rganizations cannot perform better and achieve its objectives if there is a bad relationship
between employees and employer, therefore it is very important for managers to create
and maintain good relationship with their employees. Effective employee and management
relationship is vital to the workplace whether at the time of recruitment, during
an employees' tenure or at the time of separation (Rose, 2008). Good employer-employee relations is essential to the organization because it inspires
employees to work better and produce more results (Burns, 2012). The application of human relations in managing human resource is critical in today's
business Author: Ph.D, East Africa Regional Human Resource Manager, Ausdrill East
Africa, Mwanza, Tanzania/Part-Time Senior Lecturer, Mount Meru University. e-mail:
[email protected] competitive environment (Christen, Iyer & Soberman, 2006). Factors such as job satisfaction is achieved when there is a great working relationship
between labour and management (Boyle, 2006). Yes, organizations can have competent, qualified and motivated employees but if
there is no peace and harmony at the workplace their performance will be in danger.
Because the relationship between the employer and the employee is very crucial, employers
need to pay attention to this relationship if they want their businesses to grow and
succeed (Bhattacharya, 2008) and that firms should actively seek good employee relations whether or not they are
bound by union contracts (Pearce and Robinson (2009). Organizations need employees who can peacefully work together towards the achievement
of the set objectives and goals, and this can only be achieved if there is a good
employee relations in the organization as the objectives of employee relationship
is to achieve harmonious employee relations and minimize conflict practices in employment
(Torrington & Hall, 1998). Employee relationship management has many documented positive effect in organizations
such as strengthening corporate communication and culture, fostering about company
products, services and customer providing real-time access to company training, targeting
information to an employee based on their needs (Wargborn, 2008).
2. a) Statement of the Problem
Despite the fact that in today's competitive business environment employee relations
is one of the pillars and crucial functions of human resource management which leads
to effective employee performance and organizational performance. Small organizations
in Tanzania seems to throw employee relations behind them by not giving it special
attention and priority, as a result, they are still struggling to establish and maintain
effective employee relations, this causes unnecessary disputes in these organizations
which in turn affect their performance. Poor relations between the employer and employees
among organizations operating in the globally and locally markets has become the challenge
(Kaliski, 2007).
3. b) Research Hypothesis
4. II. Literature Review a) The perception of employee relations
According to Torrington and Hall (1998), the relationship between employees and management is a framework of organizational
justice consisting of organizational culture and management styles as well as rules
and procedural sequence for grievance and conflict management. Gennard and Judge (2002) stated that employee relations is a study of the rules, regulations and agreements
by which employees are managed both as individuals and as a collective group. Lewis et al (2003) explained that employee relations suggest a wider employment canvas being covered
with equal importance attached to non-union employment arrangements and white collar
jobs. Armstrong (2005) observed that employee relations is to manage the relationship between employer and
employees with the ultimate objectivity of achieving the optimum level of productivity
in terms of goods and services, employee motivation taking preventive measures to
resolve problems that adversely affect the working environment. Walton (1985) narrated that the unitary viewpoint of employee relations is the belief that management
and employees share the same concerns and it is therefore in both their interests
to cooperate. Perkins and Shortland (2006) advocated that employee relations is concerned with the social economic relationship
that forms and revolves around a contract between the parties to perform work in return
for employment benefits such as remuneration. Clarke (2001) commented that effective employee relationship management requires cooperation between
managers representatives and employees, that good relationship between employer and
employee do not just happen but they are the result of a strategy and activities that
employee relations managers design to improve communication between employees and
management (Mayhew, 1985). George and Jones (2008) said that employee relations involve the communication and relationships that in
the end contribute to satisfactory productivity, job satisfaction, motivation and
morale of the employees. Consequently, Foot and Hook (2008) highlighted that the right of employer on employer and employee relationship is to
control work performance, integrate employee in the organization'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.
5. b) Factors leading to effective employee relations in the organization
Gomez-Mejia et al (2001) argued that for organizational members to perceive employee relations management
practices positively, the organizational leadership needs to put emphasis on gaining
support from employees, having mutual trust and confidence building, allowing freedom
of association, improving career and salary tracks, retirement benefits, and retaining
measures. Pearce and Robinson (2009) observed that organizations should strive to satisfy their employees with good pay,
good supervision and good stimulating work. Mayhew (1985) inferred that best employee relationship management practices incorporate labour
and employment laws, resourcefulness and human resource expertise in developing practices
that improve working relationships. Purcell and Ahlstrand (1994) insisted on the need of the existence of a distinctive set of written guiding principles
which set parameters to and signposts for management action regarding the way employees
are treated and how particular events are handled. Lewis et al (2003) contended that it is good to involve employees direct in decisions that go beyond
their immediate work tasks and given opportunity to control their work situation in
a manner that benefits the organization also to have a managerial policy where employees
and employers share goals and agree on the means to achieve them, their involvement
is very important because participation in goal setting has been found relating to
acceptance and subsequent commitment to the established goals which leads to favourable
outcomes in terms of performance and attitudes (Harzing & Ruysseveldt, 2004).
According to Shweitzer and Lyons (2008) factors that lead to good employee relations
in the organization include employee empowerment and involvement, initiating employee
suggestions, conflict management and grievance redress measures, facilitating collective
bargaining, expertize training and development, encouraging teamwork and transparency
in communicating. Ivancevich (2001) supported that employee empowerment improves employee relations because it contributes
directly to organizational objectives by increasing skill sets and granting authority
to the employees to make a decision that would traditionally be made by managers.
Kovach (1995) focused on the need of effective communication that it is one of the most important
factors which either improves or spoils the relationship among employees, employees
with open lines of communication with managers are more likely to build effective
work relationships with those managers, increase their organizational identification
and enhance their performance which at last contributes to organization productivity
(Tsai, Chuang & Hsieh, 2009).
6. III. Methodology
The study adopted a cross-sectional survey research design and used a stratified random
sampling technique to select a sample size of 387 respondents from the target population
of the study. The data was collected using questionnaires and interviews and analysed
using descriptive statistics and correlation analysis with the help of SPSS software
version 22.0. The study wanted to know the causes of poor employee relations in small
organizations. The results in table 4.1 depict that 8.3 % of the respondents mentioned
low and inbalance salary as a cause of poor employee relations in the small organization,
7.5% mentioned poor working conditions, 9.8% mentioned lack of attractive work incentives,
10.9% mentioned unfair labour practices while 6.5% mentioned ineffective communication
between management and employees. Consequently, 7% of the respondents mentioned lack
of supervision and management skills among supervisors and managers as a cause of
poor employee relations in the organization, 6.2% mentioned indiscipline among employees,
7.8% mentioned unfair treatment of employees by the management and 7.2% mentioned
failure by the management to pay attention to employees' personal problems. Moreover,
6.2% of the respondents mentioned ineffective of delegation of authority to employees
by the management as a cause of poor labour relations in the organization, 7% mentioned
unfair redressal of employee grievances by the management, 7.8% mentioned poor conflict
management while 8% mentioned lack of transparency in communication as a cause of
poor employee relations in small organizations. Brookins and Media (2002) were of the view that employee conflict in the workplace is a common occurrence,
resulting from the differences in employees' personalities and values. Havenga (2002) contended that causes of conflict at the level of the organization could also include
resource availability, affirmative action programmes, the scope of the content of
workload, the introduction of new management techniques and differences of a cultural
and racial nature. Consequently, Nelson and Quick (2001) indicated that there are conflicts that develop from within the organization and
those that emerge as a result of individual differences among employees. Vecchio (2000) was of the same view that communication is infrequently considered as a source of
conflict. in the small organization. In line with the study results, Sweney and Mc Farlin (2005) were of the view that effective approaches adopted in conflict management within
the organization like coaching, training, mediation and facilitation will enhance
employee and employer relations thus improved job satisfaction.
7. IV. Results and Discussions a) Causes of poor employee relations in the organization
8. b) Remedial actions used to minimize poor employee relations in the organization
9. c) Effect of employee relations on employee performance
The study wanted to know the effect of employee relations on the performance of employee
in small organizations and the results are shown in the tables below; The results
in table 4.3 reveal that 50.4% of the respondents strongly agree that good employee
relations increase employees' morale at work, 39% agree, 3.6% were neutral, 3.6% disagree
with the statement while 3.4% strongly disagree that good employee relations increase
employees' morale. Based on the cumulative percentage which shows that majority of
the respondents agreeing to the statement, this implies that employee relations has
a great effect on employees' working morale. Grant (2007) supported that improvement in the management of employee relationships in organizations
brings more positive aspects to the firm than just to increase employee motivation.
The results of a study done by Delaney and Huselid (1996) proved that a set of fit employee relations practices which stimulate various attributes
of employees including personal and professional skills, motivation and work structure
are significantly positively related to their performance that leads to ultimate organizational
performance. The study wanted to know whether good employee relations in small organizations
improve discipline to workers or not, it was observed that 43.7% of the respondents
strongly agree that good employee relations improve workers' discipline, 44.7% agree,
4.1% were neutral while 4.1% disagree and 3.4% strongly disagree that good employees
improve discipline to workers. The results in table 4.5 highlights that majority of
the respondents of the study that is 56.6% strongly agree that good employee relations
promote teamwork in small organizations, also 34.6% agree with the statement. However,
6.7% of the respondents were neutral to the statement, 1.0% disagree while again 1.0%
strongly disagree that good employee relations promote teamwork in the small organization.
This result is supported by the study done by Keith and Newstrom (1989) which found
that employee relationship promotes teamwork which achieves organizational goals.
Schweitzer and Lyons (2008) also supported that organizations normally engage in various employee relationships
management practices such as teamwork to develop healthy relationships and extract
the best out of each team member. It was noted that 53% of the total respondents of
the study strongly agree that mainting good employee relations improve employees'
commitment at work, relatively, 35.7% also agree with the statement. Consequently,
in responding to this statement, 9.3% of the total respondents of the study were neutral,
1.0% disagree and 1.0% strongly disagree that good employee relations improve employees'
commitment at work. Because the results show that 88.7% of the respondents which is
the majority agreeing with the statement, this implies that both the management and
employees who were the respondents of the study know very well that maintaining good
employee relations in the organization helps to improve employees' commitment at work,
it is believed that one of the antecedent determinants of workers performance is employee
commitment (Ali at al, 2010) and employees with sense of employee commitment are less
likely to engage in withdrawal behaviour and more willing to accept change (Lo et al, 2009). The study also wanted to know whether good employee relations has effect on employee
turnover and from the results of the study, 57.9% strongly agree and 31.8% agree that
good employee relations reduce employee turnover in the organization, Unlikely, 1.6%
disagree and 2.6% strongly disagree while 6.2% of the total respondents were neutral
to the statement. Huselid (1995) supported that employee relations result in organization performance also lower employee
turnover.
10. d) Effect of employee relations on organizational performance
The sought to know the effect of employee relations on labour turnover in small organizations,
the results are shown in the tables below; From the results of the study, 57.4% of
the respondents strongly agree while 34.9% agree that good employee relations lead
to high productivity in the organization. Contrary, 1.8% disagree, again 1.8% strongly
disagree that good employee relations lead to high productivity in the organization
while 4.1 % of the respondents were neutral to the statement. The result of this study
is in line with the result of the study done by Huselid (1995) The results in table 4.9 depict that 45.2% of the respondents strongly agree that
good employee relations ensure optimum use of scarce resources in the organization,
42.4% agree while 7.8% were neutral, 2.8% disagree and 1.8% strongly disagree. The
result of the study in table 4.10 indicate that 59.4% of the total respondents strongly agree that good employee
relations result in effective communication in the organization, 35.7% agree while
1.0% were neutral to the statement. On the other hand, 2.6% of the total respondents
disagree and 1.3% strongly disagree that good employee relations result in effective
communication in the organization. The results are in line with the results of Howes
(2010) findings who found that better communication and attention to the personal
needs of employees improves employee's motivation and performance. Relatively, Kaliski (2007) supported that effective employee relations enhances positive communication and attitude
between management and employees, promotes the overall wellbeing of employees during
their tenure at the company and helps in preventing and resolving problems involving
employees' that affect work situation. Similarly, Amessa and Drakeb (2003) supported that communication is one of the critical that enhance the spirit of teamwork
within the organization. The study results reveal that 45% of the total respondents
strongly agree that good employee relations facilitate changes in the organization,
42.4% agree, 4.4% were neutral to the statement, while 3.1% disagree and 1.8% strongly
disagree that good employee relations facilitate changes in the organization. Because
the result further indicates that the majority of the total respondents which is 87.4%
agreeing to the statement, it implies that maintaining good employee relations has
a positive effect on change implementation. The findings are supported by the study
by Ahmed et al (1996) which found that employee relations and flexibility are emerging as competitive weapons
that allow organizations to counteract market evolution and competitive. The results
of correlation between employee relations, employee performance and organizational
performance in table 4.12 indicate that there is a positive statistical significant
relationship between employee relations and employee performance also between employee
relations and organizational performance whereby employee relations and employee performance
is r(387) =+.329, employee relations and organizational performance is r(387) =+.209.
the significance value was observed at .01 level. Since significant value (P-value
=.000), the alternative hypothesis is accepted. The findings of the study corresponds
with the findings of the study by James and Nickson (2016) on influence of employee relations on organization performance of private universities
in Kenya which found that employee relations has a positive significant influence
on organizational performance with (r=0.532) However, these results supersede the
results of the study done by Muhammad et al (2013) on the impact of employee relations on employee performance in hospitality industry
in Pakistan which indicated medium positive correlation between employee performance
and employee relations with R=0.529. Moreover, the study by Kuzu and Derya (2014) on the effect of employee relationship and knowledge sharing on employee performance:
An empirical research on service industry revealed that employee relationships have
a midlevel positive association with employee performance with (r=0.602).
11. V. Conclusion and Recommendations
Maintaining harmonious relations is very important for the survival, prosperity and
growth of the organization. Good and healthy employee relations leads to better organizational
performance. The study found that small organizations are aware of the benefits of
maintaining good employee relations and correct remedial actions to minimize poor
employee relations in the organization. Similarly, the study found that there is a
positive significant relationship between employee relations and employee performance
as well as between employee relations and organizational performance. Moreover, the
study found that the use unfair labour practices is a major cause of poor employee
relations in the small organizations in Tanzania. Therefore the study recommends a
need for small organizations to start implementing fair labour practices throughout
their operations and do away with unfair labour practices. Furthermore, the study
recommends that small organizations in Tanzania should focus more on building effective
and sustainable employee relations that will ensure their growth and survival.
Year 2018 ( ) A
Figure 1. Table 4 . 1 :41
Frequency
Percent
Cumulative Percent
Figure 2. Table 4 . 2 :42
Frequency
Percent
Cumulative Percent
Collective bargaining meetings
144
37.2
37.2
Workers representative committees
114
29.5
66.7
Joint consultation meetings
129
33.3
100.0
Total
387
100.0
Figure 3. Table 4 .4
Figure 4. Table 4 . 3 :43
Frequency
Percent
Cumulative Percent
Strongly Agree
195
50.4
50.4
Agree
151
39.0
89.4
Neutral
14
3.6
93.0
Disagree
14
3.6
96.6
Strongly Disagree
13
3.4
100.0
Total
387
100.0
Figure 5. Table 4 . 4 :44
Frequency
Percent
Cumulative Percent
Strongly Agree
169
43.7
43.7
Agree
173
44.7
88.4
Neutral
16
4.1
92.5
Disagree
16
4.1
96.6
Strongly Disagree
13
3.4
100.0
Total
387
100.0
Figure 6. Table 4 . 5 :45
Frequency
Percent
Cumulative Percent
Strongly Agree
219
56.6
56.6
Agree
134
34.6
91.2
Neutral
26
6.7
97.9
Disagree
4
1.0
99.0
Strongly Disagree
4
1.0
100.0
Total
387
100.0
Figure 7. Table 4 . 6 :46
Frequency
Percent
Cumulative Percent
Strongly Agree
205
53.0
53.0
Agree
138
35.7
88.6
Neutral
36
9.3
97.9
Disagree
4
1.0
99.0
Strongly Disagree
4
1.0
100.0
Total
387
100.0
Figure 8. Table 4 . 7 :47
Frequency
Percent
Cumulative Percent
Strongly Agree
224
57.9
57.9
Agree
123
31.8
89.7
Neutral
24
6.2
95.9
Disagree
6
1.6
97.4
Strongly Disagree
10
2.6
100.0
Total
387
100.0
Figure 9. Table 4 . 8 :48
Frequency
Percent
Cumulative Percent
Strongly Agree
222
57.4
57.4
Agree
135
34.9
92.2
Neutral
16
4.1
96.4
Disagree
7
1.8
98.2
Strongly Disagree
7
1.8
100.0
Total
387
100.0
Figure 10. Table 4 . 9 :49
Year 2018
( ) A
Figure 11. Table 4 .4
Frequency
Percent
Cumulative Percent
Strongly Agree
230
59.4
59.4
Agree
138
35.7
95.1
Neutral
4
1.0
96.1
Disagree
10
2.6
98.7
Strongly Disagree
5
1.3
100.0
Total
387
100.0
Figure 12. Table 4 . 11 :411
Frequency
Percent
Cumulative Percent
Strongly Agree
174
45.0
45.0
Agree
164
42.4
87.3
Neutral
17
4.4
91.7
Disagree
12
3.1
94.8
Strongly Disagree
20
5.2
100.0
Total
387
100.0
Figure 13. Table 4 . 12 :412
Correlation Matrix
Employee
Employee
Organizational
Relations
Performance
Performance
Employee Relations
Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N
1 387
.329 ** .000 387
.209 ** .000 387
Employee performance
Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N
.329 ** .000 387
1 387
-.080 .115 387
Organizational Performance
Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N
.209 ** .000 387
-.080 .115 387
1 387
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Encyclopaedia of Human Resource Management.
A Burns
. Key Topics and Issues
Prescott RK, Rothwell WJ (ed.)
2012. John Wiley & Sons. 1 p. 186.
(Employee Relations)
International Human Resource Management (2 nd Ed,
A Harzing
, J Ruysseveldt
. 2004. London Sage Publications Ltd.
Relational Job Design and the Motivation to Make a Pro-social Differences.
A M Grant
. Academic of Management Review2007. 32 (2) p. .
B S Kaliski
. Encyclopedia of Business and Finance,
(Detroit )
2007.
(Thompson Gale)
Using corporate social responsibility to win the war for talent.
C B Bhattacharya
, S Sen
, D Korshun
. MIT Sloan Management Review2008. 49 (1) p. .
Organizational performance strategies,
C J Howes
. 2010.
(Retrieved from www.opstrategies.org)
Human Bahavior at work, organizational Behavior,
D Keith
, J W Newstrom
. 1989. MCHill Book Company.
(th ed.)
Organization behaviour: Foundations, realities and challenges,
D Nelson
, J Quick
. 2001. Cincinnati. OH: South-West.
Employment Relations,
E D Rose
. 2008. London. UK.: Pearson Education Ltd.
The effect of employee relationships and knowledge sharing on employees' performance.
An empirical research on service industry.
H O Kuzu
, O Derya
. Retrievedfromwww.sciencedirect.comProcedia Social and Behavioral Sciences2014. 109 (1) p. .
The impact of Human Resource Management Pratices on Perceptions of organizational
Performance.
J Delaney
, M A Huselid
. Academy of Mangement Journal1996. 39 (4) p. .
Understanding and Managing Organizational behavior,
J M George
, G R Jones
. 2008. New Yersey: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
(th)
International Human Resource Management. Mc Graw-Hill,
J M Ivancevich
. 2001. Irwin, New York.
Strategic Management (10 th Ed,
J Pearce
, R RobinsonJr
. 2009.
(International Edition)
Human Resource Management in the Multi Divisional Company,
J Purcell
, B Ahlstrand
. 1994. Oxford. USA: Oxford University Press.
Employee Motivation: Addressing a crucial factor in your organization's performance.
Employment relations today,
K A Kovach
. 1995. London: Harvard University Press.
Executive Remuneration and Firm Performance: Evidence from a panel of mutual organizations.
K Amessa
, L Drakeb
. Published International Journal Article2003. Universitity of Leicester and Nottingham Universitity
What businesses are doing to attract and retain employee-becoming an employer of choice.
K F Clarke
. Employee Benefits Journal2001. 9 (7) p. .
Corporate social responsibility influences employee commitment and organizational
performance.
L Ali
, K Rehman
, S L Ali
, J Yousaf
, M Zia
. African Journal of Business Management2010. 4 (12) p. .
Managing Human Resources.
L R Gomez-Mejia
, D B Balkin
, R L Cardy
. Practice Hall,
(New Jersey )
2001.
(rd ed.)
The market within: A marketing approach to creating and developing high-value employment
relationships.
L Schweitzer
, S Lyons
. Business Horizons2008. (51) p. .
The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices on turnover, productivity and corporate
financial performance.
M A Huselid
. Academy of Management Journal1995. 3 (38) p. .
Armstrong's Handbook of Management and Leadership: Approaches to HRM and L&D,
M Armstrong
. 2005. Kogan page Limited Publishing. United States.
The Business Review, Workplace Conflicts not inevitable,
M Brookins
, D Media
, W Bruce Califonia
, Newman
. 2002.
Job Satisfaction, Job Performance, and Effort: A Reexamination using Agency Theory.
M Christen
, G Iyer
, D Soberman
. Journal of Marketing2006. 70 (1) p. .
Introducing Human Resource Management,
M Foot
, C Hook
. 2008. Harlow (Essex: Prentice Hall.
(th ed.)
Leadership style and organizational commitment. A test on Malaysia manufacturing industry.
M Lo
, T Ramayah
, H W Min
. African Journal of Marketing Management2009. 1 (6) p. .
Influence of employee relations on organization performance of private universities
in Kenya.
M N James
, L A Nickson
. International Journal of Innovative Research and Studies2016. 2 (8) p. .
An Integrated Process Model of Communication Satisfaction and Organization Outcomes.
M T Tsai
, S S Chuang
, W P Hsieh
. Social Behavior and Personality2009. 37 (6) p. .
Integrated Flexibility. A key to Competitive in Turbulent Environment.
P Ahmed
, G Hardaker
, M Carpenter
. Long range planning1996. 29 (4) p. .
Organizational Behavior, Solutions for Management,
P D Sweney
, D B Mc Farlin
. 2005. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Employee Relations: Understanding the employment relationship,
P Lewis
, A Thornhill
, M Saunders
. 2003. Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall.
The Best Practices for Managers-Employee Relations. Demand Media,
R Mayhew
. 1985. Houston. USA.
Organization behaviour,
R P Vecchio
. 2000. New York. Dryden.
Impact of employee relations on employee performance in Hospitality industry of Pakistan.
S C Muhammad
, S Farruk
, R Naureen
. Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management Journal2013. 1 (1) p. .
Strategic International Human resource Management Choices and Consequences in Multinational
People Management,
S J Perkins
, S M Shortland
.
nd ED.). London. Kogan Page (ed.)
2006.
Resources for Employees, APA Centre for Organizational Flexibility.
T A Boyle
. Journal of manufacturing Technology Management2006. 17 (1) p. .
Human Resource management 4 th ed.
Torrington
, Hall
. Europe1998. Prentice Hall.
Conflict management within a local government environment,
W Havenga
. 2002. Potchefstroom University