Abstract
Jamie Woodcock’s book represents a deep attempt to approach the complexity of labour process in call centres from a perspective based on the thoughts of Marx and the Marxists who have developed the method of workers’ inquiry. The main purpose of his study is to present the different control mechanisms that take place in work, the moments of resistance, and also to ponder the role of workers’ organization in workplaces such as call centres, where precarious employment, high levels of workplace discipline and an absence of trade unions are commonplace.
In order to accomplish these research aims, Woodcock is mainly inspired by Marx’s little known and never materialized labourer research project, which was rescued in the second half of the 20th century by diverse experiences of research and political action, among which the Italian operaista stands out. Workers’ inquiry is a method focused on the workplace and which seeks to highlight workers as active subjects. It is not only an academic method, but also part of a political project: every moment of resistance in the labour process is considered from a worker perspective, in order to promote workers’ organization and develop politics against the interests of capital.
Woodcock recognizes the importance that mechanisms of control of work have on the increase of productivity and corporate profit. In general terms, the author points out that call centres are organized based on Taylorist principles that, in order to combat downtime at work, generates standardized guidelines (scripting) of different types of sales and customer service required at work. These scripts are elaborated and reworked from the knowledge that management is acquiring by appropriating the know-how of workers.
Two main dimensions of control in the call centre are studied: technological and direct supervision. Technological innovations are focused on the connection of the telephone to a computer, and enable a range of forms of monitoring and disciplining: (1) the acceleration of the work process through the automatic distributor of calls, (2) data on the performance of each worker and (3) digital record of all calls. All these innovations allowed an unprecedented level of surveillance in the call centre.
On the other hand, personalized control by supervisors has two functions. First, there is a specific function of the Taylorist control mechanisms that consists in guaranteeing that workers arrive on time, comply with the stipulated hours to rest, respect shifts, and leave at the corresponding time. Second, by incorporating new human resource management techniques, normative control mechanisms are deployed invoking the social competences of workers, beyond their work experience. Woodcock returns to the works of Hochschild (1983) and Bolton (2005), highlighting how, in call centres, emotional work is demanded for workers. Thus, for example, so-called buzz sessions and 1-2-1 assessments are spaces where supervisors try to motivate workers through talks and games, attempting to work on their soft skills (such as empathy and assertiveness, for example). The author recognizes that there is an evident tension between the quantitative and qualitative goals of management, since the qualities necessary to be a good salesperson are difficult to quantify.
Regarding these control mechanisms, Woodcock seeks to identify reactions of resistance and collective organization. If resistance is understood, according to the definition of Hodson (1995), as the hidden and generally individual practices that challenge managerial power, then organization also results in open and collective actions, such as strikes. Following Mulholland (2004), Woodcock describes four moments of resistance that appear in call centres: Slammin’ (not to make telephone sales), Scammin’ (avoid work), Smokin’ (lengthen rest periods to socialize between peers) and Leavin’ (permanent abandonment of work – quitting, exit or turnover-).
In all these moments of resistance, Woodcock identifies a rejection of work, which, following Tronti (2016), is one of the starting points for organization and antagonism against capitalist interests. According to Woodcock, working in call centres is a job particularly susceptible to rejection by workers, as it is generally devoid of meaning and considered unsatisfactory and unpleasant. Thus, the act of leaving work is ‘therefore evidence of hostility to work and the lack of a collective channel for the changing of conditions’ (p. 127).
Beyond this summary, it is important to make some comments. First of all, Woodcock’s book undoubtedly makes a considerable contribution to labour studies, especially in the way that it problematizes (from a Marxist perspective), control mechanisms and resistance practices that occur in call centres as socio-political contexts and unfavourable work regimes, creating an opportunity for critical and autonomous trade unionism. It is also important in identifying the difficulties faced by workers in their attempt to organize and ensure their own collective action. In doing so, moreover, the book goes beyond many studies, which focus on the workplace as a site of individualization and uncertainty – leaving little space for a consideration of the possibility of critical and autonomous agency in the contemporary labour process.
It is also important to recognize the merits of the methodology used by Woodcock. His study is ambitious and the ethnographic method that he deploys is highly appropriate. Similar results could not be achieved through social experiments, surveys, interviews, or discussion groups. Instead, the ethnographic approach enables access to experiences within the workplace and the routines of call centre workers, highlighting both control and resistance practices.
The ethical dilemma of not reporting the objectives of the study to supervisors and managers may be questionable; however, the context and framework in which this research is situated must be understood. The investigation does not constitute what we refer to it in Latin America as participatory action research, or militant critical research as carried out collaboratively between researchers and subjects studied (Fals-Borda 1987). Instead, it is inspired by various lines of Marxist studies which share the goal of linking scientific research to a political project (Marx 1880; Panzieri 1965; Tronti 2016). Somehow, this means challenging the ethical and epistemological frameworks imposed by the dominant scientific standards.
Finally, regarding the problem of subjectivities that are constituted in workspaces, we do not agree that turnover or quitting should be considered a form of resistance. While we understand that in bullshit jobs the refusal to work can have critical connotations and can be the root for future possibilities of collective organization, this is not always the case. Returning to the notion of mobility indeterminacy as indicated by Chris Smith (2006), we understand that both employers and workers can take advantage of the threat of quitting as mobility power. As much as a rejection of work is appreciated, the decision of quitting often entails some fatalism or resignation in relation to the alternative of organizing and acting collectively. Then, it is interesting to return to the point raised by Ackroyd and Thompson (1999): misbehaviour does not necessarily mean resistance, although it can constitute a fertile ground for such.
From our perspective, for potential spaces of resistance to become genuine forms of workers’ resistance, there must be an attribution of critical meaning to action or behaviour towards management. From a Weberian perspective, the challenge for research is to identify such attributions of meaning in the discourses of the workers themselves. Woodcock is very clear in pointing out that resistance is an opportunity to build collective organization and challenge the governance of capital in the workplace. However, by making the analytical framework more complex, we would prefer to see a stronger distinction between (1) potential spaces for resistance, (2) real resistance practices and (3) forms of collective organization that are autonomous and critical of corporate interests.