Maintaining norms about expressed emotions: the case of bill collectors

Administrative Science Quarterly, June, 1991 by Robert I. Sutton

Rewards and punishments. Collectors were rewarded and punished for the outcomes of their work. Raises, promotions, cash prizes, gifts, and praise were used to encourage collectors to get many "connects," promises to pay, and dollars in payments. Criticism, warnings, demotions, and firings were used to sanction collectors who had far fewer connects, promises to pay, or dollars in payments than expected. Collectors also were rewarded and punished for how they handled calls. Managers could use the spy-and-tell system to monitor any collector from any computer terminal in the facility. Collectors were monitored routinely and then were provided with written feedback. Managers also monitored new and poorly performing collectors and, often at the collector's request, calls with troublesome debtors. This information was used as a basis for praise and criticism and to help make decisions about raises, promotions, and firings. Managers used the spy-and-tell system as the primary basis for praising collectors who followed the urgency norm and for criticizing who did not; this observation is grounded in the four data sources listed in Table 1, above. On one occasion, when a supervisor and I monitored calls, she became upset at an experienced collector who spoke in a flat tone because "She isn't conveying any urgency at all. She won't get a dime." A few minutes later, the supervisor gave another collector a standing ovation and said, "She is so good! Oh is she wonderful!" for using a firm tone to reinforce a warning that legal action would begin if the bill was not paid. Both collectors received such feedback later that day. The constant monitoring and associated consequences meant that, even if selection and socialization worked imperfectly and collectors weren't aroused and slightly irritated, they had incentives for conveying urgency.

Maintaining the Contingent Norms

Managers expected urgency to be the starting point in most calls and contended that it was the best demeanor for getting money from the typical debtor. But contingent norms about how collectors ought to adjust the emotions they conveyed to different kinds of debtors also were present. The contingent norms considered here concern variations in debtor demeanor because this was one of the primary features collectors were expected to use when making adjustments in conveyed emotions, and consistent patterns were evident across buckets and data sources. Table 1, above, lists the five contingent norms. Both the general norm of urgency and the contingent norms were justified by beliefs that anxious debtors were likely to pay their bills quickly to escape from such unpleasant feelings. Managers and experienced collectors asserted that if a debtor sounded anxious, then conveying urgency was sufficient for maintaining and amplifying such anxiety. Contingent norms reflected beliefs that collectors ought to express stronger irritation, even anger, to indifferent, friendly, and sad debtors because they were not sufficiently aroused and worried about their late payments. Contingent norms also reflected beliefs that some debtors were too upset to focus on their debts: Warmth was thought best for relaxing extremely anxious debtors, calmness best for cooling off angry debtors. The ease or difficulty of maintaining each contingent display rule depended heavily on whether it was congruent with collectors' feelings about debtors. I first describe how the organization supported the two norms that were congruent with collectors' usual feelings and then turn to the more complex means used to support the three norms that clashed with collectors' usual feelings. For extremely anxious and indifferent debtors, collectors were expected to express emotions that were congruent with the inner feelings usually provoked by such debtors: warmth, possibly sympathy, to extremely anxious debtors, and irritation, possibly anger, to indifferent debtors. These norms were made explicit during training, and collectors were rewarded (typically by being praised) for compliance. Managers mentioned few difficulties in maintaining these norms and no collector reported or demonstrated struggling to comply.