Employee
relations has given a new meaning for industrial relations to describe the
relationship between employers and employees (CIPD, 2019). Industrial relations
are covering only a small portion of the employment relationship spectrum when
comparing to employee relations. Employee relations will mainly cover what’s
happening between management, trade unions, and officials while enabling
collective agreements. It will also address collective bargaining and conflict
resolution between the parties. This wider definition of employee
engagement also identifies the move away from collectivism to individualism, in
the ways how the employees relate to their employers (Armstrong, 2014).
There are debates and differences of view as to
the meaning of both terms, employee relations, and industrial relations. Some
people argue that there are recognizable differences among them, that there are
substantive differences that rationalize the use and maintenance of each term,
that there are substantive differences that justify the use and maintenance of
each term. Whereas others argue that the concepts and phenomena outlined are
interchangeable in all intents and purposes (Leat, 2007). However, Blyton and
Turnbull, (2004) explain a different argument on employee relations and
industrial relations to say that there is no hard and fast distinction between
the two and the only difference is that tendency for each to use based on
subjects that focus on different boundaries. The context of employee relations
changes over time giving different outcomes and behaviors but the purpose
of employee relations is to set some rules, regulations, and agreements which
will regulate (Gennard and Judge, 2005).
Armstrong
(2014) further explains that employee relations are strongly connected with the
employment relationship and the psychological contract. This may include
various methods implemented by the employers to deal with their employees
either in collective mode through trade unions or separate employees
individually. Due to growing demands on helping line managers to create
trust-based relationships with employees, employee relations had been identified
to be focusing on both individual and collective relationships in an
organization (CIPD, 2019). According to Gennard and Judge (2005), priority over
individual or collective relationship is decided based on management’s view of
what is best for the organization or its employee relations. Good employee relationship on both individual
and collective level is important for better business results, better health, and well-being of the employees (CIPD, 2019).
Farnham
(1997) describes that employee relations will come into action anywhere when
work is exchanged for some sort of payment between an employer and an employee
in marketplaces. Hence the core of employee relations is either paid employment
or the pay-work bargain between the two parties. It is mainly concerned with
the interaction between the parties who are involved with the employment
relationship. Mainly three parties are involved as primary, secondary and
territory. The primary parties are the once who would pay for the work and
offer work in the labor market recognized as employers and employees. Further, can identify the parties who act on
behalf of the primary parties such as management or trade unions, and who are
also doing the negotiation and regulation of employment contracts to be the
secondary party. The third-party will be
the state agencies or institutions like the European Union (EU) who will be trying
to facilitate the connection between employers and employees, and employers and
unions. Their main role would be to ensure stable employee relations or to
facilitate a “floor” of standards that everyone will need to follow in order
to make sure no one should fall below. However, it is mainly the primary and
secondary parties’ interaction that will result in good employee relations practices
(Farnham, 1997).
Modern
classification about the employee relations talk about both individual and
collective workplace relationships but it always shows the increasing
individualization of the employment relationship due to the increase of individual rights
and decay of trade union and its effect on employees (CIPD, 2019). According to
Blyton and Turnbull, (2004), around seven-out-of-ten of the UK employees were
not attached to a trade union at the time. Organizations are currently more
reliant on individual employees to achieve their targets, so employers have
given more attention from collective to individual relationships (CIPD, 2019).
In the 1990s-2000s, human resource
management (HRM) dominated the management of employment relations. For some
people, this was part of a new, all-embracing approach to employment relations.
For others, HRM drove a wedge through the subject matter
of employment relations that required rebuttal, as HRM was viewed to
undermine the value of the core unit of past employment relations,
the trade unions (Frege and Kelly, 2013). Employment relations is the study of
regulating the employment relationship between employer and employee, both
collectively and individually, and deciding substantive and procedural problems
at the industrial, organizational and workplace levels (Rose, 2004).
References
Armstrong,
M. (2014). Armstrong's handbook of human resource management practice. 13th ed.
London: Kogan Page, p.403.
Blyton,
P. and Turnbull, P. (2004). The dynamics of employee relations. 3rd ed.
Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.8-9.
Chartered
Institute of Personnel and Development 2019, 16 May 2019, London: Employee
relations: an introduction [Online], Available
at:https://www.cipd.co.uk/knowledge/fundamentals/relations/employees/factsheet#6053 [Accessed on 04 October 2019].
Farnham,
D. (1997). Employee relations in context. 2nd ed. London: Institute of
Personnel Management, pp.3-4.
Frege, C. and Kelly, J.
(2013). Comparative Employment Relations in the Global Economy. 1st ed. London:
Routledge, p. 1 of chapter 6.
Gennard, J. and Judge, G. (2005). Employee relations. 4th ed. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, p.11
Leat, M. (2007). Exploring
employee relations. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, p.4.
Rose, E. (2004). Employment
relations. 2nd ed. London: Pearson Education, p.8.
I agree with above comments. Employee relation has become an important ingredient for enhancing performance and the productivity of an organization. The management and co-ordination of human activities have become the important for achieving organizational objectives. Further this achievement facilitates the protection of employee’s interest and their welfare for the purpose of avoiding conflictual relations between the employer and the employee (Mike, 2008).
ReplyDeleteThank you for your valuable feedback. Yes, employee relations will certainly have a greater influence on employee performance and productivity. Daft and Marcic (2010) warn business owners never to encourage their employees to have a negative relationship. If that happens, the organization's productivity levels will decline. It's the employees who have direct customer contact and go an extra mile to be helpful. When they are happy, they create and maintain a good relationship between themselves and the customer. Such workers also direct their unhappiness to the customers when they are unhappy.
DeleteAs described psychological contract by Schein (1988), he suggesting that there is an implied contractual relationship between the employer and the employee, which is obtained from a series of assumptions made by employers and employees. These assumptions may not be legally enforceable, but they establish a set of mutual arrangements and form the basis of a series of expectations that may have considerable moral power. Based on the concept of the psychological contract, we can also find hypotheses about the rewards and satisfaction that people get from their work. There is a prescription element in Schein that can be interpreted as specifying how employees should be treated.
ReplyDeleteYes Sahan, I have discussed further about the Phychological Contract in a separate post. As you highlighted, "Good" employee relations, from the point of view of both employers and employees, means setting up sensible institutional arrangements between the parties in order to create mutual trust between them (Farnham, 2000).
DeleteIt is also worth mentioning that since organizational success is directly linked with the performance of its employees, companies maintaining strong employee relations initiatives will benefit from motivated employees having a higher level of work engagement, reduced employee turnover and better performance as compared to disengaged employees (Sequeria and Dhriti, 2015).
ReplyDeleteYes agreed. One of the researches done by Ahmed, Ahmad and Jaaffar (2017) empirically proved that employee relations have a significant positive effect on the performance level of employees. Similarly, at the workplace, employee relations have an effect on the degree of employee engagement. Once employees find in the company harmonious relationships with their boss, they feel motivated to do more work for the organization. Additionally, employee relations have a strong positive effect on employee engagement. In fact, employee engagement partly mediates the relationship of employee relations and performance (Ahmed, Ahmad and Jaaffar, 2017).
DeleteAgreed. There are so many definitions to employee relation. But Foot and Hook (2008) argued “Employee relationship is to control work performance, integrated employee in the reorganization’s structure and management system and create a mutual trust environment, confidence and supply of enough and reasonable work while employees obey lawful and reasonable orders, maintain fidelity and work with due diligence and care.”
ReplyDeleteYes Oshantha, Some other interesting employees duties include faithful service that includes The obligation not to commit theft or fraud, Not knowingly disturbing the undertaking of employers and Maintaining trade secrets and not disclosing confidential and sensitive information (Leat, 2016).
DeleteMotivated personnel have a greater level of work engagement, reduced turnover and better performance as compared to disengaged employees. Since the organization success is directly linked with the performance of its personnel, the companies maintaining robust worker relations initiatives will gain due to the fact their staff is highly motivated to put their exceptional efforts(Sequeira,2015).
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment Indika, motivation is indeed a key. Motivation is concerned with the strength and direction of behavior and factors influencing the behavior of people in certain ways. A distinction can be made between the employer's extrinsic motivation and the work's intrinsic motivation. Further, expectancy, equity and goal theory are the major theories of motivation (Armstrong, 2010).
DeleteAdding on to your article. Bruining et al., 2005, states that Changing the ownership and leadership structure affects the way employee relationships develop within an organization further, this fundamental changes will be the reason for less productivity and efficiency.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your above fact. If an employee sees the organization's stated values being lived by the leadership and colleagues, a sense of trust in the organization is more likely to develop, and this is a powerful engagement facilitator (Farnham, 2017).
DeleteYes, employee relations concept plays a major role in achieving the goals and objectives of the organization in a proper manner where a strong relationship in between the employees and the employers creates suitable grounds for driving towards the sustainable development. Further as per Armstrong (2014), employee relations are strongly connected with the employment relationship and the psychological contract.
ReplyDeleteYes Yohan, I agree with your comment. A wide range of organizational changes shaped the later decades of the twentieth century, which had serious implications for employees and challenged the' traditional' employment relationship. The psychological contract was a very useful concept for defining, analyzing and explaining workers ' emotions and responses to these changes (Guest, Isaksson and Witte, 2010).
DeleteAdding to the article employee relation is managing the relationship with employees with the organization and with each other. Well managed employee relationship influences Organization productivity. According to Schine,(2014) basic series of expectations are Fairness treatment of employees, Proper and effective communication and Recognition and appreciation on employees action.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment Nayani. Empirical research indicates that better performance of workers can also be achieved if employers engage in a mutual relationship with their employees or over-invest in their employees (Tsui et al., 1997).
DeleteI agree. Blyton and Turnbull (2004) take the alternative view and argue that the interdependence of labour and capital should not be mistaken for common interests and they also suggest that common interests cannot be assumed, or willed, or managed into existence. In addition, examining this concept of a psychological contract also brings home the importance of values in and to the employment relationship. Equity, justice, dignity and trust are among the values often argued to be fundamental to the effectiveness of the employment relationship and to the achievement of the organisation's objectives
ReplyDeleteYes Chamari, further to this, Conway and Briner (2009) explains a lot of initial enthusiasm welcomed the idea that the psychological contract could be used as a management tool. It was viewed as a means of individualizing the employment relationship and it was felt that the psychological contract could be controlled and managed relatively easily by making implicit beliefs explicit. Most companies seem to use the psychological contract these days.
Deletefurthermore, An effective relationship between employees involves the creation and cultivation of a motivated and productive workforce. It is necessary to keep the dynamics of the employer-employee relationship in mind (Sequeira, 2015).
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment Mizni. However, collective aspects of the employment relationship remain a dominant feature in the vast majority of unionized and, more specifically, non-unionized organizations. The changing focus is on how to handle such relationships, the shifts in power balance between employers and employees, and the degree to which employers either exploit or value their employees within a typically employer-supportive legislative framework (Rose, 2004).
DeleteThank you for the detailed introduction to the topic of employee relations! Gennard and Judge (2005) outlined employee involvement and participation schemes as one of the key mechanisms used in an effective employee relations process. I believe this is one of the key challenges in today's business world, specially with the larger organizations.
ReplyDeleteThank you for highlighting this key area. Research conducted by Marchington et al (1993) on the operation of employee involvement and participation practices revealed that single measures designed to enhance employee engagement with the organization are much less likely to succeed than multiple practices exist. Nonetheless, whatever the mix of employee participation and involvement strategies followed, they must be acceptable to the needs of the company as demonstrated by a thorough evaluation and assessment. For example, Marchington et al found that the mix of employee participation arrangements in some small businesses was no more than one or two different procedures, whereas in some larger manufacturing entities there were as many as eight or nine different schemes to improve employee involvement and participation. They warn, however, that it is dangerous to assume that the greater the number of employee involvement and participation that the organization introduces, the better the overall performance. They point out that for the workers subject to these procedures, various strategies can result in potentially conflicting pressures and confusions or communication overload.
Deleteagreed.Today, Employee Relations is a much broader concept. It involves maintaining a work
ReplyDeleteenvironment that satisfies the needs of individual employees and management. Improving
employee morale, building company culture, conveying expectations. An effective employee
relation involves creating and cultivating a motivated and productive workforce.
Thank you for reiterating important points, specially employee relations always tied up with employee motivation. Motivation is only possible when there is a clearly established and accessible relationship between output and outcome, and the result is interpreted as a way to meet needs. This is based on the ideas of Vroom by implying that there are two factors that determine people's commitment in their work. First, the value of individuals ' rewards to fulfill their security social respect, autonomy and self-actualization needs, and second, rewards depend on effort (Casademunt, 2016).
DeleteAccording to Kaliski,(2007) effective employee relations enhances positive communication and attitude between management and employees, promotes the overall well being of employees during their tenure at the company and helps in preventing and resolving problems involving employees' that affect work situations. Employee relationship management entails the ability to, balancing life and work needs, employee needs open, the ability of the organization to keep good relations with its stakeholders including trade unions, employees, suppliers and customers and measuring and monitoring results.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment. Psychological factors have a much greater role to play in the management of employee relationships, especially in the current performance-driven culture that promises no excellent job security. In the management of employee relationships, the role of coaching, counseling and mentoring has a larger role to play than they have ever done within industrial relations. HR strategies seek to inspire excellence, innovation and customer satisfaction among employees. Psychological techniques are more effective because they deal with individual needs and aspirations and thus shift the focus to the employee rather than to the group of workers that claims representative positions (Singh, 2010).
DeleteHi Anjula, A very good post.
ReplyDeleteSome years ago Etzioni (1975) suggested that employees were engaged with, attached to or involved with employing organizations in a number of different ways and with differing degrees of intensity, and this still has relevance today. He used the term compliance rather than attachment and divided compliance into two elements: the form of power wielded by the employer to achieve control and the nature of the employee’s involvement.
Hi Thilana, thank you for highlighting about the compliance theory introduced by Etzioni. However, the word 'compliance' is not interpreted these days as encompassing a multitude of attachment types, as was the case with the use of the term by Etzioni. It is used as a comparative descriptor of a less positive and intense form of attachment than commitment, a form of attachment that is commonly achieved and maintained through rules administration and bureaucratic controls (Leat, 2009).
Delete