Employer vs. Employees

AR1 stressed the importance of quality human resources in Firm A’s operations. He also exemplified how his company attended to the well-being of the employees by pointing out some HRM policies laid out specifically for the technicians of BU2. The table below details the viewpoints of the employer and the employees on the firm-employee relationships.

Table 4.1 A Comparison of Data on Industrial Relations from Employer and Employees

Industrial Relations SET Dimension: Commitment

Employer AR1 believed that his employees would strive to do the best they could in an attempt to provide clients with high quality services.

“My colleagues endeavour to do their best, but sometimes it is not what our customers want. No matter what, they will spare no efforts to make things happen.” (Appendix p. -36-)

As to how he committed himself to industrial relations, he argued that honesty and trust were the best policy. “With regard to gaining commitment from employees, I personally think that everyone is smart enough to discern whether or not you lie to them.” (Appendix p. -29-)

Employees AE1, AE2, and AE3 were consistently clear in their statements that they were aware of what they should do at their position. Even if the company is expanding, and their job content increases in breadth and complexity, they are still willing to stay at their position and do their job.

“Although HRM benefits are not totally complete, the company has given me much room and autonomy at work.

That is very important to me…I have been working in this

company for 11 years, and it is definitely worth working for it.” (Appendix p. -109-)

Industrial Relations SET Dimension: Communication

Employer AR1 has remained open to different ideas and criticism to a certain degree. He tended to listen to his colleagues, but if the suggestions made by his employees were out of his reach, he would turn down the advice.

“If I have to be fully responsible for the consequences made by a department, I will turn them down and call the shots. If that’s within my reach, I am all ears.” (Appendix p. -29-)

“I would like to have clear communication in the company as much as possible.” (Appendix p. -35-)

Employees The three interviewees’ replies were congruent. Their first response to disagreement was to communicate thoroughly before reaching a consensus. What is more, because of their position at the management level, two of the interviewees acted as a “bridge” between the employer and their subordinates.

“I am at the management level. I need to lay down the specifics of what my subordinates want to do, so that the employer and my subordinates will be on the same page.”

(Appendix p. -98-)

When asked whether there were any qualities that the company valued, AE2 and AE3 replied, “honesty”

unanimously. There was, however, one distinct comment.

BU2 seemed to be run differently from the corporate group, and this issue had been brought up throughout the

conversation. “In terms of the structure of the organisation, I do not think the company specifies the qualities it values, but we do have our own at the business unit.” (Appendix p. -98-)

In fact, AR1 talked honestly about the length of time his employees devoted to communicating with one another

before, during, and after company restructuring.

Industrial Relations SET Dimension: Injustice

Employer The issue of robust HRM policies was first raised by AR1 during the interview. According to him, Firm A had laid down robust HRM policies, so that the work conditions of employees, especially the technicians at BU2, would create a friendly environment.

“At BU2, employees can apply for overtime pay. We have some rules regulating overtime pay, establishing work schedules, and other management systems, etc.” (Appendix p. -17-)

Employees AE2 painted a different picture from AR1.

“Employees in some departments cannot apply for overtime pay, so no matter how much you do, you will not be

compensated.” (Appendix p. -95-)

Industrial Relations SET Dimension: Respect

Employer The formulation of HRM policies exclusively for AV equipment technicians in Firm A gave them the respect that they could not enjoy elsewhere.

“My colleague, an AV equipment technician felt inferior to other people…They were at any one’s disposal and not treated properly. He said that situations have improved at our company.” (Appendix p. -17-)

AR1 was of the opinion that employees in his company needed to be respected. If they had been offered a better compensation scheme at a different company, but were harassed or treated unfairly, they would not tolerate being treated like that.

“The employees in the company need to be respected. You cannot just pay lip-service. You need to really invest the time

and make an effort to make them feel respected.” (Appendix p. -20-)

Employees As an individual, AE1, AE2, and AE3 felted respected in Firm A. AE2, however, argued that the business unit in which he worked was down on the priority list of Firm A.

“Now we are part of the corporate group, which has its own priority, and is no longer an independently-run business.

This is what happens when you become a business unit of a corporate group.” (Appendix p. -101-)

Industrial Relations SET Dimension: Reciprocity (Reward)

Employer Apart from showing a lot of respect for employees by means of formalising HRM rules and operational procedures with an aim to provide employees with a good working

environment, Firm A reciprocates its employees’ hard work with on-the-job training.

“In terms of BU2, occupational training programmes are arranged, but the entire company has limited resources and financial capital. We have been trying to organise training and education for different departments, so that everyone can have a chance to learn new things more or less...Now BU2 has a conference equipment supplier, and the corporate group demands that the supplier’s technicians in the Asia Pacific office to fly over and offer us training programmes.”

(Appendix p. -21-)

Employees Each interviewee expressed his/her awareness of the HRM benefits offered by Firm A, and all of them were willing, without hesitation, to work extra hard as a gesture of

returning the favour given by the company. Nevertheless, as to which incentive schemes the company adopted to

motivate employees, apart from AE1, who is in the HR department, the other two interviewees could not clearly identify the measures.

Furthermore, all of them were active in participating in the training programmes organised by the company. If not, they

were aware of the importance of knowledge acquisition in the knowledge-based economy. “I participate in the courses organised by the company, and I also encouraged my subordinates to be involved in them.” (p. -110-)

Industrial Relations SET Dimension: Reciprocity (Punishment) Employer Either the employer or the employees of Firm A did not

detect any punishment in return for ‘cheating behaviours.’

Employees Either the employer or the employees of Firm A did not detect any punishment in return for ‘cheating behaviours.’

Industrial Relations SET Dimension: Trust

Employer To gain trust from employees, AR1 pointed out that employers needed to do what they had promised because action speaks louder than words.

“If an employee finds out that you do not mean what you say, then no matter what you say in the future, s/he is not going to trust you.” (Appendix p. -29-)

The employees he trusted would be able to enjoy autonomy at work.

“You cannot always be right because of constraint of time and energy. You cannot get your hands on everything…That is not the kind of life I want. The best way is hand the tasks over to the colleagues and leave them alone, yet make sure they are still on the right track.” (Appendix p. -34-)

Employees In addition to AE1, AE2, and AE3, Firm A’s former

employee paid a visit when the interview with the employer was proceeding. Without being asked, this former employee said, “The employer-employee relationship was superb. He (AR1) was incredible. He gave me total autonomy at work!”

(Appendix p. -28-)

Both AE1 and AE 3 confirmed that they had sufficient autonomy at work, an indication that they were trusted by

the company, whereas AE2 explained that he did not have complete authority and autonomy to go about his work.

“Where you are in the structure of the organization, and which decisions you can make are not clearly defined.

Therefore, at the end, you need to go back to the company in order to solve problems.” (Appendix p. -101-)

Their answers to the interview questions relating to whether or not they trusted the company demonstrated that they believed in it and would not abandon the beliefs and value they have learned from or established at the company because other companies came along with better compensation schemes.

In view of the dimensions of social exchange theory used to measure relationships, the cross-checking of the data both from the employer and

employees showed congruence. Some comments made by the employees showed some sign of inconsistency between the corporate group and business units caused by the organisation’s organic growth. This might be one of the areas that Firm A should pay more attention to.