Employee Relations

Employee Relations

Since the 1980s, many Human Resource Management scholars have supposed a change in the relationship between employers and employees: a so-called 'new deal'. Forced by (international) competition and increased costumer demands, companies have revised the management of all resources for purposes of revitalizing competitive advantage (e.g. Huiskamp et al. 2002; Huiskamp 2003). According to Bolwijn and Kumpe (1990), survival nowadays can be ensured by a combination of efficiency, quality, flexibility, and innovation. It is assumed that this renewal of management has a dual effect on the human dimension. On the one hand, in order to stimulate creativity and guarantee product quality, employers invest more in training and career development and employees do pioneering work in delineating their career paths. On the other hand, to increase economical efficiency, employees are expected to become more manoeuvrable inside and outside the organization (Martin et al. 1998). Internal flexibility refers to working time and functional mobility, external flexibility to the use of temporary workers and outsourcing of employees (e.g. Atkinson 1984; Schilfgaarde/Cornelissen 1988). According to the literature, modern employers should offer the following deal: opportunities for valuable training and career development as well as a better fine-tuning of work and non-work obligations through work time flexibility in exchange for less job security (e.g. Tsui/Wu, 2005). To summarize the consequences: it is believed that the key features of the employment relationship (ER) have to change.

“' Employee relations' is a common title for the industrial relations function within personnel management and is also sometimes used as an alternative label for the academic field of industrial relations. The term underlines the fact that industrial relations is not confined to the study of trade unions but embraces the broad pattern of employee management, including systems of direct communication and employee involvement that target the individual worker.”

There are many ways to manage people. The manager can be strict or rigidly enforce rules. Communications can be one-way from boss to employee. The job might get done, but with fairly high turnover, absenteeism and low morale.

Or the owner can make an extra effort to be a "nice guy" to everyone on the payroll. This may lead to reduced adherence to the rules, and employees may argue when they are asked to do work they do not like. Controlling the daily operation of the business may become more and more difficult. The business may survive, but only with much lower profit than if the owner followed more competent personnel policies.

But there is another way. A way where employees can feel a part of your business, where manager and employee can communicate effectively with each other, where rules are fair and flexible, yet enforced with positive discipline. The job gets done efficiently and profitably, and the business does well.

People are your most important asset. What is the dollar-and-cents value of good working relations with your staff? Have you calculated what percentage your payroll is of total operating expenses? What are the costs of selecting, training, and replacing your employees? What labor ...