The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0048-3486.htm

How hybrid HR systems affect Hybrid HR

systems
performance in call centers
Joana Story
FGV/EAESP School of Business Administration of Sao Paulo,
Sao Paulo, Brazil, and
Filipa Castanheira Received 31 January 2020
Nova School of Business and Economics, Lisbon, Portugal Revised 25 June 2020
Accepted 24 July 2020

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between hybrid HR systems in call centers
and their effect on workers’ performance.
Design/methodology/approach – Drawing on a sample of 337 call center operator-supervisor dyads, the
authors analyzed how the joint perceptions of monitoring and high-performance work systems (HPWS) are
associated with workers’ authenticity to explain performance, rated by supervisors.
Findings – The authors found that when monitoring is perceived as low, HPWS is not associated with
authenticity, suggesting that it requires the joint effect of monitoring and HPWS to communicate HR
management priorities in call centers. In addition, the authors found that high ratings of monitoring combined
with low perceptions of HPWS were associated with the lowest levels of authenticity, whereas the highest levels
of authenticity at work were found when high monitoring was combined with high HPWS. The results
supported a conditional indirect effect through authenticity to explain when and how hybrid HR systems are
associated with better supervisor-rated performance.
Originality/value – This is the first study to test the interaction effects between HPWS and monitoring
practices to explain authenticity as a key strategic component of performance in call centers.
Keywords Call centers, Hybrid HR systems, HPWS, Monitoring, Authenticity, Performance
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Call centers have been a focus of intensive research over the past decades, with some authors
describing these working contexts as “assembly lines in the head” (Taylor and Bain, 1999),
“lean service environments” (Sprigg and Jackson, 2006) and “electronic panopticon” (Fernie
and Metcalf, 1999) due to the overt controls and tight performance targets (Holman, 2005;
Russel, 2009). At the same time, studies have also pointed out that high-performance work
systems (HPWS) have been effective in promoting commitment and discretionary work effort
among call center workers (Batt, 2002; Kinnie et al., 2000; Wood et al., 2006). A hybrid HR
system is described as a combination of disconnected HR practices (Boxall and Purcell, 2008)
such as tight control with focus on development. Hybrid HR systems are the result of the
tension between the need to standardize work and promote flexibility while controlling costs
and reinforcing service quality (Holman, 2005; Holman et al., 2009; Russel, 2009).
In call centers specifically, hybrid HR systems may combine monitoring systems that
observe and record employee work behaviors, including the automatic collection of
quantitative performance data (Holman, 2002) with HPWS that comprises a set of practices
such as training, participation, reward systems and performance-related pay (Batt, 2002;
Takeuchi et al., 2007). Earlier research on hybrid HR systems in call centers demonstrated
that hybrid solutions that combine HPWS and monitoring systems to improve performance
and well-being can be implemented (Batt and Appelbaum, 1995; Castanheira and Chambel,
2010; Kinnie et al., 2000). However, these studies adopt a more descriptive analysis of the
additive effects of the HR components versus looking at the interactive effects of these Personnel Review
different HR practices. Studies looking at how these practices interact are still scarce. For © Emerald Publishing Limited
0048-3486
example, Conway et al. (2016) examined the synergistic effects of performance management DOI 10.1108/PR-01-2020-0054
PR and employee voice as components of a hybrid HR system. They found that employee voice
promoted workers’ engagement and buffered the influence of performance management on
emotional exhaustion.
Indeed, over the past decades, research has demonstrated that several HR systems may
coexist in call centers, but the advantage of studying the combined effects of HR components of
hybrid systems is reinforced by the notion that the focus on a single component (e.g. HR control)
may produce biased results because that component may be of less importance in itself than for
its role in the hybrid HR system (Combs et al., 2006; Lepak et al., 2006; Boselie et al., 2005). This
means that HR control does not exist in a vacuum and should therefore not be studied alone. We
argue that with regard to call centers, the main question is no longer whether hybrid systems with
monitoring and HPWS can be implemented, but rather how and when the combinations of these
two components improve performance. To our knowledge, no studies have been conducted on the
interactive effects within hybrid HR systems in call centers.
To address this gap, we adopt an individual-level perspective of HR practices to highlight
the symbolic or signaling function of HR systems (Bowen and Ostroff, 2004; Guzzo and
Noonan, 2006) and propose that the joint perception of high/low monitoring and high/low
HPWS embodies different messages or social cues that employees use to make sense of and
define their work context. Understanding how workers perceive and react to hybrid HR
systems is of utmost importance as monitoring systems and HPWS may send mixed and
potentially conflicting messages regarding which behaviors and attitudes are expected in the
workplace (Sewell et al., 2012). Based on the Job Demand-Control model (JD-C model; Karasek
and Theorell, 1990) we propose that HPWS will act as an important source of control for
employees (Conway et al., 2016) because HPWS increases employees’ capacity to deal with the
demands and make decisions regarding the work (Fu et al., 2017; Jensen et al., 2013), whereas
monitoring systems will be perceived as a demand due to increased surveillance and pressure
at work (Aiello and Kolb, 1995; Holman, 2002).
We further propose that the blending of different perceptions of monitoring and HPWS
will be associated with supervisor-rated performance through worker’s authenticity, an
attitude that reflects an employee’s perception that he/she can stay true to one’s self at work
(Wood et al., 2008). Earlier research has demonstrated that authenticity is strategic for
customer service and can be influenced by the work context (Berger and Grandey, 2006;
Grandey et al., 2005; Pugh et al., 2010; Victorino et al., 2012). Drawing on a resource-based view
of call centers, we propose that call centers require the presence of monitoring systems in
order to effectively manage resources (HPWS) and create value (e.g. higher levels of
authenticity), which, in turn, can promote performance (Fu et al., 2017). Moreover, we propose
that different combinations of high/low monitoring and HPWS will improve our
understanding of authenticity at work and the conditional indirect effects through which
the hybrid HR system is associated with better performance as rated by supervisors
(Figure 1).

HPWS Authenticity Performance

Figure 1. Monitoring HR
Research model practices
 Therefore, our paper contributes to the literature in three major ways. First, by looking at Hybrid HR
the interactive effects of HPWS and monitoring systems rather than the additive effects of systems
these practices, we can understand the potential synergies between the practices. Second, by
studying hybrid HR systems, we analyze the impact of the real practices and their
consequences that are happening in call centers rather than the biased results that take into
account one component of HR practices as we have seen in the past (i.e. monitoring). Third, we
look into the impact that authenticity at work has on performance as evaluated by
supervisors and how authenticity at work can be increased.

Literature review and hypotheses

Hybrid HR systems in call centers
Call centers are emblematic of the rise of the service jobs. This sector has been growing
structurally at an annual pace of 3.6% in employment (E.C.C.B.P., 2014); in 2014, it comprised
around 35,500 call centers employing close to 3.8 million people in Europe. In Portugal, this
sector grew 9% (E.C.C.B.P., 2014), encompassing 25,000 job positions and employing around
55,000 individuals (A.P.C.C., 2014).
The work in call centers has been the focus of extensive research (Russel, 2009), finding
that call center management is far from uniform (Castanheira and Chambel, 2012; Holman
et al., 2009; Kinnie et al., 2000; Taylor et al., 2002). Indeed, call centers often operate with
competing priorities such as “. . .translating the maximum number of calls with the lowest
staffing ratios while delivering a level of customer service. . .” (Russel, 2009, p. 198). In order
to comply with a higher number of calls while reducing costs per customer transaction, call
center management tends to design shorter job cycles and standardized procedures that
result in high-pressure work routines and overt surveillance (Batt and Moynihan, 2002;
Russel, 2009; Sprigg and Jackson, 2006).
Surveillance takes the form of electronic monitoring systems that constantly assess
quantifiable aspects of employee performance, such as time logged in and out of the system,
time available to answer calls, number of calls handled and length of calls (Wickham and
Collins, 2004). Studies demonstrate that the pervasive role of electronic monitoring systems in
call centers is related to job-related strain (Deery et al., 2002; Ellway, 2013; Holman, 2002;
Holman et al., 2002; Sprigg and Jackson, 2006), encouraging some researchers to label call
centers as the “Tayloristic factories of the 21st Century” (Bain et al., 2002; Zapf et al., 2003).
However, research has also demonstrated that in order to comply with quality requirements
and enhance service customization, call centers management can engage in HPWS to
encourage employees to be committed, flexible and service-oriented (Castanheira and
Chambel, 2010; Holman et al., 2009; Kinnie et al., 2000; Taylor et al., 2002). HPWS includes a set
of practices that consist of comprehensive selection, training opportunities, performance
management, incentive-based compensation and extensive employee involvement (Takeuchi
et al., 2007).
Taken together, studies on call centers demonstrate that management tends to comply
with pressures for both “quantity” and “quality” of service by implementing hybrid HR
systems (Boxall and Purcell, 2008) that combine monitoring systems and HPWS. The
combination of monitoring and HPWS appears at first glance to deal with competing
practices. On the one hand, monitoring, by itself, is a very narrow management tool that may
produce biased results (Combs et al., 2006; Lepak et al., 2006; Boselie et al., 2005). On the other
hand, the research on each single component of HPWS by itself has produced mixed results.
For example, while many studies have established a relationship between HPWS and positive
outcomes, including performance (Al-Ajlouni, 2020; Batt, 2002; Guthrie, 2001; Takeuchi et al.,
2007), there is a growing concern about a potential dark side of HPWS (Godard, 2004; Han
et al., 2020; Jensen et al., 2013; Kroon et al., 2009), suggesting that its association with
PR engagement and performance may be less guaranteed than expected (Castanheira and Story,
2016; Chi and Lin, 2011; Fu et al., 2017) and potentially decreasing well-being (Ananthram
et al., 2018). In addition, research about monitoring systems has been inconclusive. Some
authors demonstrate that monitoring systems have an effect on employees’ strain (Deery
et al., 2002; Sprigg and Jackson, 2006; Holman, 2002), while others claim that the perceived
meaning attributed to the monitoring system (Frenkel et al., 1998; Sewell et al., 2012) and
increased job control (Holman, 2002; Jensen et al., 2013) make monitoring less pervasive and
may even help to enhance performances (Ball and Margulis, 2011; Bhave, 2014). Indeed, Jeske
and Santuzzi (2015) stated that while monitoring may enhance performance and efficiency,
the benefits could be erased if employees have a negative reaction to monitoring systems.
Stanton (2000) supports this idea that employees react differently to monitoring. Research is
therefore still needed to understand how and when hybrid HR systems improve performance
in call centers.
In this study, we highlight the way employees interpret and react to hybrid HR systems in
call centers and explore the interactive effects of monitoring and HPWS as components of
hybrid HR systems. Drawing on the JD-C model (Karasek and Theorell, 1990), we propose
that HPWS will be perceived as an important resource that will improve workers’ capacity to
deal with demands (Conway et al., 2016; Fu et al., 2017), whereas monitoring systems will
correspond to job demands (Aiello and Kolb, 1995; Holman, 2002). Specifically, we examine
employees’ perceptions of monitoring and HPWS and propose that the interaction of high/low
monitoring with high/low HPWS may communicate mixed and potentially conflicting
messages or social cues that employees use to make sense of and react to their work (Bowen
and Ostroff, 2004; Guzzo and Noonan, 2006), including how authentic they believe they can be
in that context.

Authenticity as a response to HR hybrid systems

Authenticity of service providers refers to the employee’s perception that he or she can stay
true to one’s self at work (Wood et al., 2008). Authenticity is an important attitude in service
interactions because service providers represent the company to customers (Schneider and
Bowen, 1993) and employees’ authenticity enhances customers’ attitudes to the service
encounter (Grandey et al., 2005; Diefendorff and Richard, 2003; Pugh, 2001; Tsai, 2001; Tsai
and Huang, 2002). Indeed, research on emotional regulation has demonstrated that customers
can detect employees’ strategy of “faking emotions” and “smiles,” and they perceive these
interactions as being less genuine, consequently having a negative impact on customers’
experiences (Ashforth and Humphrey, 1993; Berger and Grandey, 2006; Grandey et al., 2005;
Groth et al., 2009; Victorino et al., 2012), which undermines workers’ performance.
However, according to Mirchandani (2012), individuals can be authentic in call centers in
spite of the rigid procedures and high surveillance. However, we were unable to find studies
that have researched how complex hybrid HR systems may be associated with workers’
authenticity in call centers. By analyzing the HR components in isolation, one might be
tempted to think that, on the one hand, HPWS would promote authenticity, because it
promotes a climate based on openness, trust and autonomy (Muduli, 2015), while on the other
hand, monitoring would decrease authenticity as employees may engage in impression
management strategies to cope with increased work pressure and surveillance. Indeed, Metin
et al. (2016) tested precisely that; how job demands (workload, mental demands and emotional
demands) are negatively associated with authenticity and how job resources (autonomy,
opportunities for learning and the support of supervisors and colleagues) are positively
related with authenticity. They argued that “employees with a high workload . . . may be
unable to find the opportunity to satisfy their need for autonomy, belongingness, and
competence” (p. 486). They were unable to find support for their argument.
 We, on the other hand, argue that the combined effects of HPWS and monitoring may not Hybrid HR
be as straightforward as the study of isolated practices seems to suggest. We propose that the systems
joint perceptions of monitoring and HPWS will communicate to the employee if he or she can
be authentic in the workplace. Considering that authenticity is sensitive to context (Lenton
et al., 2013), how individuals perceive systems and not isolated practices may be a more
effective way to see how these communicate the way to act. Environment influences
individual behavior (Bandura, 1991; Wood and Bandura, 1989). Therefore, through self-
regulation (Bandura, 1991), individuals continuously assess how their personal standards fit
with organizational requirements and whether or not they feel that they can be their true
selves at work.
Indeed, we propose that the coupled perceptions of monitoring systems and HPWS may
send different messages regarding which behaviors and attitudes are expected (Sewell et al.,
2012). According to the JD-C model (Karasek and Theorell, 1990), we assume that perceived
low HPWS and high monitoring represent low-control/high-demand work contexts. In these
contexts, workers cannot respond optimally to situational demands, and therefore one can
expect high levels of strain and relatively low levels of learning (Karasek and Theorell, 1990).
Accordingly, the negative influence of monitoring will be predominant, and the hybrid HR
system will be perceived as “coercive” (Sewell et al., 2012), with employees reporting less
authenticity. On the contrary, if high monitoring is perceived alongside with high HPWS
(high-demand/high-control active jobs; Karasek and Theorell, 1990), workers will interpret
the hybrid HR system as “caring” (Sewell et al., 2012) and report the highest levels of
authenticity. In these situations, employees will possess the resources to deal with demands
and will be encouraged to be themselves when interacting with customers to promote a good
service. Furthermore, through monitoring systems, employees will have continuous access to
feedback information that highlights good performance indicators and ensures fairness
(Sewell et al., 2012).
On the contrary, if employees perceive HPWS (high or low) to be coupled with low
monitoring, authenticity will not be perceived as important to performance because
employees will lack the quantitative feedback that objectively distinguishes performances
when acting authentically or not. These situations represent low-demand work contexts
(Karasek and Theorell, 1990), resembling the notion of passive jobs that are presumed to offer
little opportunity for learning and personal development. Boyraz and Kuhl (2015) found that
individuals who have the opportunity to engage in self-reflection reported higher levels of
authenticity, while individuals who self-ruminate – chronic negative thinking about negative
aspects (Trapnell and Campbell, 1999) – report the lowest levels of authenticity. Accordingly,
we argue that employees need HPWS in order to have the resources to perform well, as well as
monitoring systems that provide them with the quantitative information that demonstrates
whether they perform better (quantitatively) when they are more authentic. In this way, they
can effectively engage in self-reflection. Therefore, when combined with the adequate
resources (high HPWS), “. . .monitoring metacommunicates: that is, the configuration of the
monitoring and the way that monitoring information is delivered through feedback processes
are ingrained with messages concerning managerial priorities and judgments as to
appropriate behaviors” (Ball and Margulis, 2011). This message sent through the hybrid HR
system will reinforce the imperative of “quality of service” and communicate unequivocally
how being authentic is relevant for good performance (Schneider and Bowen, 1993).
Therefore, we hypothesize:
H1. Monitoring system moderates the relationship between HPWS and authenticity, so
that when monitoring is low, the relationship is not significant, and when monitoring
is high, the positive relationship between HPWS and authenticity is stronger.
PR We further propose that supervisors will appraise more positively employees who act more
authentically. This is consistent with earlier research that has demonstrated the association
between authenticity and service outputs (Ashforth and Humphrey, 1993; Berger and
Grandey, 2006; Grandey et al., 2005; Diefendorff and Richard, 2003; Groth et al., 2009; Pugh,

2001; Tsai, 2001; Tsai and Huang, 2002; Victorino et al., 2012), engagement (Ortiz-Gomez et al.,
2020) and performance (Van Den Bosch and Taris, 2014; Metin et al., 2016). Recently, Gino
et al. (2020) found that when people attempt to make a good impression by catering to them,
they perform worse than those who behave more authentically.
The mere presence of HPWS is insufficient to create value (e.g. higher levels of
authenticity) and improve performance, as little monitoring may convey the message that it is
of less consequence to perform poorly. We assume that the high levels of performance, as
rated by supervisors, will be found in the more authentic employees, and that in order to
effectively promote authenticity, HPWS needs monitoring systems, so that the joint
combination may convey the right message that authenticity is required to perform well in
customer service (Grandey et al., 2005; Diefendorff and Richard, 2003; Pugh, 2001; Tsai, 2001;
Tsai and Huang, 2002). We hypothesize:
H2. The indirect effect of HPWS to supervisor-rated performance through authenticity
will be positive when the monitoring system is high and not significant when the
monitoring system is low.

Method
Sample and procedure
Respondents included 337 call center operator-supervisor dyads. About two in three respondents
were female (N 5 219; 64.6%). Mean age was 29.6 years (SD 5 7.2 years), and mean tenure was
18.6 months (SD 5 25.1 months). Prior to data collection, researchers met the HR managers and
the direct supervisors to explain the study. Questionnaires were delivered to individual
employees, and included a cover letter explaining the researcher’s affiliation and noting that
participation was both voluntary and anonymous. Supervisors were asked to rate the
performance of each worker. Employee and supervisor surveys were matched via identification
numbers on the surveys and with the informed consent of the workers. As identification numbers
relied on codes, the anonymity of each participant’s responses was ensured.

Measures
HPWS was evaluated with 17 items from Takeuchi et al. (2007). Items covered several HR
practices: training (e.g. “Training programs strive to develop firm-specific skills and
knowledge.”), performance appraisal (e.g. “Performance appraisals include developmental
feedback”) and selection (“Selection emphasizes their ability to collaborate and work in
teams”), and compensation and rewards (e.g. “Our compensation is contingent on
performance”). Items were scored on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) (Cronbach’s alpha 5 0.91).
Monitoring was measured with four items from Castanheira and Chambel (2010). An
example item is “During my work, my performance is monitored by length of calls”
(Cronbach’s alpha 5 0.83). Items were scored on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1
(Never) to 5 (Very often).
Authenticity was measured using four adapted items from Wood et al. (2008) authentic
living scale, which assesses the extent to which individuals behave and express emotions in
ways that are consistent with their values and beliefs. An example item is “At my work, I
think it is better to be yourself, than to be popular” (Cronbach’s alpha 5 0.83). The expression
“At my work” was included to reinforce the contextual dimension of authenticity. Items were
scored on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
 Performance was evaluated by supervisors using four items from the Williams and Hybrid HR
Anderson (1991) in role performance scale. Respondents answered on a five-point scale systems
ranging from 1 (rarely) to 5 (often). An example item is “He/she performs the tasks that are
expected of him/her.” Cronbach’s alpha 5 0.88.
Control variables. We followed the recommendations of Becker et al. (2016) and only
controlled for variables that were significantly related to our outcomes (i.e. gender and
tenure). Furthermore, Roth et al. (2012) found in their meta-analysis that females, on average,
are rated as better performers than males. Similarly, in their meta-analysis, Ng and Feldman
(2010) found that longer tenured were also rated as better performers.

Statistical analysis
We tested our hypotheses with a regression-based path analysis using PROCESS software,
which is a computational tool for probing the conditional indirect effects of mediated
moderation models (Hayes, 2012; Preacher et al., 2007). Process is an SPSS software macro
that allows the test of the indirect effects ab, with a normal theory approach (e.g. the Sobel
test) and with a bootstrap approach to calculate confidence intervals (CI; MacKinnon et al.,
2004). We estimated model 7 using 1,000 bootstrap samples and 95% bias-corrected
bootstrap confidence intervals for the indirect effect. Authenticity was introduced in the
model as mediator of the relationship between HPWS and supervisor-rated performance, and
monitoring as a moderator variable into the model (H1). We empirically tested the overall
mediated moderation hypothesis (H2), for example, the possibility of a significant indirect
effect of HPWS on supervisor-rated performance through authenticity which was contingent
on the value of monitoring. Following Aiken and West’s (1991) recommendations, predictor
variables were mean-centered, and the conditional indirect effect was analyzed at different
values of the moderator variable: the mean, one standard deviation above and one standard
deviation below the mean.

Results
Descriptive statistics
Following Anderson and Gerbing’s (1988) recommendations, we first performed
confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) to test and compare various competing measurement
models, using AMOS 17.0 software package (Arbuckle, 2008). The evaluation of the overall
goodness of fit of the models was based on the combination of several fit indices (Byrne, 2010;
Hu and Bentler, 1999), namely, chi-square, the standardized root mean square (SRMR), the
incremental fit index (IFI), the Bentler comparative fit index (CFI) and the root mean square
error of approximation (RMSEA). For IFI and CFI, values greater than 0.90 are typically
considered acceptable, and for SRMR and RMSEA, values up to 0.08 are deemed reasonable
(Byrne, 2010; Hu and Bentler, 1999). The full measurement model (four-factor model) was
initially tested and included all observed items loading on their respective latent variables
(HPWS, monitoring, authenticity and performance). The latent variables were allowed to
correlate with each other. The full measurement model obtained an acceptable fit
(χ 2(360) 5 854.44, p < 0.001; SRMR 5 0.07; IFI 5 0.90; CFI 5 0.90; RMSEA 5 0.06), and
all standardized regression coefficients were significant at the 0.001 level.
To test for common method variance (CMV), two additional models were tested (Podsakoff
et al., 2003). One involved a CFA, with all variables loaded onto one general factor (one-factor
model). This model showed a mediocre fit to the data (χ 2(367) 5 2841.60, p < 0.001;
SRMR 5 0.15; IFI 5 0.49; CFI 5 0.50; RMSEA 5 0.14), indicating that a single factor does
not account for the majority of variance in data. We then performed a second test in which
an unmeasured latent methods factor was added to the four-factor model, allowing all
items to load on their theoretical constructs, as well as on the latent methods factor.
PR The methods model obtained a good fit (χ 2(332) 5 683.41, p < 0.001; SRMR 5 0.07; IFI 5 0.93;
CFI 5 0.93; RMSEA 5 0.06). Because the methods model cannot be nested within the four-
factor model but both have the same observed variables, the comparison of the goodness of fit
of these models was calculated by CFI difference. The change of CFI between both models
was 0.03, which is below the suggested rule of thumb of 0.05 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1990). Finally,
one nested model was computed to test alternative combinations of observed variables. A
three-factor model was explored in which HPWS and monitoring observed items were loaded
onto a latent variable, and the remaining observed items were loaded onto their respective
latent variables (authenticity and performance). This model obtained a poor fit
(χ 2(363) 5 1267.80, p < 0.001; SRMR 5 0.09; IFI 5 0.82; CFI 5 0.81; RMSEA 5 0.09).
Altogether, these analyses showed that the factor structures of the research variables were
consistent with the conceptual model and also that the manifest variables loaded onto the
latent variables, as intended.
We further analyzed the average variance extracted for each scale variable to determine
the scales’ discriminant validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). According to the Fornell and
Larcker’s test (1981), scale variables are sufficiently different from one another if a scale’s
average variance extracted is greater than its shared variance with any other scale variable in
the model. This condition was met, and therefore one can conclude that all scales were distinct
from one another. The values are reported in Table 1, along with inter-scale correlations and
descriptive statistics for all variables.

Test of hypotheses
H1 proposed that monitoring moderates the relationship between HPWS and authenticity,
and H2 proposed the conditional indirect effect of the hybrid HR system on supervisor-rated
performance through authenticity (Table 2). Results indicated that the cross-product term
between HPWS and monitoring on authenticity was significant (B 5 0.24, t 5 2.28, p < 0.05),
supporting H1.
The interaction effect is represented in Figure 2. As expected, the association between
HPWS and authenticity is stronger when monitoring is higher. The lowest levels of
authenticity were found in individuals who reported low HPWS and high monitoring.
Furthermore, when monitoring is low, the relationship between HPWS and authenticity is not
significant.
Although results show that HPWS interacted with monitoring to influence authenticity,
they do not directly assess the proposed moderated mediation. Therefore, we examined the
conditional indirect effect of HPWS on supervisor-rated performance (through authenticity)
at three levels of monitoring (Table 2). Results demonstrated that HPWS was positively
associated with authenticity (B 5 0.39, t 5 3.46, p < 0.01), and authenticity was positively
related to supervisor-rated performance (B 5 0.16, t 5 4.62, p < 0.001). This indicated a
significant indirect effect of HPWS on supervisor-rated performance through authenticity
(indirect effect 5 0.06; 95% CI from 0.02 to 0.12; z 5 2.71, p < 0.01). Furthermore, results
supported a conditional indirect effect of HPWS on predicting supervisor-rated performance
via authenticity when individuals reported higher monitoring, but not when ratings of
monitoring were low. Thus, H2 was supported.

Discussion
The main purpose of this study was to investigate when and how HR systems would influence
performance in call centers. Specifically, we proposed that hybrid HR systems that combine
HPWS and monitoring would enhance authenticity in employees, and consequently their
performance as rated by their supervisors. This study contributed to the literature in three main
ways. First, it empirically tested how employees can perceive and experience hybrid HR systems.
 Mean SD CR AVE ASV 1 2 3 4 5

1. Gender (a)
2. Tenure (b) 18.56 25.09 0.26***
3. HPWS 3.23 0.74 0.91 0.37 0.04 0.05 0.23***
4. Authenticity 4.88 1.58 0.89 0.68 0.05 0.18*** 0.36*** 0.21***
5. Performance 3.82 0.85 0.87 0.63 0.03 0.01 0.13* 0.11* 0.27***
6. Surveillance 3.50 1.11 0.83 0.55 0.01
0.09 0.02
0.06
0.02
0.06
Note(s): N 5 334; CR 5 composite reliability; AVE 5 average variance extracted; ASV 5 average shared variance; (a) dummy variable coded 0 if male, and 1 for female;
(b) in months
p < 0.01; *p < 0.05; ***p < 0.001
systems
Hybrid HR

Table 1.

and study variable

Descriptive statistics

intercorrelations
PR B SE t P

Predictor variable Outcome: Authenticity (Mediator) R2 5 0.21

Constant 4.16 0.14 29.56 <0.001
Gender 0.42 0.17 2.39 <0.05
Tenure 0.02 0.01 6.13 <0.001
HPWS (a path) 0.39 0.11 3.46 <0.01
Surveillance 0.01 0.07 0.14 0.89
HPWS 3 Surveillance 0.24 0.11 2.28 <0.05

Predictor variable Outcome: Performance R2 5 0.9

Constant 3.1 0.16 18.8 <0.001
Gender
0.10 0.10
0.96 0.34
Tenure 0.01 0.01 0.34 0.73
HPWS (c’ path) 0.03 0.07 0.51 0.61
Authenticity (b path) 0.16 0.03 4.62 <0.001
Bootstrap results for indirect effect Effect SE LL95%CI UL95%CI
Effect through authenticity (z 5 2.71; p < 0.01) 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.12
Conditional indirect effect at surveillance Effects (1) Boot SE Boot LLCI BootULCI

1 SD (
1.11) 0.02 0.03
0.04 0.08
Table 2. M (0.00) 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.12
Regression results for þ1 SD (þ1.11) 0.1 0.03 0.05 0.19
moderated mediation Note(s): N 5 303. (1) Unstandardized boot indirect. Bootstrap sample size 5 1.000. LL 5 lower limit;
(conditional indirect CI 5 confidence interval; UL 5 upper limit. All predictor variables are mean-centered; z 5 normal theory tests
effects) for specific indirect effects (Sobel)

6
5.5
5 Low
Monitoring
Authenticity

4.5
4

Figure 2. 3.5 High

Interaction effect of Monitoring
3
monitoring on the
relationship between 2.5
HPWS and
authenticity 2
Low HPWS High HPWS

Second, it contributed to the literature on authenticity at work as an important predictor of

performance. Third, it demonstrated how the combined effects of monitoring and HPWS are a
more robust way to test HR practices as opposed to individual practices, as HR does not exist in a
vacuum.
We found that hybrid HR systems are experienced and perceived by employees (Bowen
and Ostroff, 2004; Guzzo and Noonan, 2006; Conway et al., 2016) differently than just
individual practices. Our results indicate the need for revaluating HPWS’ utilization on call
centers, suggesting that the resources created by HPWS by themselves are insufficient to
send the HRM message that being authentic at work is important for customer service. We
argue that these situations resemble passive jobs (Karasek and Theorell, 1990), with high
resources (HPWS) but low demands (little monitoring). However, when coupled with the
appropriate levels of HPWS, monitoring systems may provide the “social cues” as to the
importance of being authentic at work as it relates to performance. Through HPWS, Hybrid HR
employees get the necessary training, development and rewards; however, in order to create systems
value (authenticity), workers need the joint effect of monitoring systems that feed them with
useful information about their performance (opportunity for self-reflection). In fact,
monitoring systems became a standard practice in call centers (Russel, 2009), and when
blended with HPWS, monitoring may provide the objectivity and accuracy to contribute to
performance development and appraisal (Sewell et al., 2012). In these situations, monitoring
“captures an organizational dynamic of convergent interests in which all employees accept
even quite intrusive levels of performance measurement.” (Sewell et al., 2012, p. 196). The
synergies between monitoring and HPWS reinforce the message that authenticity is
important for service quality, where HPWS provides the resources and monitoring adds the
fairness and accuracy to the process.
However, if monitoring is implemented with low HPWS, workers may feel they lack the
resources to perform more authentically, and in these cases, monitoring systems will send the
message of “coercion” or surveillance (Sewell et al., 2012). These situations resemble “high
strain jobs” (Karasek and Theorell, 1990), with high intensification of work and weaker
autonomy of employees (Sewell et al., 2012), and will therefore generate lower levels of
authenticity. The tensions between monitoring and low HPWS will send the message that the
organization values and expects employees to comply with standards and procedures
(Holman et al., 2009) and that they have no room to be themselves.
Indeed, our study strengthens the assumption that studying hybrid HR systems is of
utmost importance, as the coupled perceptions of monitoring systems and HPWS (in the case
of call centers) may send different messages to employees (Sewell et al., 2012). The meanings
attributed to the hybrid HR system reflect employees’ attempts to understand the working
context (Bowen and Ostroff, 2004; Guzzo and Noonan, 2006) and explain how they interpret
social cues to explain their behavior. Therefore, through self-regulation (Bandura, 1991),
individuals continuously assess how their personal standards fit with organizational
requirements and if they feel that they can be their true selves at work.
Specifically, we explored the interaction effects of HPWS and monitoring systems to
explain employees’ authenticity at work and performance in call centers. By drawing on the
JD-C model (Karasek and Theorell, 1990), we disclosed synergies and tensions within HRM
that help explain when and how employees feel more authentic at work, and the indirect
effects of hybrid HR systems on supervisor-rated performance. Results from this study
demonstrated that when employees report low monitoring, HPWS is not significantly
associated with authenticity, whereas when monitoring is high, the positive association
between HPWS and authenticity is strengthened. This is important because the authenticity
at work has been related to a variety of positive outcomes including well-being, work
engagement, job satisfaction and performance (Gagne and Deci, 2005; Cable et al., 2013; Leroy
et al., 2013; Metin et al., 2016; Van Den Bosch and Taris, 2014). Nevertheless, to our knowledge,
this is the first study to connect authenticity and supervisor-rating performance, diminishing
potential CMV issues and thereby possibly making our findings more robust.
Limitations and future studies
Despite the promising findings, our research is not without limitations. The first limitation
concerns the cross-sectional nature of the study. Our survey collected all variables at one
single moment in time, and as a result, causality cannot be determined. Our model was driven
by earlier research and theory (JD-R), and our results should be interpreted with these in mind.
Future studies should test the impact of hybrid HR systems longitudinally to make the results
more robust. Another limitation has to do with CMV since three of the variables in our model
were collected from the same source. While CMV can be a concern, we minimized the risk by
having our dependent variable (performance) evaluated by a different source (supervisor),
PR and according to Siemsen et al. (2009), CMV appears not to enhance interaction effects – in
fact, making it more difficult to reveal them. We also studied a specific context – call centers –
and interpretations of these findings to other contexts may be inappropriate.
Future studies should also analyze different HR practices and how they interact to create
hybrid HR systems and the mechanisms linking these systems to employee behavior. In our
study, we explained how hybrid HR systems influence performance via authenticity.
However, other mechanisms should be studied as well; for example, variables such as
commitment, engagement and satisfaction. Future studies should also study how hybrid HR
systems can decrease negative behaviors commonly associated with call centers such as
deviance and abusive supervision. We should also understand the negative impacts that
inauthenticity may have on employees in the long term. Finally, Hewlin et al. (2020)
highlighted the need to address some important questions regarding authenticity that are
relevant for future studies similar to ours such as the right balance between authenticity and
conformity at work.

Implications for practitioners

From a practical point of view, our findings underscore the importance of hybrid HR systems
that combine HPWS and monitoring. In situations in which high monitoring is almost always
required, such as in call centers, HR management can invest in HPWS in order to
communicate that HR systems are not just demanding but that they also have resources, so
employees know how to best deal with it. Therefore, managers should make sure that if they
use monitoring practices, they also provide enough resources for employees in order to
potentially combat the negative impact that surveillance may have on individuals. They must
provide employees with training and development opportunities, good salary and benefits
along with performance appraisal and monitoring. On the other hand, we found that having
high HPWS without monitoring is also less effective, because it does not communicate the
importance of authenticity to performance. Managers should as well understand what
monitoring communicates to employees. When combined with developmental practices,
monitoring can help employees understand and process better their performance
management and help managers provide employees continuous feedback information that
highlights good performance indicators and ensures fairness. While HPWS includes
performance management practices and employees have clear objectives that they can
negotiate with their managers, they also have feedback with the purpose of developing
employees. Monitoring therefore helps employees understand exactly when and how they
perform better and gives a more purposeful and committed understanding of their work
context. Managers should therefore use monitoring to help improve their performance
management.
Our findings also suggest the importance of authenticity to performance and how
individuals take in “social cues” to decide if they can be themselves at work. While some may
argue that they may not care if individuals are authentic or not as long as they perform, we
believe that the consequences for individuals in the long term can be considerable. Indeed,
contemporary counseling approaches view authenticity as key for well-being and health
(Wood et al., 2008). Furthermore, the concept of authenticity or “being authentic” appears to
be even more important among millennials (Moore, 2014), which is important for helping
them to perform better and perhaps even for encouraging them to be more committed or
engaged with their jobs and organizations. Furthermore, recent research found that
authenticity is very relevant for performance, especially when compared to catering to others,
and had a more positive impact on employee’s emotions as well (Gino et al., 2020). Managers,
therefore, should provide employees with opportunities to be authentic in the workplace,
especially in contexts such as call centers that are viewed as high work pressure
environments.
References Hybrid HR
Aiello, J.R. and Kolb, K.J. (1995), “Electronic performance monitoring and social context: impact on systems
productivity and stress”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 80, pp. 339-353.
Aiken, L.S. and West, S.G. (1991), Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions, Sage,
Newbury Park, CA.
Al-Ajlouni, M.I. (2020), “Can high-performance work systems (HPWS) promote organisational
innovation? Employee perspective-taking, engagement and creativity in a moderated mediation
model”, Employee Relations, doi: 10.1108/ER-09-2019-0369.
Ananthram, S., Xerri, M.J., Teo, S.T.T. and Connell, J. (2018), “High-performance work systems and
employee outcomes in Indian call centers: a mediation approach”, Personnel Review, Vol. 4,
pp. 931-950.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423.
A.P.C.C. (2014), Estudo de caracterizaç~ao e benchmarking. Actividade de Contact centers, Associaç~ao
Portuguesa de Contact Centers, available at: https://5cdbf6f5-f0a9-4b7c-9078-9de75195b786.
filesusr.com/ugd/43c603_dd68f73cdb344816bfbf72362b95dd79.pdf.
Arbuckle, J.L. (2008), Amos 17.0 User’s Guide, SPSS, Chicago.
Ashforth, B. and Humphrey, R. (1993), “Emotional labor in service roles: the influence of identity”, The
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 18 No. 10, pp. 88-115.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1990), “Assessing method variance in multitrait-multimethod matrices: the
case of self-reported affect and perceptions at work”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75
No. 5, pp. 547-560.
Bain, P., Watson, A., Mulvey, G., Taylor, P. and Gall, G. (2002), “Taylorism, targets and the pursuit of
quantity and quality by call centre management”, New Technology, Work and Employment,
Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 170-185.
Ball, K.S. and Margulis, S.T. (2011), “Electronic monitoring and surveillance in call centres: a framework
for investigation”, New Technology, Work and Employment, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 133-126.
Bandura, A. (1991), “Social cognitive theory of self-regulation”, Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, Vol. 50, pp. 248-287.
Batt, R. (2002), “Managing customer services: human resources practices, quit rates and sales growth”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 45, pp. 587-597.
Batt, R. and Appelbaum, E. (1995), “Worker participation in diverse settings: does the form affect the
outcome, and if so, who benefits?”, British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 33, pp. 353-378.
Batt, R. and Moynihan, L. (2002), “The viability of alternative call centre production models”, Human
Resource Management Journal, Vol. 12, pp. 14-34.
Becker, T.E., Guclu, A., Breaugh, J.A., Carlson, K.D., Edwards, J.R. and Spector, P.E. (2016), “Statistical
control in correlational studies: 10 essential recommendations for organizational researchers”,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 37, pp. 157-167.
Berger, P.B. and Grandey, A.A. (2006), “Service with a smile and encounter satisfaction: emotional
contagion and appraisal mechanisms”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49 No. 6,
pp. 1229-1238.
Bhave, D.P. (2014), “The invisible eye? Electronic performance monitoring and employee job
performance”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 67, pp. 605-635.
Boselie, P., Dietz, G. and Boon, C. (2005), “Commonalities and contradictions in HRM and performance
research”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 15, pp. 67-94.
Bowen, D.E. and Ostroff, C. (2004), “Understanding HRM-firm performance linkages: the role of the
‘strength’ of the HRM system”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 203-221.
Boxall, P. and Purcell, J. (2008), Strategy and Human Resource Management, 2nd ed., Palgrave
Macmillan, New York, NY.
PR Boyraz, G. and Kuhl, M.L. (2015), “Self-focused attention, authenticity, and well being”, Personality and
Individual Differences, Vol. 87, pp. 70-75.
Byrne, B.M. (2010), Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS, 2nd ed., Routledge, New York, NY.
Cable, D., Gino, F. and Staats, B.R. (2013), “Breaking them in or eliciting their best? Reframing
socialization around newcomers’ self-expression”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 58
No. 1, pp. 1-36.
Castanheira, F. and Chambel, M.J. (2010), “Reducing burnout in call centers through HR practices”,
Human Resource Management, Vol. 49 No. 6, pp. 1047-1065.
Castanheira, F. and Chambel, M.J. (2012), “The human resource management in call centres: the
development of a questionnaire”, Revista de Psicologia do Trabajo e de la Psicologia de las
Organisationes/Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 37-50.
Castanheira, F. and Story, J. (2016), “Making good things last longer: the role of savoring on the
relationship between HRM and positive employee outcomes”, Human Resource Management,
Vol. 55, pp. 985-1000.
Chi, N.-W. and Lin, C. (2011), “Beyond the high-performance paradigm: exploring the curvilinear
relationship between high-performance work systems and organizational performance in
Taiwanese manufacturing firms”, British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 49 No. 3,
pp. 486-514.
Combs, J., Liu, Y., Hall, A.M. and Ketchen, D. (2006), “How much do high-performance work practices
matter? A meta-analysis of their effects on organizational performance”, Personnel Psychology,
Vol. 59, pp. 501-528.
Conway, E., Fu, N., Monks, K., Alfes, K. and Bailey, C. (2016), “Demands or resources? The relationship
between HR practices, employee engagement, and emotional exhaustion within a hybrid model
of employment relations”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 55 No. 5, pp. 901-917.
Deery, S., Iverson, R. and Walsh, J. (2002), “Work relationships in telephone call centers:
understanding emotional exhaustion and employee withdrawal”, Journal of Management
Studies, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 471-496.
Diefendorff, J.M. and Richard, E. (2003), “Antecedents and consequences of emotional display rule
perceptions”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 2, pp. 284-294.
E.C.C.B.P. (European; Contact Center Benchmark Platform) (2014), “Whitebook 2014”, available at:
http://www.aprocs.pt/activeapp/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Altitude_European_CC_
Benchmark_ExecSummary.pdf (accessed 1 June 2016).
Ellway, B.P.W. (2013), “Making it personal in a call centre: electronic peer surveillance”, New
Technology, Work and Employment, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 37-50.
Fernie, S. and Metcalf, D. (1999), “(Not) hanging on the telephone: payment systems in the new
sweatshops”, Advances in Industrial and Labor Relations, Vol. 9, pp. 23-68.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Frenkel, S.J., Tam, M., Korczynski, M. and Shire, K. (1998), “Beyond bureaucracy? Work organization
in call centres”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 9, pp. 954-979.
Fu, N., Flood, P.C., Bosak, J., Rousseau, D., Morris, T. and O’Regan, P. (2017), “High-Performance work
systems in professional service firms: examining the practices-resources-uses-performance
linkage”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 56, pp. 329-352.
Gagne, M. and Deci, E.L. (2005), “Self-determination theory and work motivation”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26, pp. 331-362.
Gino, F., Sezer, O. and Huang, L. (2020), “To be or not to be your authentic self? Catering to others’
preferences hinders performance”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
Vol. 158, pp. 83-100.
Godard, J. (2004), “A critical assessment of high-performance paradigm”, British Journal of Industrial Hybrid HR
Relations, Vol. 42, pp. 349-378.
systems
Grandey, A.A., Fisk, G.M., Matilla, A.S., Jansen, K.J. and Sideman, L.A. (2005), “Is ‘service with a smile’
enough? Authenticity of positive displays during service encounters”, Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 96, pp. 38-55.
Groth, M., Hennig-Thurau, T. and Walsh, G. (2009), “Customer reactions to emotional labor: the roles
of employee acting strategies and customer detection accuracy”, Academy of Management,
Vol. 52 No. 5, pp. 958-974.
Guthrie, J.P. (2001), “High-involvement work practices, turnover, and productivity: evidence from New
Zealand”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44, pp. 180-190.
Guzzo, R.A. and Noonan, K.A. (2006), “Human resource practices as communications and the
psychological contract”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 447-462.
Han, J., Sun, J. and Wang, H. (2020), “Do high performance work systems generate negative effects? How
and when?”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 30 No. 2, doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2019.100699.
Hayes, A.F. (2012), “An analytical primer and computational tool for observed variable moderation,
mediation, and conditional process modeling”, available at: http://www.afhayes.com/public/
process2012.pdf.
Hewin, P.F., Karelaia, N., Kouchaki, M. and Sedikides, C. (2020), “Authenticity at work: its shapes,
triggers, and consequences”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 158,
pp. 80-82.
Holman, D. (2002), “Employee well being in call centres”, Human Resource Management Journal,
Vol. 12, pp. 34-49.
Holman, D. (2005), “Call centers”, in Holman, D., Wall, T.D., Clegg, C., Paul, S. and Howard, A. (Eds),
The Essentials of the New Workplace: A Guide to the Human Impact of Modern Work Practices,
John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, pp. 111-131.
Holman, D., Chissick, C. and Totterdell, P. (2002), “The effects of performance monitoring on emotional
labour and well being in call centres”, Motivation and Emotion, Vol. 26, pp. 57-81.
Holman, D., Frenkel, S., Sorensen, O. and Wood, S. (2009), “Work design variation and outcomes in call
centers: strategic choice and institutional explanations”, Industrial and Labor Relations Review,
Vol. 62 No. 4, pp. 510-532.
Hu, L. and Bentler, P. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 6, pp. 1-55.
Jensen, J.M., Patel, P.C. and Messersmith, J.G. (2013), “High-performance work systems and job control:
consequences for anxiety, role overload, and turnover intentions”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 1699-1724.
Jeske, D. and Santuzzi, A.M. (2015), “Monitoring what and how: psychological implications of
electronic performance monitoring”, New Technology, Work and Employment, Vol. 30 No. 1,
pp. 62-78.
Karasek, R. and Theorell, T. (1990), Healthy Work: Stress, Productivity, and the Reconstruction of
Working Life, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Kinnie, N., Hutchinson, S. and Purcell, J. (2000), “Fun and surveillance: the paradox of high
commitment management in call centres”, International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 11, pp. 967-985.
Kroon, B., Van De Voorde, K. and Van De Veldhoven, M. (2009), “Cross-level effects of high-
performance work practices and burnout: two counteracting mechanisms compared”, Personnel
Review, Vol. 38, pp. 509-525.
Lenton, A.P., Slabu, L., Constantine, S. and Power, K. (2013), “I feel good, therefore I am real: testing the
causal influence of mood on state authenticity”, Cognition and Emotion, Vol. 27, pp. 1202-1224.
PR Lepak, D.P., Liao, H., Chung, Y. and Harden, E.E. (2006), “A conceptual review of human resource
systems in strategic human resource management research”, Research in Personnel and Human
Resources Management, Vol. 25, pp. 217-271.
Leroy, H., Anseel, F., Dimitrova, N.G. and Sels, L. (2013), “Mindfulness, authentic functioning, and
work engagement: a growth modeling approach”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 82,
pp. 238-247.
MacKinnon, D.P., Lockwood, C.M. and Williams, J. (2004), “Confidence limits for the indirect effect:
distribution of the product and resampling methods”, Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 39,
pp. 99-128.
Metin, B.U., Taris, T.W., Peeters, M.C.W. and van Beek, I. (2016), “Authenticity at work - a job-
demands resources perspective”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 31, pp. 483-499.
Mirchandani, K. (2012), Phone Clones: Authenticity Work in the Transnational Service Economy, ILR
Press, Ithaca.
Moore, K. (2014), “Authenticity: the way to a Millennial’s heart”, Forbes, available at: http://www.
forbes.com/sites/karlmoore/2014/08/14/authenticity-the-way-to-the-millennials-heart/
#11a4ddfb444a (accessed on 2 August 2016).
Muduli, A. (2015), “High performance work system, HRD climate and organizational performance: an
empirical study”, European Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 239-257.
Ng, T.W.H. and Feldman, D.C. (2010), “Organizational tenure and performance”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 36, pp. 1220-1250.
Ortiz-Gomez, M., Ariza-Montes, A. and Molina-Sanchez, H. (2020), “Human values and work
engagement: the mediating role of authenticity among workers in a Spanish religious
organization”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 76, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00076.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88, pp. 879-903.
Preacher, K.J., Rucker, D.D. and Hayes, A.F. (2007), “Assessing moderated mediation hypotheses:
theory, method, and prescriptions”, Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 42, pp. 185-227.
Pugh, S.D. (2001), “Service with a smile: emotional contagion in the service encounter”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 5, pp. 1018-1027.
Pugh, S.D., Groth, M. and Hennig-Thurau, T. (2010), “Willing and able to fake emotions: a closer
examination of the link between emotional dissonance and employee well- being”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 96 No. 2, pp. 377-90.
Roth, P.L., Purvis, K.L. and Bobko, P. (2012), “A meta-analysis of gender group differences for
measures of job performance in field studies”, Journal of Management, Vol. 38, pp. 719-739.
Russell, B. (2009), “Call centres: a decade of research”, International Journal of Management Reviews,
Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 195-219.
Schneider, B. and Bowen, D.E. (1993), “The service organization: human resources management is
crucial”, Group Dynamics, Vol. 21, pp. 39-52.
Sewell, G., Barker, J.R. and Nyberg, D. (2012), “Working under surveillance: when does ‘measuring
everything that moves’ become intolerable?”, Human Relations, Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 189-215.
Siemsen, E., Roth, A. and Oliveira, P. (2009), “Common method bias in regression models with linear,
quadratic, and interaction effects”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 13, pp. 456-476.
Sprigg, C.A. and Jackson, P.R. (2006), “Call centers as lean service environments: job- related strain
and the mediated role of work design”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 2,
pp. 197-212.
Stanton, J.M. (2000), “Reactions to employee performance monitoring: framework, review and research
directions”, Human Performance, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 85-113.
Takeuchi, R., Lepak, D.P., Wang, H. and Takeuchi, K. (2007), “An empirical examination of the Hybrid HR
mechanisms mediating between high-performance work systems and the performance of
Japanese organizations”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92, pp. 1069-1083. systems
Taylor, O. and Bain, P. (1999), “An assembly line in the head: work and employee relations in the call
centre”, Industrial Relations Journal, Vol. 30, pp. 101-117.
Taylor, P., Hyman, J., Mulvey, G. and Bain, P. (2002), “Work organization, control and the experience
of work in call centres”, Work, Employment and Society, Vol. 16, pp. 133-150.
Trapnell, P.D. and Campbell, J.D. (1999), “Private self-consciousness and the five- factor model of
personality: distinguishing rumination from reflection”, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 76, pp. 284-304.
Tsai, W.-C. (2001), “Determinants and consequences of employee displayed positive emotions”, Journal
of Management, Vol. 27, pp. 497-512.
Tsai, W.-C. and Huang, Y.-M. (2002), “Mechanisms linking employee affective delivery and customer
behavioral intentions”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 5, pp. 1001-1008.
Van Den Bosch, R. and Taris, T.W. (2014), “The authentic worker’s well-being and performance: the
relationship between authenticity at work, well-being, and work outcomes”, The Journal of
Psychology, Vol. 148, pp. 659-681.
Victorino, L., Bolinger, A. and Verma, R. (2012), “Service scripting and authenticity: insights for the
hospitality industry (electronic article)”, Cornell Hospitality reports, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 6-13.
Williams, L.J. and Anderson, S.E. (1991), “Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as
predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors”, Journal of Management, Vol. 17,
pp. 601-617.
Wickham, J. and Collins, G. (2004), “The call centre: aq nurse for new forms of work organisations”,
The Service Industry Journal, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 1-18.
Wood, R. and Bandura, A. (1989), “Social cognitive theory of organizational management”, Academy
of Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 361-384.
Wood, S., Holman, D. and Stride, C. (2006), “Human resource management and performance in UK call
centres”, British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 44, pp. 99-122.
Wood, A.M., Linley, P.A., Maltby, J., Baliousis, M. and Joseph, S. (2008), “The authentic personality: a
theoretical and empirical conceptualization and the development of the authenticity scale”,
Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. 55, pp. 385-399.
Zapf, D., Isic, A., Bechtoldt, M. and Blau, P. (2003), “What is typical for call centre jobs? Job
characteristics, and service interactions in different call centres”, European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 12, pp. 311-340.

Further reading
Holman, D. and Wood, S. (2002), Human Resource Management in Call Centres, Institute of Work
Psychology University of Sheffield, Memo no260, Sheffield.
Huselid, M.A. (1995), “The impact of human-resource management-practices on turnover,
productivity, and corporate financial performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38
No. 3, pp. 635-672.

Corresponding author
Joana Story can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]