See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/291137118

TRAINING EVALUATION PRACTICES AMONG CALL CENTERS BASED ON TWO

CULTURE-FREE CHARACTERISTICS: OWNERSHIP AND FIRM SIZE

Article · July 2014

CITATIONS READS

0 198

1 author:

Muhammad Ali Asadullah

Air University of Islamabad
40 PUBLICATIONS   209 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Spirituality, Moral Conviction and Prosocial Rule Breaking View project

Critical Quotient (CQ): The art of critical thinking View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Muhammad Ali Asadullah on 19 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Sci.Int.(Lahore),26(2),1289-1295,2014 ISSN 1013-5316; CODEN: SINTE8 1289

TRAINING EVALUATION PRACTICES AMONG CALL CENTERS

BASED ON TWO CULTURE-FREE CHARACTERISTICS:
OWNERSHIP AND FIRM SIZE
Muhammad Ali Asadullah1 (Corresponding Author), Masoodul Hassan2
1
Department of Management Sciences, Air University, Islamabad, Pakistan. Email: maa@aumc.edu.pk
2
Department of Commerce, Bahauddin Zakariya University, PO Box 60800, Multan, Pakistan
E-mail: masood@bzu.edu.pk
Abstract: We examined the difference in training evaluation practices among call centers based on two
culture-free characteristics: Ownership and Firm Size. Based on The Kirkpatrick Model of training
evaluation and Return on Investment dimension, we found that firm size is a strong predictor of training
evaluation practices as compared to the ownership. We found significant interaction effect of firm size and
ownership on three levels of The Kirkpatrick Model (Reaction, Learning, and Behavior). But we found that
this interaction effect was insignificant for training evaluation practices used inside call centers to
determine the results and the Return on Investment of training.
Keywords: Training Evaluation Practices, Ownership, Firm Size, Call Centers, Pakistan

1. INTRODUCTION: [8,9]. This study investigates the impact of these two

Call center industry grew rapidly by attracting attention of
politicians, policy makers and academicians [1]. Call centers
provide employment opportunities to a significant
proportion of labor across the globe (2% of employed
population in UK, 3% in US and 1.3% in France belongs to
call centers). Call center workforce is facing various
challenges including influence of Information and
Communication Technologies (ICT) on skill demands, high
turnover (30 to 45%), lack of skilled workforce etc. [2].
Particularly, Call Centre Agents (CCAs) who regulate
contact between customer and company need some
particular competencies and professional attitude to perform
complex job tasks sufficiently [3]. In order to fulfill skill
deficiencies of call center agents, call center management
uses extensive training and intensive monitoring strategies
[2]. In this regard, specific attention is paid to entry level
professional training that describes entry of an employee
and his socialization within the organization [4]. On
average, a new call center agent receives entry level
professional training of 15 days and takes 12 weeks to gain
job proficiency [5]. Due to high level of job complexity,
lack of required skills and conflicting customer demands,
new call center agents are trained extensively [6] and
monitored intensively.
Statistical results of some previous surveys have shown that
these training and monitoring practices vary across call
centers which differ in terms of ownership, size, campaign
and location [5]. These characteristics are known as
„culture-free‟ firm characteristics. Previous research
characterizes firm characteristics either as „culture-bound‟
or as „culture-free‟ and it has provided some evidence of
how these characteristics affect business strategy,
organizational culture and human resource management
practices [7]. Unfortunately, previous research provides
more rigorous evidence regarding culture-bound
characteristics as compared to culture-free characteristics.
Budhwar & Sparrow [7], suggested that researchers must
pay greater attention towards culture-free variables in order
to advance research in human resource practices.
„Ownership‟ and „Size‟ of a firm are two key „culture-free‟
characteristics which determine organizational practices
characteristics on practice which are used to evaluate
training of new agents inside a call center.
2. Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses
2.1 The Kirkpatrick Model (TKM) and ‘Return on
Investment (ROI)’
The organizations which emphasize more on training and
development interventions have developed relatively
systematic planning, implementation and evaluation
processes related with training. Such organizations realize
the importance of training and pay significant attention to
assess the impact of training and development interventions
on individual and organizational performance [10]. Various
frameworks have been presented by researchers which guide
professionals in devising training evaluation mechanisms.
This study uses „The Kirkpatrick Model (TKM)‟ of training
evaluation as a framework to investigate training evaluation
practices inside call centre industry. „TKM‟ is a well-known
and most frequently applied model of training evaluation.
This model is origin of various evaluation frameworks [11].
Researchers share the opinion that almost each debate of
training evaluation begins with TKM [12]. „TKM‟ consists
of four different levels of evaluation: „Reaction‟, „Learning‟,
„On-The-Job Behavior‟, and „Results.‟ Reaction means
favourable response of training participants and 'Learning‟
refers to the degree to which participants acquire the
intended knowledge, skills, and attitudes based on their
participation in the learning event. „On-The-Job Behavior‟
refers to the degree to which participants apply what they
learned during training when they are back on their job.
Finally, „Results‟ refer to the degree to which targeted
outcomes occur resulting from learning event and
subsequent reinforcement. Some notable researches using
„TKM‟ as framework works include. [13, 14, 15, 16]. In
addition to four levels of „TKM‟, this study integrated a
fifth level „ROI‟ in the framework representing financial
perspective of training evaluation as opinionated by Phillips
[17].
 1290 ISSN 1013-5316; CODEN: SINTE8
2.2 Ownership: Subcontractor vs In-House and
Training Evaluation Practices
Ownership is an important characteristic of an organization
that shapes its culture by influencing management practices
[18]. In a case study reported difference in HR practices in
public and private Vietnami firms [19]. „Ownership‟ either as
in-house or subcontractor serves as a segmentation strategy to
distinguishes between call center works as well as call center
management practices [20, 21, 22]. Previous research has
highlighted various differences among in-house and
subcontractor call centers. For instance, in a study found that
apart from national settings and collective bargaining,
ownership partially explains differences in job quality among
inhouse and subcontractor call centers [22]. Moreover,
collective bargaining agreements are less likely, wages and
job discretion and job quality is low in subcontractors but cost
cutting pressure is high when compared with in-house call
centers [5, 11, 22].
Global Call Center Survey Report (2007) also highlights
various differences among in-house and subcontractor call
centers in context of training [23]. First difference is that
tendency to invest in training new call center agents almost
50% less inside subcontractors as compared to in-house call
centers. Subcontractors provide 14 days initial training as
compared to 20 days of initial training inside in-house call
centers. Second, a call center agent requires 14 weeks to gain
job proficiency in subcontractors as compared to 20 weeks
inside an in-house call center. Third, monitoring occurs on
weekly basis and is more intense in subcontractor call centers
while it occurs on monthly basis and is less intense inside in-
house call centers [24, 22]. Scholars explained that it is
because Client Company enforces subcontractors to follow
strict performance standards and it keeps a consistent check
by monitoring itself in order to ensure if these standards are
being followed [25, 26].
Unfortunately, existing literature does not provide any
empirical difference in training evaluation practices among
subcontractors and in-house call centers. Thus authors relied
on research findings discussed previously in order to build
hypothesis that stated that:
Hypothesis1: Entry level professional training of call
center agents is evaluated more intensively inside
subcontractor call centres as compared to in-house call
centres.
2.3 Size and Training Evaluation Practices
Second variable of interest in this study was „size‟ of call
center in terms number of employees. Researchers have
different opinions regarding impact of 'size' on organizational
practices. On one hand, some researchers argue that firm size
has no effect on human resource management practices. For
instance, studied that relationship of training, growth and firm
size [27]. The results of their empirical study have shown that
individuals acquire as much training working in small firms
as they do in large ones. They have also explained that large
firms do more specific training while small firms do more
general training. On balance the total amount of training is
same in both groups of firms. Based on this study, it appears
Sci.Int.(Lahore),26(2),1289-1295,2014
that workers with given characteristics receive equal amount
of training irrespective of size of firm at which they work.
Some researchers also advocate that size is an important
characteristic of a firm having an influence on its efficiency,
legitimacy and business strategy [28, 29]. These researchers
share opinion that human resource practices become more
extensive as the firm size increases. For instance, it is
argued that as a firm grows it becomes more formalized
[30]. These researchers observed significant effect of size on
job quality when controlling for effect of other theoretical
variables. Similarly, in a study on small and medium size
firms in London, scholars found that the larger the firm, the
greater the likelihood that offsite working was permitted.
Some evidences are also available in context of training
[31]. First evidence was provided by scholars who predicted
that large employers face larger monitoring costs but they
would try to economize it through the size of workforce
[29]. This study found that large size firms invest more on
employees to screen out job applicants and to provide
training to their employees. In separate studies on American
and Canadian firms, that training programs are more
prevalent among large firms than small firms [29, 32]. Small
Chinese firms operating in Hong Kong lacking excess
resources to spend on formal training programs are less
likely to have extensive in-house training programs
compared to Anglo-American firms [33]. A significant
effect is found of firm size on recruiting and selection
methods, training methods, training analysis, appraisal use,
incentive programs, and welfare programs [33]. They also
found significant correlation of percent of payroll allocated
for training, HRM size and training department size. But it
is explained that as firm size increases, financial resources
available for development of extensive HR practices are
also likely to increase [33].
Unfortunately, a concrete evidence supporting influence of
firm size on training evaluation practices is limited in
literature. Based on „TKM‟, Gomez, (2003) examined
evaluation of formal training and reported differences in
means of financial service firms of different size against
each level of „TKM‟ including „ROI‟ [14]. Based on
previous discussion about training and findings provided by
Gomez (2003), we hypothesised that training evaluation
also differs in call centers with respect to their size.
Particularly, we hypothesized that training evaluation
becomes more intensive as size of call center grows.[14]
Hypothesis 2: Size of call center explains significant
difference in evaluation of entry level professional
training of call center agents in a way that as the size of
call center increases evaluation becomes more intensive.
Previously, we have hypothesized that ownership and size
of call center, separately, explain differences in evaluation
practices. Thus together, ownership and size are more likely
to explain such differences.
Hypothesis 3: There is a significant interaction effect of
size and ownership on evaluation practices for entry
level professional training of call center agents.
Sci.Int.(Lahore),26(2),1289-1295,2014 ISSN 1013-5316; CODEN: SINTE8
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Data Collection Procedure
In Pakistan, call centers are legally bound to register
Pakistan Software Export Board (PSEB). A list of call
center and a recommendation letter was from PSEB in order
to ensure maximum cooperation from call center
professionals. Data was collected through survey
questionnaire from key informants because a probability
sampling technique „purposive sampling‟ was considered
most suitable. Key informants were defined as professionals
who have been involved in training of new call center
agents either as trainer, quality assurance professional, team
leader, HR person, decision maker or owner of call center.
For example one of our respondents of a call center in
Lahore informed us that I have trained more than 600
hundred agents till now. This study did not obtain any
information from call center agents because they are
ignorant of the way training evaluation information is
obtained or interpreted or used for decision making. Data
was collected from 262 respondents of almost 90
Call/Contact Centers from three cities Lahore, Islamabad
and Karachi.
3.2 Instrument and Measures
We adapted a survey instrument investigated evaluation of
technical training in United States [16]. This instrument was
based on four levels of „TKM‟ which included: i) Reaction,
ii) Learning, iii) On-the-Job Behavior, and iv) Results.
Further, Gomez (2003) upgraded this instrument and added
5th level Return on Investment [14]. This study also used a
similar version of questionnaire instrument. Demographic
information about call center was collected based on
ownership (in-house/subcontractor), campaign
(inbound/outbound/both), area of operation
(domestic/international), sector, and size (number of seats)
of call center. Similarly, demographic information about
respondent included job title, qualification, total training
experience and gender etc. Contextual information about
entry-level professional training was collected by two
questions. First question was 'What is the extent to which
your organization provides training to each new-hired call
center agent?' The responses were gathered on 6 point rating
scale. Second question was asked about duration (number of
days) of entry level professional training. Further,
information about Reaction, Learning, On-the-Job behavior,
Results and Return on Investment was collected in five
different sections using six point Likert scale. First item of
each five sections asked: „What is the extent to which post
training satisfaction of new call center agents is measured in
your call center?‟ Second question asked: „What is the
extent to which each of the following methods is used in
order to determine post training satisfaction of new call
center agents in your call center?‟ The methods for
determining post training satisfaction included: „Action
plan‟, „Research Questionnaire‟ and „Verbal Feedback.‟
„Verbal Feedback‟ was not part of original instrument but it
was added based on pilot study. We included nine different
methods for evaluation of „Learning‟, thirteen methods for
evaluation of „on-the-job behavior‟, eleven methods for
determining results of training and eight different methods
1291
for determining „ROI.‟ Original questionnaire contained 6
items for „Results.‟ Based on literature review and pilot
study, we integrated few other methods which included:
turnover of agents, impact on quality of service, increased
sales, satisfaction of customer and satisfaction of client
organization.
3.3 Independent, Dependent and Control Variables
We introduced „Ownership‟ and „Size‟ as independent
variables. We measured „Ownership‟ using two categories i-
e „In-House‟ or „Subcontractor‟ but we used three bands for
„Size‟ that we defined as number of employees in a call
center. These bands included: „Small‟ ranging from 5-50,
„Medium‟ ranging from 51 to 300 and „Large‟ ranging from
301 and above. We had a sample of 262 respondents 180
from in-house and 80 from subcontractor call centers. On
the other hand, we had 182 respondents from small call
centers, 50 from medium size call centers and 30 from large
call centers. We introduced „Evaluation‟ as dependent
variable that was used as latent variable consisting of five
factors „Reaction‟, „Learning‟, „Behavior‟, „Results‟ and
„Return on Investment.‟ Finally, we introduced „Duration‟
of entry level professional training as control variable due to
lack of evidence about influence of „TD‟ on intensity of
training evaluation practices. Training duration was
measured as „number of training days‟ on continuous scale.
3.4 Analytical Strategy
We began with pilot test and made variations in data
collection instrument as reported above. Construct validity
of scale was established by Twitch et al. (1998) during
development phase of the scale. Further, we performed first
order confirmatory factor analysis, using AMOS 17.0 to test
convergent and discriminant validity of the scale. After
removing complex items which cross loaded on more than
one variables, results of CFA demonstrated an adequate fit
of measurement model (Chi-square= 1101.5, p = 0.000;
CMIN/df = 2.667, CFI = 0.924; TLI = 0.914, RMSEA =
0.080). Then we performed reliability analysis calculating
Cronbach alpha. Cronbach alpha values for independent
scales were: „Reaction = 0.79‟, „Learning = 0.84‟, „Behavior
= 0.94‟, „Results = 0.92‟ and „ROI = 0.96.‟
This study intended to investigate impact of two categorical
independent variables i-e size and ownership on a
continuous dependent variable „evaluation‟ while
controlling for the effect of „Training Duration.‟ The
research intensions to confirm differences in evaluation
among different call centers lead researchers to use two way
analysis of covariance (2-wayANCOVA).The reason for
using 2-way ANCOVA was that the model contained two
independent variables. 2-way ANCOVA was performed for
all five constructs of evaluation. Before the test, preliminary
checks were conducted to ensure that there was no violation
of the assumption of normality, linearity, homogeneity of
variances, homogeneity of regression sloped and reliable
measurement of covariate. 2 by 2 between-group analysis of
covariance was performed one by one for each dependent
variable
 1292 ISSN 1013-5316; CODEN: SINTE8 Sci.Int.(Lahore),26(2),1289-1295,2014

4. RESULTS OF TWO-WAY ANVOCA effect of ownership was insignificant for dependent

4.1 Ownership and Evaluation
Main effect of independent variable „ownership‟ was
significant for first level Reaction (F (1, 255) = 4.886, p =
0.028, eta = 0.019); second level „Learning (F (1, 255) =
6.412, p = 0.012, eta squared = 0.025); „Behavior (F (2,
255) = 22.818, p = 0.000, eta squared = 0.152)and fourth
level „Results (F (1, 255) = 7.946, p = 0.005, eta squared =
0.030). Effect size of ownership was very small for Reaction
(eta = 0.019), Learning (eta squared = 0.025) and Results
(eta squared = 0.030) but it was of medium level for
Behavior (eta squared = 0.152). On the other hand, main
Table 1: Test of Between Subjects Effects for Dependent variables
Dependent Variable Reaction
variable„ROI ((F (1, 255) = 42.544, p = 0.000, eta squared =
0.002).‟ Despite significance main effect of ownership for
three levels of evaluation, statistical results do not support
our hypothesis. Particularly, adjusted mean values (Table 2)
of all dependent variables portray that mean values for in-
house call centers are relatively greater than mean values for
subcontractor call center. Thus our hypothesis that
evaluation is more intensive inside subcontractors as
compared to in-house call centers was not supported.
Learning Behavior

Partial
Partial Eta Partial Eta
Source df F Sig. Eta F Sig. F Sig.
Squared Squared
Squared

TD 1 4.839 .000 .019 .202 .654 .001 6.853 .009 .026

Ownership 1 4.886 .028 .019 6.412 .012 .025 22.818 .000 .152
Size 2 7.570 .001 .134 14.065 .000 .099 1.821 .178 .007
Ownership * Size 2 19.807 .000 .041 4.180 .016 .032 3.999 .020 .030
Results Return on Investment (ROI) Evaluation
TD 1 12.259 .001 .046 1.274 .260 .005 3.318 0.07 0.013
Ownership 1 7.946 .005 .030 42.544 .000 .250 2.25 0.135 0.009
Size 2 22.779 .000 .152 .477 .490 .002 36.801 0 0.224
Ownership * Size 2 2.248 .108 .017 2.486 .085 .019 4.1 0.018 0.031
1.1. Size and Evaluation certain level but after that these practices become less
Results of 2 by 2 ANCOVA for independent variable were intensive.
also quite distinct from the result of ownership. Main effect 1.2. Interaction Effect of Size and Ownership and
of independent variable „size‟ was significant for all levels Evaluation
of evaluation including Reaction (F (2, 255) = 19.807, p = After controlling for „TD‟, interaction effect of ownership
0.000, eta = 0.134); second level „Learning (F (1, 255) = and size was significant against „Reaction (F (2, 255) =
14.065, p = 0.000, eta squared = 0.099); „Behavior (F (2, 19.807, p = 0.000, eta = 0.041)‟, „Learning (F (2, 255) =
255) = 22.818, p = 0.000, eta squared = 0.152)‟; fourth 4.180, p = 0.016, eta squared = 0.032‟ and „Behavior (F (2,
level „Results (F (2, 255) = 7.946, p = 0.005, eta squared = 255) = 3.999, p = 0.020, eta squared = 0.030). On the other
0.030) and „ROI (F (2, 255) = 42.544, p = 0.000, eta squared hand, this interaction was insignificant for Results (F (2,
= 0.250).‟ Except for „Results (eta = 0.030)‟, effect size of 255) = 2.248, p = 0.108, eta squared = 0.017) and ROI
all other variables including Reaction (eta squared = 0.134), Size*Ownership (F (2, 255) = 2.486, p = 0.085, eta squared
Learning (eta squared = 0.099) Behavior (eta squared = = 0.019). Moreover, differences in values of adjusted means
0.152) and ROI (eta squared = 0.250) was relatively larger. given in Table 2 also represent quite similar results. Hence,
Though main effect of size is significant for all levels of hypothesis 3 was partially supported.
evaluation, but values of adjusted mean given in Table 2 1.3. Training Duration and Evaluation
represent a different picture. These values describe that Main effect of control variable Training Duration was also
evaluation practices become intensive to a certain level but significant against „Reaction (F (1, 255) = 4.839, p = 0.029,
after that these practices become less intensive. For eta = 0.019), Learning (F (1, 255) = 0.202, p = 0.654, eta
instance, column 3 of Table 2 shows that adjusted mean squared = 0.001)‟, Behavior (F (2, 255) = 6.853, p = 0.009,
value of first level „Reaction‟ is 4;267 for small call centers, eta squared = 0.026) and Results (F (1, 255) = 12.259, p =
3.609 for medium and 3.537 for large call centers. These 0.001, eta squared = 0.046). But interaction effect of TD
values represent slightly diminishing return that is quite was insignificant against ROI (F (1, 255) = 1.274, p = 0.260,
contradictory to our hypothesis. Hence, Hypothesis 2 was eta squared = 0.005).
partially supported as statistical findings describe that
training evaluation inside call center becomes intensive to a
Sci.Int.(Lahore),26(2),1289-1295,2014 ISSN 1013-5316; CODEN: SINTE8 1293

Table 1: Adjusted-Means for all Levels of Evaluation

Dependent Variables Reaction Learning On-The- Results Return on

Job Investment
Behavior
Independent Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean
Variables
Ownership in house 3.934 4.377 4.307 4.654 4.104
Subcontractor 3.674 4.055 4.124 4.634 3.989
Size Small 4.267 4.642 4.801 5.087 5.032
Medium 3.609 4.063 4.067 4.525 3.804
Large 3.537 3.944 3.779 4.321 3.303
Ownership * In house*Small 4.186 4.595 4.698 5.027 4.958
Size
In-house*Medium 3.881 4.689 4.336 4.506 5.106
In-house*Large 3.737 4.307 3.888 4.431 4.106
Subcontractor*Small 4.348 3.819 4.904 5.148 3.502
Subcontractor*Medium 3.337 4.230 3.799 4.544 3.249
Subcontractor*Large 3.338 3.658 3.669 4.211 3.357

2. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Previous researches have been advocated differences among
in-house and subcontractors in many areas like collective
bargaining, job quality as well as monitoring [5, 22, 24].
Similarly, Global Call Center Report has also shown
differences in many areas including initial training duration,
job discretion, monitoring and time to gain proficiency. We
were also expecting that ownership characteristic would be
an important characteristic of call centers that would explain
differences among different call center groups, particularly,
in terms of training evaluation practices. Scholars have been
claiming that „ownership‟ of call center may serve as a basic
segmentation strategy as it distinguishes between call center
industry segments. So we were expecting that there
ownership would explain differences in training evaluation
practices among different call center groups [5].
But findings of our study have shown quite different results.
For instance we were expecting that there would be no
difference among call center groups at first level of „TKM‟
as it has been reported, in previous surveys, as the most
frequently applied level inside industries [15, 33, 14]. But
results of our study are quite different from our
expectations. In our study, we observed a significant
difference in training evaluation practices of in-house and
subcontractor call center groups at two different levels
(Reaction and Learning) of „TKM‟ only. But it is also
important to report that effect size for these differences were
significantly smaller enough to be negligible. In table of
means (Table 2), we can observe that differences mean
values for „Reaction‟ and „learning‟ are larger as compared
with than mean differences of other „Behavior‟, „Results‟
and „ROI.‟ Moreover, we were also expecting significant
difference at third level „Behavior‟ and fifth level „ROI‟ but
statistical results did not support any evidence of differences
among in-house and subcontractor call center groups at any
of levels of evaluation except for „Reaction.‟ Previous
studies support that ownership of call center explains
differences in human resource practices among in-house and
subcontractor call center groups. But, our study is first in its
nature that has investigated impact of ownership
characteristic of call centers on training evaluation practices.
This study has provided an empirical evidence that
ownership characteristic of call centers does not represent
significant differences in training evaluation practices
among in-house and subcontractor call center groups.
On the other hand, we were expecting that „size‟ would be
more dominant variable in explaining differences in
evaluation practices of call centers. Statistical results of our
study have confirmed our expectations. Throughout our
analysis, we have also been observing that effect size of
independent variable „Size‟ has remained significantly
larger. So our study has confirmed the findings of previous
studies which advocated theories that „size‟ has a significant
effect on management practices. So we also believe that this
is another theoretical contribution of our study. [30, 31]
3. Future Research and Managerial Implications
This study suggests training and evaluation professionals to
emphasize on „culture-free‟ characteristics of call centers.
It‟s a caution for practitioners that consideration of a single
„culture-free‟ characteristic of call center could cause a
misfit when evaluation practices are borrowed from other
call centers. For instance, professionals of medium size in-
house call center need to be conscious if they are borrowing
evaluation practices from a large size subcontractor call
center. Particularly, entrepreneurs who are taking risk of
investing in call center business cannot ignore an interaction
effect of these characteristics on evaluation practices.
Finally, the firms which are shifting towards off-shoring
need to pay especial attention to this phenomenon.
Based on statistical results, we have concluded that
ownership of call center does not explain differences in
training evaluation practices of call centers. Though we
 1294 ISSN 1013-5316; CODEN: SINTE8
observed differences at two different levels „Reaction‟ and
„Learning‟ of „TKM‟ framework but these differences also
disappeared when overall training evaluation practices were
analyzed. In our study, we have used two levels of
ownership: in-house and subcontractor but another category
of call centers have emerged that is offshore call centers.
We have not included this variable in our study as trend of
offshoring has just started inside Pakistan. So it would have
restricted process of data collection for us. Similarly, we
have not introduced „campaign (inbound/outbound)‟ as an
independent variable. Therefore further research must also
introduce such variables in their study. We also believe that
introducing such variables may show different results.
Similarly, we have also concluded that „size‟ of call center
is more significant variable that explains differences in
training evaluation practices of in-house and subcontractor
call centers. Moreover, pattern of difference among call
center groups of different size is not clear in the sense that
whether this pattern is linear or curvilinear. Therefore
further research must be conducted to analyze this pattern.
Except for R1, a significant difference in items of first level
of evaluation „reaction‟ was observed among call centers of
different size as well as ownership. But these findings
collide with statistics of Yadapadithaya (2001) who
surveyed Indian organizations and described that all Indian
firms evaluate training at first level „Reaction.‟[15] We have
observed that there was a significant difference in some
items of all latent variables based on ownership
characteristic of call centers but not in other items. Future
research must be conducted to identify reasons for such
variations.
We have found that call center organizations also use some
informal measures to evaluate training programs. In the end
we shall also suggest that future research must be conducted
to explore such informal measures and reasons behind the
use of such measures. What distinguishes this study from
previous literature on training evaluation practices is its
micro level emphasis on entry level professional training.
But previous researchers have been focusing on overall
training and development interventions at organizational
level which may blur the distinctions among one type of
training intervention from other type of training
interventions within an organization.
REFERENCES
[1] Callaghan, G., & Thompson, P. “We Recruit Attitude':
The Selection and Shaping of Routing Call Centre
Labour”. Journal of Management Studies, 39(2): 233-
254(2002).
[2] Sieben, I., De Grip, A., Longen, J., & Sorenson, O.
“Technology, Selection and Training in Call Centers”.
Industrial and Labour Relations Review, 62(4): 553-
572(2009).
[3] White, C., & Roos, V. “Core Competencies of a Call
Center Agent”. SA Hournal of Human Resource
Management, 3(2): 41-47(2005).
[4] De Vos, A., &Meganck, A. “What HR managers do
versus what employees value: Exploring both parties'
views on retention management from a psychological
Sci.Int.(Lahore),26(2),1289-1295,2014
contract perspective”. Personnel Review, 38(1): 45-
60(2008).
[5] Holman, D., Batt, R., & Holtgrewe, U. “The Global
Call Center Report”International Perspectives on
management and Employment. Cornel University, ILR
School. Ithaca, NY: Authors.
[6] Sieben, I., & de Grip, A. “Training and Expectations
on Job Mobility in the Call Centres Sector”Journal of
European Industrial Training, 28(2/3/4): 225-
71(2004).
[7] Budhwar, P. S., & Sparrow, P. R.“An integrative
Framework for understanding cross-national human
resource management practices”Human Resource
Management Review, 12: 377-403(2002).
[8] Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R., McMillan, C. J., &
Schwitter, J. P. “The culture-free context of
organization structure: a tri-national
comparison”Sociology, 8: 59-80(1974).
[9] Tayeb, M.“Contingency Theory and Culture: a study
of matched English and the Indian manufacturing
firms”Organization Studies, 8: 241-261(1987).
[10] Flesher, J“Rapid Training System Self-
Assessment”Performance Important, 46(2): 35-
41(2007).
[11] Batt, R., Doellgast, V., & Kwon, H. “Service
management and employment systems in U.S. and
Indian Call Centers”Human Resource Studies.,9:3-
9:35(2005).
[12] Medsker, K. L., & Roberts, D. G. “ASTD trainer‟s
toolkit Alexandria VA”American Society for Training
and Development, (1992).
[13] Lien, B. Y., Hung, R. Y., & McLean, G. N.“Training
evaluation based on cases of Taiwanese benchmarked
high-tech companies”International Journal of
Training and Development, 11(1): 35-48(2007).
[14] Gomez, A. K.“An Analysis Of The Evaluation
Practices Of Employer-Sponsored Training In The
Financial Services Industry”PhD Dissertation, Texas
A&M University,(2003).
[15] Yadapadithaya, P. S. “Evaluating Corporate Training
and Development: An Indian Experience”
International Journal of Training and Development, 5,
4: 261–274(2001).
[16] Twitchell, S., Holton, E. F., & Trott, J. W. “Technical
Training Evaluation Practices in the United
States”Performance Improvement Quarterly, 13(3):
84-109(2000).
[17] Phillips, J. J. Return on investment in training and
performance improvement Programs. Houston:
Gulf(1997).
[18] Hui, M. K., Au, K., & Fock, H. “Empowerment effects
across cultures”Journal of International Business
Studies, 35; 46-60(2004).
[19] Zhu, Y., Collins, N., Webber, M., & Benson, J. (2008).
New forms of ownership and human resource practices
in Vietnam. Human resource Management, 47(1), 157-
175.
 Sci.Int.(Lahore),26(2),1289-1295,2014 ISSN 1013-5316; CODEN: SINTE8 1295

[20] Weinkopf, C. “Job quality in call centers in in Brazilian Industrial Companies”Journal of

Germany”International Labour Review, 148(4): 395- Technology Management & Innovation, 4(4): 111-126.
411(2009). (2009).
[21] Paul, J., & Huws, U. (2002). “How can we help? Good [28] Barron, J. M., Black, D. A., & Lowenstein, M. A.
Practices in Call Center Employment. Second Draft “Employer Size: The Implications for Search,
Report for the TOSCA, Project, Analytical, Social and Training, Capital Investment, Starting Wages, and
Economic Reseearch Ltd. . Retrieved 2011(2002) Wage Growth”Journal of Labour Economics, 5(1): 76-
[22] Doellgast, V., Holtgrewe, U., & Deery, S.“The effects 89 (1987).
of national institutions and collective bargaining [29] Storey, D. J., Saridakis, G., Sen-Gupta, S., Edwards, P.
arrangements on Job Quality in front-line service K., & Blackburn, R. A. “Linking HR Formality with
workplaces”Industrial and Labour Relations Review, Employee Job Quality: The Role of Firms and
64(4), 489-509(2009) Workplace Size”Human Resource Management, 49(2),
[23] Holman, D., Batt, R., & Holtgrewe, U. “The Global 305-329 (2010).
Call Center Report”International Perspectives on [30] Clear, F., & Dickson, K. “Teleworking practice in
management and Employment. Cornel University, ILR small and medium-sized firms: management style and
School. Ithaca, NY: Authors.Grugulis, I. Vincent. "S worker autonomy”New Technology, Work and
and Hebson, G. “The rise of the „network Employment, 20(3): (2005).
organization‟and the decline of discretion‟." Human [31] Simpson, C. “Borrego Springs-Santa Rosa mylonite
Resource Management Journal 13.2: 44-58(2003). zone: a late Cretaceous west-directed thrust in
[24] Walsh, Janet, & Deery, S. “Refashioning southern California”Geology12, 8-11(1984)
Organizational Boundaries: Outsourcing Customer
Service Work”Journal of Management Studies, 43(3): [32] Kirkbride, P.S. &Tang, S.F.Y. (1992)
557-82 (2006). “ManagementdevelopmentintheNanyangChinesesociet
[25] Schönauer, A. “Reorganising the Front Line: The Case iesfoSouthEastAsia” Journal of Management
of Public Call Centre Services”Work, Organisation, Development, 11:51-63(1992).
Labour and Globalisation, 2(2): 131-147 (2008).
[26] Haber, Sheldon E., and Enrique Jorge [33] Stunk, K. “Status of Barriersto Financial impact
Lamas. Training, Wage Growth, Firm Size. US evaluations in employer-sponsored training
Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, programs”Doctral Dissertation, University of
(1988). Arkansas (1999).
[27] Gomes, C. M., Kruglianskas, I., & Scherer, F. L.
“Strategies for Sustainable Business and Performance

View publication stats