Cited by 18Language, Discourse, Communication StrategiesLinguistics and Discourse AnalysisEmotional Labor in Professions

“Helping You to Pay Us”: Rapport Management in Debt Collection Call Centre Encounters

Open access
Harrington, Leigh·2018·Journal of Politeness Research

Abstract

Abstract This paper investigates the rapport management (Spencer-Oatey 2005) that collections agents at a UK-based utilities company call centre are expected to perform during debt collection telephone interactions. It examines the rapport-relevant information communicated in the textual materials, including training manuals, through which a prescribed debt collection style is implemented. The analysis reveals that there are tensions in the rapport-concerns that collectors must attend to when using the style. Collectors are instructed to perform potentially face-threatening behaviours in order to collect debt, whilst simultaneously engaging in linguistic behaviour that may be interpreted as face-enhancing and which functions to develop rapport with the debtor. It is suggested that the local deployment of this contradictory “helping you to pay us” philosophy is problematic on multiple levels and may give rise to relational tensions between collectors and debtors who have conflicting expectations about rapport management entitlements. In turn, this may contribute to a culture of sanctioned face-attacks in call centres (Archer and Jagodziński 2015). Therefore, I suggest that call centres may need to loosen the synecdochical hold they have over their employees, thereby affording them the flexibility and volition to cope with the complex face demands, unpredictability and potential volatility of debt collection encounters.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1515/pr-2018-0013

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The techniques such as demonstrating knowledge and authority (but not aggression) seen here are also used to build rapport in other, genuine interactions such as debt collection phone calls.

    “The techniques such as demonstrating knowledge and authority (but not aggression) seen here are also used to build rapport in other, genuine interactions such as debt collection phone calls (Harrington 2018).”

    From The Language of Romance Crimes (2024) · cites this paper as Harrington 2018

    Section 5.1 describes demonstrating knowledge of a debtor’s account and sounding authoritative without aggression; Section 5.2 says collectors are instructed to create rapport. But the paper treats demonstrating knowledge chiefly as a way to control the call, while its rapport-building examples include open questions and empathy. Section 4.1 also says the analysis concerns a prescribed style, not observed use in calls. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • This mirrors the interactions of call centre debt collection professionals, who frame that interaction as a joint effort in order to build and maintain rapport in the face of often unwanted requests of the recipient.

    “This mirrors the interactions of call centre debt collection professionals, who frame that (legitimate) interaction as a joint effort in order to build and maintain rapport in the face of often unwanted requests of the recipient (Harrington 2018).”

    From The Language of Romance Crimes (2024) · cites this paper as Harrington 2018

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. Austin, John Langshaw. 1962. How to do things with words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  2. Bousfield, Derek. 2010. Issues in impoliteness research. In Miriam Locher & Sage Graham (eds.), Interpersonal Pragmatics, 101-134. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  3. Grandey, Alicia, David Dickter & Hock-Peng Sin. 2004. The customer is not always right: Customer aggression and emotion regulation of service employees. Journal of Organi- sational Behaviour 25. 397-418.
  4. Harrington, Leigh. Forthcoming. Polite and impolite linguistic strategies in credit control encounters. University of Nottingham PhD thesis.
  5. Jagodziński, Piotr. 2013. Impoliteness strategies in a British airline call centre: A pragmatic analysis of customer service interactions. Manchester: Adam Mickiewicz University PhD thesis.
  6. Jagodziński, Piotr & Archer, Dawn. 2017. Silence in conflictive call centre service encounters: conversational resource or 'dead air'?. Paper presented at 10 th International Symposium on Politeness, York St John University, 12 th -14 th July.
  7. Kurzon, Dennis. 2007. Towards a typology of silence. Journal of Pragmatics 39. 1673-1688.
  8. Levinson, Stephen. C. 1992. Activity types and language. In Paul Drew & John Heritage (eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings, 66-100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  9. Márquez-Reiter, Rosina & Patricia Bou-Franch. 2017. (Im)politeness in service encounters. In Jonathan Culpeper, Michael Haugh & Dániel Kádár (eds.), The Palgrave handbook of linguistic (Im)politeness, 661-688. London: Palgrave.
  10. Mills, Sara. 2003. Gender and politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  11. Mooney, Annabelle & Evi Sifaki. 2017. The view from the ground. In Annabelle Mooney & Evi Sifaki (eds.), The language of money and debt, 1-30. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Harrington, L.
Affiliations
University of Nottingham (GB)
Corresponding author
Harrington, Leigh
Venue
Journal of Politeness Research
Published
2018-07-26
Volume
14
Issue
2
Pages
193-223
ISSN
  • 1612-5681 (ISSN-L)
  • 1613-4877
OpenAlex
W2808473673
Cited by
18
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1
FWCI
8.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Politeness Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Aston Publications Explorer (Aston University) (submittedVersion)
  • Nottingham ePrints (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Loughborough University
  • Economic and Social Research Council (ES/J500100/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Linguistics and Discourse Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Emotional Labor in Professions
Keywords
rapport management, debt collection, call centers, face-threatening acts, debt collectors, training manual, facework, relational tensions, face attack, employee autonomy, telephone interaction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review