendation model for optimal corporate complexity. International Journal of Business

Science and Applied Management, 10, 32-46.

Shoss, M.K., Witt, L.A., & Vera, D. (2011). When does adaptive performance lead to higher task

performance? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 910-924.

Schreiber, J. B., Stage, F. K., King, J., Nora, A., & Barlow, E. A. (2006). Reporting structural equation

modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. The Journal of Educational

Research, 99, 323-337.

Singh, J., Goolsby, J. R., & Rhoads, G. K. (1994). Behavioral and psychological consequences of

boundary spanning burnout of Customer Service Representatives. Journal of Marketing Research,

31, 558–569.

Steinisch, M., Yusuf, R., Li, J., Rahman, O., Ashraf, H.M., Strümpell, C., Fishcer, J.E., & Loerbroks,

A. (2013). Work stress: Its components and its association with self- reported health outcomes in a

garment factory in Bangladesh – Findings from a cross-sectional study. Health and Place, 24,

123-130.

Taylor, P., & Bain, P. (1999). An assembly line in the head: Work and employee relations in the call

centre. Industrial Relations Journal 30, 101–117.

Thompson, G., & Vecchio, R. P. (2009). Situational leadership theory: A test of three versions. The

Leadership Quarterly, 20, 837-848.

Van der Elst, T., Van den Broeck, A., De Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. (2014). A multiple-group

analysis of associations between emotional exhaustion and supervisor-rated individual

performance: Temporary versus permanent call center workers. Human Resource Management,

53, 623-633.

Wegge, J., van Dick, R., Fisher, G. K., West, M. A., & Dawson, J. F. (2006). A test of basic

assumptions of affective events theory (AET) in call centre work. British Journal of Management,

17.

Welles, D. L., Moorman, R. H., & Werner, J. M. (2007). The impact of the perceived purpose of

electronic performance monitoring on an array of attitudinal variables. Human Resource

Development Quarterly, 18, 121-138.

Witt, L.A., Andrews, M. C., & Carlson, D. S. (2004). When conscientiousness isn’t enough: Emotional

exhaustion and performance among call center customer service representatives. Journal of

Management, 30, 149–160.

Yukl, G. (2011). Contingency theories of effective leadership. In Bryman, A., Collison, D., Grint, K.,

Jackson, B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (Eds.). (2011). The SAGE handbook of leadership (pp. 286-298).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.