Employer-Employee Relationship

Introduction 

In organizational structures, power dynamics play a significant role in shaping interactions at all levels - from national to individual.  As such, this critical analysis will delve into complex power dynamics, investigating their effects on employee relationships. Through a thorough examination of both external and internal factors, this analysis reveals the many layers of influence stakeholders have on organizational power structures. Drawing upon real-world examples and established theories, this assessment will reveal the influence these forces create, shedding light on their impact on employee dynamics. By combining theoretical frameworks with practical scenarios, this assessment will offer insight into the ever-evolving nature of power dynamics within diverse organizational contexts. This comprehensive analysis will shed light on the various external influences of politics, economics, and societal factors, as well as internal policies and leadership approaches, on employee interactions. In this analysis, I aim to unravel the factors that drive power dynamics within organizations, providing valuable insights and guidance for creating fair and efficient work environments. 

External Factors  

The relationship between employers and their employees is intricately linked to power dynamics operating on national, organizational, and individual levels. These dynamics heavily influence the manner in which employers engage with both their employees and labor unions, ultimately shaping the larger landscape of labor relations. At national level, the dynamic between employers and employees is greatly shaped by various factors such as policies, legal regulations, and cultural norms. This is evident in laws surrounding union recognition, collective bargaining, and employment rights, which heavily influence the way interactions play out (Cullinane & Dundon, 2014). For instance, countries with liberal-market economies like the UK, USA, or Ireland typically prioritize voluntarism in union recognition, granting employers significant leeway in deciding whether to recognize or oppose unions (Cullinane & Dundon, 2014). This legal landscape strongly influences employers' tactics and their interactions with unions. Furthermore, the overall attitudes of society towards unions and labor rights have a considerable impact on the behavior of employers. In situations where unions have a negative perception or when there is a history of strained labor relations, employers may show a heightened reluctance towards unionization. This is often due to their adherence to unitarist principles that prioritize the authority of management. 

Employer-employee interactions are impacted by government employment rules. Government measures that support full employment, for instance, restrict firms' negotiating power by forcing them to increase the number of people they can hire (Lewin & Keefe 2012). These policies cause an imbalance in the bargaining power between companies and employees as a result of increased employee power. In the book “The Wealth of Nations” Adam Smith examined this disparity (between employers and laborers) (McCreadie & Smith 2009). According to him, governments have a duty to control rogue employers since, in capitalistic societies, many employers hold significant influence (McCreadie & Smith 2009). They can simply compel employees to follow their terms thanks to this power. Smith said that companies frequently utilize the law to consolidate their authority and compel workers to abide by their rules (Milward 2003). The tragedy in these cases is that there aren't enough laws protecting employees against unjustified "employer power" (Elfstrom 2012).  As a result of this disparity, employees undergo more pressure to provide their labor to businesses than employers are finding workers. 

Labor laws are typically enacted by governments as a means of addressing these inequities. For instance, labor laws step in to make sure firms give all people equitable work chances because an overabundance of labor supply may result in biased employment and exclusion (LaFleur & Obsitnik 2013). The labor laws of the United Kingdom (UK) aim to advance workplace equity by guiding the development of companies' recruitment and training strategies (LaFleur & Obsitnik 2013). In the same way, government initiatives that support economic expansion through full employment guarantee that workers gain from their work relationships. These policies can encourage the requirement of employee protection clauses in contracts (Morris 2012). These kinds of policies could shield workers against things like low pay, dangerous working conditions, and discrimination (McCreadie & Smith 2009). Similarly, if employers violate certain government laws, the contracts between them and their employees may not be enforced (Morris 2012). The most important piece of law that supports equality between businesses and employees is the Equality Act 2010 (Turner 2013). This law guarantees that no employer will treat workers differently on the basis of their gender, faith, religion, or any other aspect of their social or political standing. Rather, it guarantees that firms offer every employee equitable opportunity (Turner 2013). Among the earliest laws to support equality in the workplace was the US Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Cihon & Castagnera 2013). It gave rise to a variety of regulations in the UK, such as the Working Time Regulations Act of 1998, the National Minimum Wage Act of 1998, and the Equality Act of 2010 (Cihon & Castagnera 2013; Turner 2013). These legislative measures demonstrate the comprehensive ways in which employment relations are impacted by economic and legal policies. 

Historically, technology has been crucial in determining the nature of the relationship between employers and employees (Lewin & Keefe 2012). It has been especially helpful in strengthening employer bargaining leverage (LaFleur & Obsitnik 2013). Technology has increased the availability of human resources while decreasing the need for human resources in production processes. Equally, businesses now have greater accuracy in manufacturing processes due to technology, which has reduced the value of competent human labor (LaFleur & Obsitnik 2013). As a result, employer prefer to use machines to replace worker inputs in order to prevent human error. In this sense, technology lowers manufacturing costs and raises profitability. Based on this level of research, employer bargaining power has improved significantly thanks to technology.  On the other hand, it's equally critical to recognize how technology advances employment prospects and strengthens the negotiating power of employees. For instance, millions of people are employed worldwide in the information and communication technology (ICT) sector nowadays (Lewin & Keefe 2012). Technology advancement is also the source of some of the largest global corporations in the world, including Google and Facebook. The expansion and advancement of this industry has given employees more negotiating leverage thanks to technology. In particular, the need for tech-savvy workers has expanded in modern businesses, which has raised the demand for qualified human resources. Therefore, technology has significantly increased and decreased the bargaining power of employers and employees using the same framework. 

Internal Factors 

Employers hold a substantial amount of control when it comes to hiring, firing, and making notable decisions. This greatly impacts how engaged employees are in their work. Primarily, managers are guided by unitarist beliefs that portray the organization as a cohesive whole with shared goals. As a result, employers who hold onto these beliefs may see labor unions as a threat to this unity and may actively oppose their presence. These power imbalances in the workplace causes barriers to open communication and efforts to boost employee engagement, which ultimately damages trust and cooperation between management and staff unions (Cullinane & Dundon, 2014). However, when viewed individually, the attitudes and beliefs of organizational leaders and managers greatly influence employer-employee relations. Their own ideologies, methods of management, and perspectives on unions all contribute to the overall atmosphere within the organization. While some managers may take a paternalistic stance, using the guise of employee well-being to exert control over labor relations, others may prioritize the human element and implement advanced HR tactics to avert conflicts, viewing labor unions as redundant thanks to internal policies promoting employee prosperity. 

Scholars working in HRM literatures like strategic HRM theory contend that an organization's chances of success are influenced by the manner in which employment relationships are managed and structured (Van Buren, 2022, p. 1). Notably, organization’s management behaviour greatly influences how employment relations are defined in an organization. Different organizations have different managerial philosophies that influence employment interactions. For example, managers that adopt an authoritarian leadership style could discover that their interactions with employees are "shallow" (Markos & Sridevi 2010). However, as they promote candid communication, managers that adopt a democratic leadership style are probably going to enjoy better working relationships with their employees (Gennard & Judge 2010). Additionally, these groups of managers often exhibit a higher level of commitment to improving the relationship between management and employees. Managers that adopt an authoritarian leadership style, on the other hand, are less committed to improving the rapport between employers and employees (Gennard & Judge 2010). According to Gennard & Judge, workers who have faith in their superiors are more likely to exhibit positive attitudes in the workplace (2010). Similarly, Markos & Sridevi (2010) state that employees will surely repay their bosses' goodwill by boosting output if they think they are trustworthy and sincere. Leaders that possess these attributes are more likely to influence others in the organization to follow in their footsteps. 

Every organization has a unique organizational culture that distinguishes it from others.  According to Stanford (2011), organization’s culture is a set of intangible norms that define organizational practices. Employment connections between employers and employees are significantly influenced by the internal company culture. For instance, Marahão & Carrieri (2007) denotes that Starbucks' corporate culture requires that its staff treat consumers with courtesy and in a welcoming environment. Additionally, the company encourages greater flexibility in the number of hours that workers can put in (Stanford 2011). In contrast, the organizational culture of Starbucks is different from that of the police department. According to MacVean & Neyroud (2012), "getting the job done" is important to the police service's organizational culture. Similarly, the police force is more concerned with protecting the public than it is with extending a warm welcome (MacVean & Neyroud 2012). Employee actions are also likely to be impacted by company cultures that place more emphasis on punishment than reward. Redsteer (2014) claims that these kinds of cultures make workers fearful, which lowers morale within the company. In particular, these cultures lengthen the power gap that exists between workers and managers (Redsteer 2014). Better relationships between managers and staff are, nevertheless, fostered by organizational cultures that value the distinctive contributions made by each person. Cultures emphasizing incentives rather than punishment get the same results. Notably, it is important to highlight how corporate culture affects working relationships. 

Extensive research has depicted that a lot of workers are dissatisfied with their companies' meager opportunities for professional advancement (Addison & Demet 2012). In fact, only over 47% of workers think they can gain from the current professional progression prospects in their businesses, according to Hewitt (2013). Analysts emphasize the challenge of providing career progression opportunities to all employees, particularly in large organizations, from the standpoint of talent management (Addison & Demet 2012). According to Gennard & Judge (2005), managers should ideally provide highly skilled and motivated workers with these possibilities for professional advancement. Comparatively, social exchange theory (SET) claims that relationships between employers and employees are predicated on reciprocity standards (Bailey et al., 2017). Employees are more willing to put out effort on behalf of the company in the form of increased levels of engagement when they believe they are receiving good treatment and value from their employer. Giving workers room to grow guarantees that they work in a setting where they can take on new tasks and learn from them. Regular communication between employers and workers is essential to creating this nurturing environment for development (Addison & Demet, 2012). The ability to grow is intimately linked to the process of deriving meaning from one's job. According to Hewitt (2013), a lot of workers wish to find purpose in their jobs. According to her, managers facilitate communication between employers and employees by giving purpose to their work. She states that in particular, workers must experience a feeling of belonging within the company so they can make a contribution and derive fulfillment from their work (Hewitt 2013). Based on this approach, scholars have developed a hierarchy of engagement in which managers interact with their staff by meeting various requirements (Gennard & Judge, 2005). This approach is similar to Maslow's hierarchy of wants, which explains why satisfying various needs motivates a large number of workers (Hewitt 2013). Pay and benefit needs are at the base of this pyramid (Hewitt 2013). Employee development opportunities make up the second category of needs (Hewitt 2013). When they satisfy this degree of desire, workers typically search for chances to progress in their careers (Gennard & Judge 2005). Once this degree of need is met, the workers search for purpose in their jobs. Employees at this point seek a clear connection between their work and their life's purpose (Hewitt 2013). This phase of work is guided by a shared goal. 

Although a unitarist theory argue that employees should be loyal to just one authority, typically management, the type and quality of the relationships between employers and employees still get influenced by the strength and impact of labor unions. This method views any additional allegiances that employees may have, such as those to a union or other organization, as lessening their loyalty to the company (Ross & Bamber, 2009, p. 25). Strong labor unions frequently negotiate for good terms and conditions for its members (Gennard & Judge 2005). Accordingly, they are more likely to pressure management boards to treat employees better than those of companies with weaker unions. Large organizations, such as massive multinational corporations, are more susceptible to the impact of labor unions (Aswathappa, 2005). These companies have strong labor unions that serve sizable employee bases. Their sizable membership bases frequently have a significant impact on managerial boards (Wright & Bastos 2012). Since labor unions form employees' perceptions about their organizations, their influence has an impact on employment relations (Aswathappa, 2005). In fact, they have a great deal of power over them as well, since the majority of these unions serve the interests of their members. As a result, workers frequently obey the orders of their union representatives (Wright & Bastos, 2012). Employees are frequently inclined to follow their demands and halt organizational operations if they declare a strike. Correspondingly, workers are likely to form a similarly unfavorable opinion of management if unions present a poor picture of the organization's management (for example, by portraying the management as unfriendly and indifferent to worker demands), which will cease employment relations (Wright & Bastos, 2012). Notably, labor unions have had a significant impact on employment relations in the European Union's airline sector (Bercusson, 2009). In 2008, for example, more than 3,000 British Airways pilots voted in favor of a walkout over the company's open-skies policy, which required a different set of pilots to operate out of Heathrow Airport (Bercusson, 2009). This put British Airways in danger of a walkout. In response, the management of the corporation announced vague measures taken against the union. Tensions arose between the corporation and its workers as a result of this decision. In particular, it caused the firm and employee discussions to stagnate. Without going into the specifics of the case, this illustration demonstrates how strong unions can affect labor relations in various businesses. This analysis also demonstrates how employee relations in various firms are impacted by labor unions. 

Broaden-and-build theory state that “individuals who experience positive emotions are able to draw on a wider range of behavioural responses and are more likely to be engaged” (Bailey et al., 2017, p. 37). Positive emotions among employees can be achieved through employee recognition. Enhancing staff engagement techniques requires employee recognition. In contrast to monetary rewards, it is less expensive for management. Managers and other leaders are responsible for creating employee recognition programs (Hewitt, 2013). Krats & Brown (2013) denote that many workers require recognition for the challenging nature of their professions in addition to acknowledging their contributions to the company. According to Global Survey Index, just 48% of workers worldwide get acknowledged in this way (Hewitt, 2013). According to the same survey, employee appreciation has increased globally even though many organizations are facing greater competition (Hewitt, 2013). On the other hand, more workers indicate that they are willing to be with their employers (Krats & Brown, 2013). Watson (2009) makes a metaphorical comparison between the extra power that turbo-charging gives automobile engines and the benefit that employee recognition affords businesses. Both metrics contribute to increased performance. A more thorough examination of this data reveals that employee involvement contributes to a nearly 60% boost in engagement (Watson 2009). An evaluation of employee engagement from the perspective of the employee also reveals that when employee engagement happens, the proportion of employees who rate it favorably rises from 33% to 52% (Watson, 2009). 

While employee involvement has increased, companies that have cultivated an environment of equal opportunity and promote good employee wellness report that the impact of employee recognition has been less pronounced (Krats & Brown, 2013). These companies claim a 20% boost in employee engagement when compared to those that do not offer equitable opportunities for growth (Watson 2009). Employee appreciation has less of an impact because these companies already have a culture that values treating employees well. Watson (2009) discovered that most workers felt better acknowledged in team or group situations after conducting a more thorough analysis of the organizational contexts of employee recognition. As a result, he proved that most workers felt most appreciated when their colleagues saw them acknowledged (Watson, 2009). In general, our research demonstrates that when an individual from a different department received recognition for outstanding organizational performance, the impact of that recognition was less pronounced. Therefore, effective employee recognition procedures therefore function better in departmental settings. In general, it is important to note that higher levels of employee engagement are correlated with better employee recognition. In general, we observe that employee incentive is a major factor in driving employee engagement based on an understanding of employee recognition, salary, and career advancement. 

Importance of Employee Involvement in Employment Relationships 

Moschetto (2013) argues that involving employees in decision-making processes entails incorporating their input into the formulation of important organizational decisions. A more comprehensive interpretation of the term "employee involvement" reveals that it refers to two things: the ability of workers to voice their complaints to management, and the management's ability to address these complaints by involving workers in the organization's decision-making process (Moschetto, 2013). Since it also involves safeguarding the welfare of the workforce, employee involvement in this case is not limited to their participation in the decision-making process (alone) (Moschetto, 2013). Given this context, job relationships are greatly impacted by employee involvement. This effect has taken on several forms. However, the breadth of this analysis demonstrates that it is confined to impacting job happiness, worker productivity, and employee loyalty/commitment to the firm. 

An organization's employment relationships' quality can be inferred from job satisfaction. However, employee involvement has a big impact on job satisfaction. For instance, according to Markos & Sridevi (2010), significant employee turnover frequently results from an organization's high degree of work satisfaction. The difference between employee preferences and the organizational terms and circumstances of employment is how many academics define job satisfaction (Markos & Sridevi, 2010). Since pleased employees are usually those who are appreciated, employee involvement has an impact on job satisfaction. It goes without saying that when managers include their staff in important decision-making processes, the staff members can voice their thoughts, worries, and opinions about work procedures, which enhances the staff members' sense of job satisfaction. However, a low level of employee involvement in an organization will inevitably result in a poor level of job satisfaction since employees will believe that their supervisors regard and respect them less (Gennard & Judge 2010). Because disgruntled workers are unable to utilize organizational resources to their full potential for production, this consequence is undesirable for a company (Moschetto, 2013). 

Additionally, scholars contend that an organization's ability to retain committed employees is essential to its success. According to Gilbert (2012) employee commitment refers to the congruence between organizational and employee aspirations. Based on this description, Webster (2012) argues many employees show high levels of commitment to organizational initiatives that they have participated in crafting. Because employee participation gives workers a chance to participate in organizational decision-making, this analysis demonstrates the relationship between employee commitment and employee involvement (Buckingham & Coffman 2005). These procedures result in the development of employee-understood organizational strategies (Gilbert, 2012). Employee commitment to ensuring these tactics' success increased as a result of their association. Consequently, they display a high sense of devotion to the organization (Buckingham & Coffman, 2005). 

Conclusion 

This comprehensive analysis illustrates the complex power dynamics affecting employer-employee relationships across national, organizational, and individual levels. The analysis evidently portrays how important power disparities are in directing relationships. Organizational rules, social norms, and legal restrictions all serve as catalysts that affect the power that employers have over their workforce. These power dynamics are reflected in the tug-of-war between unions and management, which mirrors the larger field of labor relations. This environment is further complicated by technology's dual effects on bargaining power, which present both opportunities and challenges. The interplay among corporate cultures, employee engagement, and managerial attitudes highlights the extent of influence that exists within firms. Different corporate cultures and leadership philosophies authoritarian versus democratic have a significant influence on the development of employer-employee interactions. This in turn has a substantial impact on worker dedication, satisfaction, and general workplace dynamics. 

References 

Addison, J. T., & Ozturk, O. D. (2012). Minimum wages, labor market institutions, and female employment: A cross-country analysis. ILR Review, 65(4), 779-809. 

Aswathappa, A. (2005). International Business, 2e. Tata McGraw-Hill Education. 

Addison, J. & Demet O. (2012). ‘Minimum Wages, Labor Market Institutions, And Female Employment: A Cross-Country Analysis’, Industrial & Labor Relations Review, vol. 65. no. 4, pp. 779-809. 

Bercusson, B. (2009). European labour law. Cambridge university press. 

Buckingham, M. & Coffman C. (2005). First, break all the rules, Pocket Books, London. 

Bailey, C., Madden, A., Alfes, K., & Fletcher, L. (2017). The meaning, antecedents and outcomes of employee engagement: A narrative synthesis. International journal of management reviews, 19(1), 31-53. 

Cullinane, N., & Dundon, T. (2014). Unitarism and employer resistance to trade unionism. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(18), 2573-2590. 

Cihon, P & Castagnera, J. (2013). Employment and Labor Law, Cengage Learning, London. Gennard, J & Judge, G. (2010). Managing Employee Relations (5th Ed), CIPD, London. 

Gennard, J., & Judge, G. (2005). Employee relations. CIPD Publishing. 

Gilbert, L. (2012). Immigrant Laws, Obstacle Preemption and the Lost Legacy of McCulloch. Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law, 153-207. 

Hewitt, A. (2013). Trends in global employee engagement report. Aon Hewitt, Lincolnshire, IL. 

Krats, P., & Brown, T. C. (2013). Unionised employee's reactions to the introduction of a goal‐based performance appraisal system 1. Human Resource Management Journal, 23(4), 396-412. 

Kotler, P. 1967. Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning , and Control. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. 722 pp.

 LaFleur, F. P., & Obsitnik, C. M. (2013). US Supreme Court rules defense of marriage act unconstitutional What does this mean for plan sponsors. Employee Relations Law Journal, 39(3), 9-13. 

Markos, S., & Sridevi, M. S. (2010). Employee engagement: The key to improving performance. International journal of business and management, 5(12), 89. 

MacVean, A., & Neyroud, P. (2012). Police ethics and values. Learning Matters. 

McCreadie, K., & Smith, A. (2009). Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations: A modern-day interpretation of an economic classic. Infinite Ideas. 

Milward, B. (2003). Globalisation? Internationalization and Monopoly Capitalism: Historical Processes and Capitalist Dynamism, Edward Elgar Publishing, London. 

Morris, C. J. (2012). How the National Labor Relations Act was stolen and how it can be recovered: Taft-Hartley revisionism and the National Labor Relations Board's appointment process. 

Berkeley J. Emp. & Lab. L., 33, 1. Moschetto, M. (2014). Key Trends in workforce management and new challenges for HR. Employment Relations Today, 40(4), 7-13. 

Marahão, C., & Carrieri, A. D. P. (2007). Tribal Knowledge: Business Wisdom Brewed from the Grounds of Starbucks Corporate Culture. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(3), 213-215. 

Redsteer, A. (2014). Influencing Strategic Employee Relations. Web. 

Ross, P., & Bamber, G. J. (2009). Strategic choices in pluralist and unitarist employment relations regimes: A study of Australian telecommunications. ILR Review, 63(1), 24-41. 

Stone, K. V. (2004). From widgets to digits: Employment regulation for the changing workplace. Cambridge University Press. 

Stanford, N. (2010). Corporate culture: getting it right (Vol. 79). John Wiley & Sons. 

Turner, C. (2013). Unlocking employment law. Routledge. Van Buren III, H. J. (2022). The value of including employees: a pluralist perspective on sustainable HRM. Employee Relations: The International Journal, 44(3), 686-701. 

Watson, T. (2009). Turbo Charging Employee Engagement. Web. Wright, P. W., & Bastos, P. (2012). Exchange rates and wages in unionized labor markets. ILR Review, 65(4), 975-999.