According to Snell and Youndt (1995, p. 713), behavior control is nothing more than that “responsibilities are standardized and imposed top-down with an overriding concern for procedures and methods. Employees are accountable for their actions, regardless of results. Appraisals are based on supervisor observation of behavior. Feedback is used as a remedial too1. ” For that reason, it is interesting to note that behavior control eliminates uncertainty and increases predictability by establishing a method or system of the transformation process (Ouchi, 1978).
Behavior control remains effective as long as the task environment stays stable and predictable over time. The agency theory states that when the behavior of the agent is observed, a behavior-based contract is optimal because the agent’s behaviors are the purchased commodity. This is the simple case of complete information. In the case of incomplete information, the principal can purchase information about the agent’s behaviors and reward those behaviors. Research shows that use of this approach relates positively to the completeness of information about cause-effect relations (Snell, 1992).
Simply put, HRM control may be necessary in the employer-employee relationship to regulate eployee behavior so that it may be more supportive of organizational strategies and goals. The above discussion talks about employment relationship. The field of industrial relations concerns itself in all forms of employment relationships which are about organising human resources and productivity, taking into account both the interest of the organisation and of the employees. As there are opposing interests between management and employees, each party possesses the power in their own rights and in their own calls.
Power in Perspective Power, to put it in the simplest form, is the ability to pursue one’s interest. It can be done through some collective means which is seen in members of collectivist culture; or through some individual means which is apparent in members of individualist culture (Edwards, 2003). If the power is used to oppose the action of the other party, it is termed as reactive power. Proactive power, on the other hand, is one’s means of pursuing one’s own objectives. In the management-employee relationship, possession of power is but a great deal of talk.
Power is not a static thing. It can be transferred from on party to another, depending on the need for the power shift. For management’s viewpoint, it is never easy to accept that power can be handed to employees at some cases. Per Edwards (1986), power resides in an organisation routines and assumptions as well as in overt actions. Management may exert power over workers by shaping expectations, but workers also have resources which they can mobilize, so that power relations are necessarily fluid and certain. Effective Management of Expectations
Maybe one of the major issues facing management-employees relationship is the definition of rules and expectations between two parties. Per Edwards (1986), rules can be so difficult to establish and the key reason may be the indeterminate nature of employment contracts. Quoting it from Edwards (1986), in the labour contract, the worker sells the ability to work which is translated into actual labour only during the course of the working day. Expectations about the standards of performance have to be built up during the process of production.
A rule is complex social institution, not just a few sentences in a rule book. It can comprise beliefs, ideologies and taken-for-granted assumptions as well as formal provisions of rights and obligations. Conclusion There are several factors contributing to the line drawn between the management and the employees, including culture, control, power, trust, and management of expectations. Everyone’s and every class’ concept of ‘self’ can be one of the root causes of the differences in interest and vision we have in each of us.
As any relationship is an ongoing process between concerned parties, in business, it is particularly important to understand how it is to draw harmony in management-employee relationship in pursuit of any business needs and goals. There should be a symbiotic relationship between management and employees, and each party ought to find means of being able to strike a balance between its own goals and consideration of the others’. This will make mutual benefit possible. On the end of employees, they may experience a strong sense of equity, psychological ownership of the goals of the organization, and satisfaction.
On the other end, the employer will yield benefits of organizational citizenship behavior, commitment, and productivity. However, to make all these possible, constant communication is necessary – in a continual assessment of what each party needs and striking a reasonable bargain which is beneficial for both.
Beardwell, I. (1996). Contemporary Industrial Relations: A Critical Analysis, Oxford University Press, Inc. , New York. Blyton, P. (1998). The Dynamics of Employee Relations, 2nd Edition. Macmillan Business. Coser, L. A. (1977).Masters of Sociological Thought: Ideas in Historical and Social Context, 2nd Ed, Fort Worth. Edwards, P. K. (1986). Conflict at Work, Oxford. Edwards, P. K. (2003). The Employment Realtionship and the Field of Industrial Relations, Oxford. Eisenhardt, KM. (1985). Control: organizational and economic approaches. Management Science, 31, 134-49. Gallagher, K. et al. (1997). People in Organisations: An Active Learning Approach. Oxford, Blackwell Govindarajan, V. and Fisher,J. (1990). Strategy, control systems, and resource sharing: effects on business-unit performance. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 259-85.
Hansen, L. (2002). Rethinking the Industrial Relations Tradition from a Gender Perspective: An Invitation to Integration. Herriot, P. (2001). The Employment Relationship: A Psychological Perspective, New York. Jackson, S. E. , Schuler, RS. and Rivero, J. E. (1989). Organizational characteristics as predictors of personnel practices. Personnel Psychology, 46, 569-92. Jacobsen, J. & Skillman, G. (2002). Labor Markets and Employment Relationships: A Comprehensive Approach. Miles, R. H. & Snow, C. C. (1984). Designing Strategic Human Resource Systems, Organisational Dynamics, 13 (1), pp. 36-52.