Refined understanding ofperspectives on

employee-organizationrelationships

Themes and variations

Lan NiSchool of Communication, University of Houston, Houston, Texas, USA

Abstract

Purpose – This paper aims to explore the perceptions of organizational members aboutemployee-organization relationships (EOR) under the globalization context.

Design/methodology/approach – The study used 58 qualitative interviews with both managersand employees in multinational and domestic companies in China.

Findings – First, the unique features of employee publics determined the nature of EOR (why andhow an EOR was established) and EOR was a multi-level (interpersonal and organizational) andmulti-dimensional (job and task related vs human and benefits oriented) concept for mostorganizational members. Second, the outcomes of EOR, especially trust, control mutuality, andcommitment were also determined by the multi-dimensional nature of EOR. Finally, the influencingfactors on EOR can be classified into three levels: individual (such as types of employees, styles of topmanagement), organizational (such as developmental stages and types of organizations), andmacro-environmental (such as the overall employment prospect).

Originality/value – This study contributes to relationship management theory by refining differentdimensions of EOR in different types of organizations. It improves the understanding about employeerelations and suggests useful and unique relationship cultivation strategies for EOR.

Keywords Organizations, China, Intergroup relations, Multinational companies

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionRecognized as an important area in public relations, employee relations has beenconsidered as the foundation in any organization that helps to achieve positiverelations with external publics (Cutlip et al., 2005). Employees play a central role in anyorganization, such as delivering better customer service and affecting public opinionpositively when interacting with external publics (Therkelsen and Fiebich, 2003).

Despite its importance, employee relations has been sometimes limited to thetop-down communication from management to employees. Such one-way andsender-oriented communication has caused many employees to be intensely critical ofmanagement’s unwillingness to listen (Seitel, 2006). A lack of mutual agreement or thetrust gap between management and rank-and-file employees may bring aboutdeteriorating relationships between organizations and their employee, especially in theglobalization context.

With the growing trend in globalization, many companies are expanding intoforeign markets. Among the different publics for a multinational organization, local

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1363-254X.htm

Employee-organizationrelationships

53

Journal of CommunicationManagement

Vol. 11 No. 1, 2007pp. 53-70

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited1363-254X

DOI 10.1108/13632540710725987

employees are an especially important group. In discussing problems facingmultinational entities, Maddox (1993) identified that there are multiple regulatoryareas governing products, language, employees, taxation, and could be confusing.Among these concerns, the multicultural employee forces with divergent perceptionsabout work-related issues would create additional problems in internalcommunication. For example, the diversity in employee publics make organizationalfunction more challenging because the members find it difficult to reach agreement(Adler, 2002). In spite of such challenge from employees in multinationals, employeesare often completely ignored as one type of public in an organization (Hung, 2002).This oversight should be a big concern. Therefore, the purpose of this study is toexplore the actual perceptions of organizational members about employee relationsunder the globalization context.

The current relationship management research has yielded a generic theoreticalframework on measuring the relationships between an organization and its publics thatapplies to all publics (Grunig and Huang, 2000). This study attempts to differentiateemployee-organization relationships (EOR) from other organization-publicrelationships (OPR) in general and explores how the unique features of employeepublics influence the perceptions of organizational members (both managers andemployees) about EOR. This paper does not aim at doing an EOR audit fororganizational members. Rather, it attempts to use an emic approach to understand howorganizational members define EOR (what EOR means to them), what they care mostabout EOR, what they believe EOR contains or should contain. In this way, scholars andpractitioners alike can have a better understanding about EOR and how EOR can beimproved by integrating the employees’ own perceptions.

ConceptualizationThe purpose of this study is to explore how organizational members at different levelsperceived the development of EOR in the global environment. The theoreticalframework consists of three parts. The first part provides an overview of the currentrelationship management research with a focus on the quality of relationship andrelationships types. The second section discusses the unique features of employeepublics. The third part identifies the different aspects in employee relations such asinternal communication and some specific dimensions of EOR.

Relationship management researchThe relationship management research provided a framework for measuring the OPR.This includes both the quality of relationships and types of relationships, which arediscussed below.

Quality of relationships. Trust, control mutuality, relational satisfaction, andrelational commitment have been used extensively by scholars to evaluate the qualityof an organization’s relationships with its publics. This study aims to find out howorganizational members define these terms:

. Trust. Trust is a widely discussed concept. Applied to OPR, Hung (2002)provided a comprehensive review of this dimension. In general, trust means one’sconfidence in the other party and the willingness of one to open himself or herselfto the other party. She also discussed five common dimensions in trust.Dependability refers to the consistency in one’s words and behaviors; faith is the

JCOM11,1

54

confidence one party has in another to face an unknown future; competencerefers to the ability one party has to capably perform his or her duties andobligations; benevolence refers to the desire to do good to the other party, but notfor one’s own interest; and integrity relates to parties’ sense of justice andwhether the parties’ behaviors are consistent with their words.

. Control mutuality. This dimension refers to the “degree to which partners agreeabout which of them should decide relationships goals and behavioral routines”(Stafford and Canary, 1991, p. 224). Acknowledging the existence of powerimbalance, Stafford and Canary suggested further that each party can agree thateither one or both will be able to influence the decision-making process. In otherwords, there should be joint acceptance of degrees of symmetry. The norm ofreciprocity may produce a quality relationship even if power is unequal (Gruniget al., 1992). Control mutuality is critical to interdependence and relationalstability.

. Relational satisfaction. This aspect is the degree to which both the organizationand publics are satisfied with their relationships. Stafford and Canary looked atthis dimension from a social exchange theory perspective, where a satisfyingrelationship is one in which “the distribution of rewards is equitable and therelational rewards outweigh cost” (Stafford and Canary, 1991, p. 225).

. Relational commitment. This dimension refers to an enduring desire to maintaina relationship because it is valued (Moorman et al., 1992). Meyer and Allen (1984)pointed out two aspects in this dimension: continuance commitment, whichmeans the commitment to continue a certain line of action, and affectivecommitment, which is “the affective or emotional orientation to an entity”(Grunig and Huang, 2000, p. 46).

Types of relationships. Earlier research (e.g. Clark and Mills, 1993) identified andsupported two basic types of relationships. In an exchange relationship, each partygives benefits only because the other has provided benefits in the past or is expected todo so in the future. In a communal relationship, however, both parties provide benefitsbecause they are concerned for the welfare of the other – even when they get nothing inreturn.

Hung (2005) found three additional types of relationships identified in previousliterature. Covenantal relationships are those in which both sides commit to a commongood by their open exchanges and the norm of reciprocity. Contractual relationshipsstart when parties agree on what each should do in the relationships. Theserelationships cannot guarantee equal relationships because of power imbalance.Exploitive relationships mean that one party takes advantage of the other when theother follows communal norms or that one does not fulfill his/her obligation in anexchange relationship. In her qualitative study, Hung also identified two new types ofrelationships. Manipulative relationships usually occur in media relations whenorganizations use media relations to achieve their goals. Symbiotic relationships meanthat different parties depend on each other for their survival or goal achievement.

Uniqueness of employee publicsAs mentioned in the introduction, the current relationship management framework isgeneric that applies to all publics (Grunig and Huang, 2000). This study attempts to

Employee-organizationrelationships

55

differentiate EOR from other OPR and explores how the unique features of employeepublics influence the perceptions of organizational members (both managers andemployees) about EOR.

Banks (1995) pointed out the necessity of distinguishing between internal publicsand external publics. This is because employees belong to a unique group for anyorganization. Such uniqueness is demonstrated in the following three aspects: entryinto an EOR, the formation of employee publics, and the degree of organizationalidentification.

Entry into an EOR. The entry of employees into a relationship with an organizationis different from relationships other publics have with an organization. First andforemost, employees enter any relationship with an organization for one fundamentalreason, to get paid. Such inherent economic dependence upon the organization thusbecomes an important feature that differentiated employees from any other publics. Ofcourse, such economic factor alone cannot build employee identification (Scott, 2001).Other factors include the need to belong, or a need to “form and maintain at least aminimum quantity of interpersonal relationships” (Baumeister and Leary, 1995, p. 499),and the motivation to search for meaning, connectedness, and empowerment (Ashforthand Mael, 1989).

Second, the establishment of any EOR requires some sort of formal contract that hasbinding power on both the organization and the employees. In this contract, bothparties specify the rights and responsibilities of each other. However, such contractmay not be absolutely fair because of the differences in the bargaining power of bothparties.

Formation of employee publics. The formation of employee publics can be differentfrom other publics in that “internal publics can be created” (Grunig and Hunt, 1984,p. 255) whereas most other external publics arise on their own when facing differentproblems and thus are usually out of the control of the management. The threeindependent variables in the situational theory of publics (Grunig, 1997), problemrecognition, constraint recognition, and level of involvement, for example, can bechanged inside the organization. Employees tend to work at different tasks, thus theyface different problems. Employees usually have different degrees of autonomy, thusthey face different constraints. They are placed in different places of the hierarchy, andthus have different levels of involvement.

For these reasons, management can actually work to change the tasks, degree ofconstraints, and involvement in order to create different kinds of employee publics.This is something that usually cannot be done with external publics. For this reason, itis logical to assume that for employees in different positions of employmentrelationships, their perceptions of EOR will be different.

Degree of organizational identification. Employees, as they stay in an organization,usually establish some degree of organizational identification and should be morelikely to feel somewhat attached to the organization. Organizational identificationrefers to “the degree to which a member defines himself or herself by the sameattributes that he or she believes defines the organization” (Morgan et al., 2004, p. 365).Organizations usually make use of socialization process, through the initialrecruitment, orientation, training, and the day-to-day interaction, to reinforce theconcept that employees are a part of the organization.

JCOM11,1

56

However, such identification can range from very weak to very strong. In fact,many employees may not identify with their organizations at all (Banks, 1995).Some employees, especially professionals, tend to identify with and have a primaryallegiance to their occupation or social unit outside the place of employment.Thus, these employees may not always want to stay with one particular employer.These factors may also influence the perceptions on EOR.

Internal communication and EORWhen cultivating EOR, internal communication is an important channel. Severalelements in internal communication system may influence how EOR is cultivated.First of all, when conducting internal communication, authority hierarchy is inevitable.Organizations may vary in the rigidity of organizational structure, but some kind ofstructure still exists. This, to some extent, will affect how control mutuality is perceived.

Second, organizational communication literature has typically included eight majortraditions when examining internal communication:

(1) communication channels;

(2) communication climate;

(3) network analysis;

(4) superior-subordinate communication;

(5) the information-processing perspective;

(6) the rhetorical perspective

(7) the cultural perspective; and

(8) the political perspective (Putnam and Cheney, 1985).

The first four traditions take a human relations approach and involve simple measuresof communication as information flows, perceptions of climate, or relationships. And thelast four traditions are more interpretive and humanistic. Grunig (1992) identified theimportance of symmetry in most of these traditions in organizational communication.Thus, symmetry of communication could be used to integrate the research produced bythese tradition and two basic types of internal communication system were suggested(Grunig et al., 2002): symmetrical and asymmetrical. Symmetrical communicationincorporates such key concepts of trust, openness, feedback, and is employee-centered;whereas asymmetrical communication is generally one-way, top-down, and tries tocontrol the employees according to the needs of the management.

Third, in terms of internal communication channels, employees may have differentpreferences. Numerous studies have consistently suggested the importance ofinterpersonal communication. For example, interpersonal communication was both aproduct and a facilitator of communication between management and employees(Cameron and McCollum, 1993). Organizations with meaningful interpersonalcommunication may achieve a better shared definition of the organization and hencea better communication environment.

The quality of leader-member exchanges (LMXs) also may affect perceptions ofdistributive and procedural organizational justice and, in turn, the cooperativecommunication in the work group (Lee, 2001). Such face-to-face communication,especially with supervisors, cannot be replaced by communication through other channels.

Employee-organizationrelationships

57

In fact, the supervisor was regarded as the linchpin of employee relations becauseemployees focus more on their immediate work environment than on the “abstraction of theenterprise as a whole” (Therkelsen and Fiebich, 2003, p. 123). Such work environmentinvolves the work unit, immediate colleagues, and team leader.

Fourth, among the four relationship indicators, satisfaction seems to have receivedthe most attention in literature and has been used as the major measure for effectiveemployee relations. Two types of satisfaction were identified (Grunig, 1992):satisfaction with an individual’s job and satisfaction with the overall organization.The latter is a better indicator of the effect of communication system on theorganization. In addition, organizational structure and communication system interactto produce employee satisfaction.

Research questionsTherefore, this study aims to answer the following research questions:

RQ1. What does EOR mean for organizational members?

RQ2. How are the outcomes of EOR perceived?

RQ3. What are the major factors influencing the perceptions of EOR?

MethodQualitative interviewing was the methodology selected for this study because itsstrength could be used to address my research questions. Qualitative research involves“an interpretive, naturalistic approach to its subject matter” (Denzin and Lincoln, 1998,p. 3). The current study was exploratory in nature and attempted to examine realityholistically to understand people’s own frames of reference.

Data collectionTo obtain comprehensive viewpoints, this study examined research questions from theperspectives of public relations managers and employees in China. China provides a goodresearch scene for exploring perceptions of employee relations in the global environment.China is now the world’s largest emerging economy and fastest-growing market. Inparticular, China’s open-market reform and rapid economic growth have attractedtremendous investment by multinational companies. The country accounts for about 20percent of total foreign direct investment (FDI) absorption worldwide, and foreigninvestors have invested more than $100 billion in China since early 1990s (Luo, 2002). Thegeographical focus for the foreign investment was the Yangtze River delta (Shanghai,Jiangsu, and Zhejiang provinces) and the Pearl River Delta (Guangdong and Fujianprovinces). These regions represent 61 percent of the total value of FDI nationwide.

In total, I conducted 58 interviews from 22 different organizations (19 multinationalcompanies and three domestic ones). The selection of organizations was based onnonprobability sampling, because in qualitative research, “only rarely are samplesof participants created by random procedures” (Locke et al., 2000, p. 100). The participantswere located from the following sources: 2004 Fortune 500 companies with branchesin China, a comprehensive list of foreign enterprises in China from the Ministry ofCommerce, and personal connections.

Interviews were conducted with both public relations managers and generalemployees in most of these organizations (14 organizations) and I was able to obtain

JCOM11,1

58

paired input. These organizations provided me with 17 interviews with managers(average of 1.2 per organization) and 33 with employees (average of 2.3 per organization).However, due to constraints in access, in another eight organizations, either managers(five) or employees (three) were interviewed, but no paired participation was available.Interviews lasted from 45 to 90 minute on average.

Data analysisI transcribed all interview audiotapes and translated them into English. I followedMiles and Huberman’s (1994) framework for data analysis by:

. reducing raw data through summaries, coding, themes, and memos;

. displaying them in compressed formats by creating tables to sort comments intocategories; and

. interpreting the displayed data.

Results

RQ1. What does EOR mean for organizational members?

When asked what they thought about the relationships they had with their employingorganizations, participants provided responses that were organized around three majorthemes: nature of EOR, levels of EOR, and dimensions of EOR. All these themes werefound to be closely related to the existing literature on the types of relationships.

Nature of EORWhen it came to the nature of EOR, all participants mentioned the fundamentalreasons why employees entered relationships with an organization and how suchrelationships were established. Exchange and contractual relationships identified inthe literature were the most often mentioned.

Why an EOR? Exchange as the foundation. Almost all employees pointed out thatmost of the time, EOR, like most other relationships, involved exchange relationshipsdefined in the literature on relationship types. In other words, both parties in EOR givebenefits only because the other has provided benefits in the past or is expected to do soin the future. The only difference would be the actual things that were exchanged,whether tangible materials (such as pay and resources) or intangible emotions (such asemotional support and sense of belonging or pride). Therefore, in essence, theyclassified all current relationship types under exchange in one way or another.Employees gave different accounts about such an exchange.

Pay was usually the first thing employees mentioned about what they got out of therelationship with their companies. Several participants laughed at this question and saidimmediately that of course they got money. In addition to pay, employees also gotexperience and career opportunities. In return, the companies got their labor, skills,revenue, and growth. From the employees’ perspective, most things that the companiesdid were done for a purpose. For example, when talking about training or furthereducation opportunities, many employees expressed the idea that they were happyabout what the companies were doing; but, at the same time, they recognized that thebasic purpose of the companies was to use their newly-acquired skills for further service.

It was interesting to note that as long as employees felt what they got and what theypaid for were relatively equal, or the exchange was somewhat fair, they would still feel

Employee-organizationrelationships

59

they have gained something. For example, many employees in the US technologycompany considered the EOR as an exchange. One employee with a one-year tenuredescribed this relationship:

I think [company name] is a very practical company. When it hires you, it wants you to workfor it. It’s not like other companies which, after hiring some new employees, they will have akind of learning process. Here, right after you come, you should be able to work right away[Interview conducted on March 26, 2005].

However, given this almost naked exchange relationship, he still felt the relationshipwas valuable because he received much career guidance and training. As a result ofthis relationship, he felt confident that he would be more competitive for any futurejobs. This was echoed by almost all of his colleagues who felt strongly that theylearned how to use resources effectively.

How was an EOR established? Contract as the format. Because of the nature ofemployee publics, a contractual relationship was the most common type. Interestingly,employees were usually the ones talking about this type of relationship. Many employees,when first asked about the types of relationships they had with the companies, mentioned“just an employment relationship” or “a pure relationship of labor vs pay.” Manyparticipants jokingly used the word “labor seller” to call themselves. These reflected thecontractual nature of stipulating what each party in EOR gets and pays.

A most vivid description of this widespread mentality came from one employee whohad been only working for four months in the UK insurance company. He used aphrase such as “settling accounts” and described it in the following way:

You owe me nothing, I owe you nothing. I work here for one day, I get one day’s pay. If youowe each other something, then you use the contract to formalize it. Otherwise, the account isnot cleared [Interview conducted on March 15, 2005].

Simply put, he felt that he would act in a professional way and complete all tasks thatwere asked of him. However, he did not want to have any emotional attachment to thecompany, or engage in anything beyond the contract.

Organizations’ perspectives. When public relations managers described the types ofrelationships the organizations had with employees, they tended not to make sweepingconclusions. Rather, they usually indicated that the relationships depended on whatkind of employees they were talking about. A general theme across differentorganizations was that usually EOR with low-level employees involved exchange orwas strictly contractual whereas that with high-level people or core organizationalmembers would be mutual communal or covenantal. One manager in the Koreanbusiness group, for example, commented that because the company could not satisfyeach individual, it had to focus more on the majority or only the core members.Naturally, the core members made greater contributions to the company, got moreattention, and had their concerns more easily addressed. As a result, they wouldnormally feel a stronger sense of belonging than the non-core members. More detailsabout this feature are discussed in RQ3, the influencing factors on EOR.

Levels of EORWhen asked to define EOR, most participants also mentioned that it did not just referto a single thing. Rather, their perceptions of EOR usually involved two levels,interpersonal and organizational. In fact, most participants perceived a distinction

JCOM11,1

60

between their interpersonal relationships with colleagues or superiors and therelationships with the so-called organizations. And these two levels may be different ormay complement each other. For example, one employee in the consulting companysaid frankly that he had developed good communal relationship with colleagues butthat his relationship with the organization itself was still mostly exchange.

Dimensions of EORMost discussion about EOR also entailed two major dimensions in the organizationalsetting, which can be termed as:

(1) the technical or job related aspect, or how employees perceived themselves asworkers; and

(2) the interactional or personal aspect, or how employees perceived themselves asindividual human beings.

Many participants commented that how they felt toward the business itself or theirtasks was not necessarily the same with what they felt toward the organization.

Most often, the relationship with the work achievement turned out to be covenantal.For example, one employee in an innovation group in the Korean business group saidshe had contributed a lot to the company’s growth and left many “footprints” there.In a way, she felt like “a teacher helping children grow [Interview conducted on March,29, 2005].” They achieved mutual growth. Another person from the US soft drinkcompany gave a similar comparison of “a mother feeding a baby.” He recalled thatwhen they first developed the business, conditions were terrible and he had to walk alot. He proudly mentioned that he had “worn out a pair of leather shoes within less thanthree months [Interview conducted on March, 30, 2005].” Therefore, for him, emotionalattachment did exist, especially for those business regions that he had worked so hardfor. He said:

For some regions where I have worked very hard, I don’t want my successor to mess them up.Yes, it’s true that I have worked, the company has paid me, it’s clear. But emotionally, I stillfeel I’m attached to those regions that I have worked so hard for [Interview conducted onMarch, 30, 2005].

RQ2. How are the outcomes of EOR perceived?

For this question, one general theme was that the outcomes of EOR were alsoindicative of the multi-level and multi-dimensional nature of EOR identified in RQ1.The four indicators of relationship quality identified in the literature were furtherextended by the participants’ responses. Most saliently, trust involved two levels, andcontrol mutuality entailed two dimensions. The two dimensions in commitmentidentified in the literature were supported, and satisfaction was connected to theexchange nature of EOR.

Two levels of trustFollowing the two levels identified in the responses to RQ1, many participantsdistinguished between trust toward their immediate supervisors and trust toward theorganization. Sometimes, they said, the supervisors were trustworthy in fulfillingpromises and being fair to subordinates whereas the organization failed to do that as

Employee-organizationrelationships

61

a whole. But at other times, participants talked about the organization having fairpolicies whereas their supervisors failed to act in a trustworthy manner. For example,one employee in the Korean business group commented, “The company may have veryclear goals and always follows the plans. However, the individual department headsmay change things [Interview conducted on March, 29, 2005].”

Control mutuality involving two dimensionsControl mutuality was found to be in need of further clarification for EOR, especially interms of the two dimensions: job vs human. When asked about whether theorganization was attentive to what the employees said or whether the organizationactually took the employees’ interests into account in its decisions and behaviors, mostparticipants did not give a clear-cut answer because in reality, this depended on manydifferent factors. Participants identified some factors such as their tenure in theorganization and the style of their immediate bosses. In addition, the nature of issuesinvolved turned out to be the most important factor.

Across different organizations, a clear distinction appeared between controlmutuality regarding work or job-related tasks and that regarding personal issues suchas benefits, pay, and promotion. The former was found to be higher than the latter inmost cases. First of all, for those companies with heavy reliance on the intellectualemployees, employees did have much power in terms of how to get jobs done. In fact,some employees felt that this was the only area where they could have some influence.For example, two employees in different companies both mentioned the concept of“people business” and suggested that the company was all about people. Whenproblems at work occurred, the organizations were usually respectful of their opinions.Thus, employees felt they had much say in the work process.

However, many employees mentioned that they did not feel their voices were heardin issues such as pay raise, promotion, or other benefits. One employee with a 3-yeartenure in the consulting company gave the example of promotion policy and howemployees felt unfairly treated:

Sometimes the policies regarding promotion are changed randomly. Then this may lead to theunfairness in the promotion from [one level] to [a higher level] . . . I know that [the people atthe first level] used to protest as a group . . . [Interview conducted on March 15, 2005]

Continuance vs affective commitmentThe study found that a distinction between continuance and affective commitment wasessential for EOR. Even though Grunig and Huang (2000) suggested incorporatingboth commitments in public relations programs, in the case of EOR, more emphasisshould be placed on affective commitment. The nature of employee publics suggestedthat employees did not consider EOR as the single factor in their decisions to stay or toleave a certain organization. For example, some employees interviewed wereunsatisfied with their EOR but still chose to stay because they had to make a living.On the other hand, some employees might be very happy about the EOR but still havedecided to leave because of personal or family reasons. Therefore, judging commitmentsimply from whether employees stay in a certain organization may not revealmeaningful findings.

In addition, employees may still feel proud or support one organization evenafter they have left for a new organization. For example, the employee in the soft

JCOM11,1

62

drink company mentioned that he knew many former colleagues who had left stillwere attached to this company. They kept the habit of consuming soft drinks onlyfrom the original company and never from its competitors.

Remarks such as using the company as “a stepping stone” or “a springboard”appeared often. For example, many employees said frankly that they would look forbetter personal development when there were chances. One employee with a 2-yeartenure in the Korean business group described this and regarded it as a win-winsituation, even though it was exchange:

When your ability has reached a certain level, or when you face a bottleneck, there is nofurther room for upward development . . . But for your own personal development . . . youdefinitely want to have some breakthrough [Interview conducted on March, 29, 2005].

Satisfaction: getting back to exchangeThe evaluation of satisfaction reflected the exchange nature of EOR. Generally,organizational members weighed the costs and benefits from the EOR in determiningwhether they were satisfied or not. When asked whether they thought employees weresatisfied with the current EOR, managers used indicators such as “turnover not high”or “employee teams relatively stable” to support their evaluations.

On the other hand, employees had a clearer idea of costs and benefits. Most peoplewere most satisfied with the opportunities to learn skills and accumulate experiencesuseful in their career. Also they were able to analyze what they were paid and whatthey got, as well as their strengths and weaknesses. Many people took into accounttheir compensation and the stress at work or the work load. If these two weresomewhat balanced, they felt OK. Demonstrating well what many had in mind, oneemployee in the German electronics company, who was not a “core” employee, madethis comment when asked about the satisfaction level with current EOR:

I feel it’s OK based on the comparison with other companies. In addition, my own abilities, orthe adjustment to society. Like if I choose to leave, whether I can find a better job. I feel thatgenerally my value has been realized, as a whole, it’s OK [Interview conducted on April 11,2005].

RQ3. What are the major factors influencing the perceptions of EOR?

The interview findings revealed many factors that influenced how EOR wasperceived. These factors can be organized at different levels, from individual,organizational, to macro-environmental level.

Individual level factorsCategories of employees. What category of employees one belongs to was found to bethe most salient factor that influenced EOR. Most companies had a clear distinctionbetween core and non-core employees, or those employees whose work is essential tothe company’s operations and those whose work is not as essential. A typical commentcame from an employee relations manager in the Korean business group:

For our company, we emphasize core talents. For these people, the pay, promotion, training,we will concentrate our efforts. And we also want these core talents to work for the companyfor a long time. So we will make investments. For non-core people, the company will also give

Employee-organizationrelationships

63

training, but the attention is much less . . . So the company has a very clear distinctionbetween core talents, ordinary employees, and peripheral positions [Interview conducted onMarch 22, 2005].

Related to this, the consideration of work achievement also played a role. Employeeswho perceived that they have significant work achievement considered EOR morepositively than those who do not. Several commented that the perception of EOR mightbe totally different between themselves and other employees. For example, oneemployee in the consulting company mentioned the feeling of growing together withthe company and treating the organizational goal as her own mission and aspiration.This clearly indicated a covenantal relationship. Another employee in the Germanelectronics company expressed a similar idea but then quickly pointed out thatalthough he himself felt good in this relationship, it might not be the same for others.

Some employees also identified other factors that contributed to such differences inperceptions. For example, one mentioned that more opportunities existed for thoseemployees closer to the general manager than others. And the different natures ofdifferent departments might also play a role. The employees in a quality controldepartment in one domestic company felt they were isolated and away from other partsof the company. Thus, they did not feel much connection to the company as a whole.

Influence of top management. Top management, especially their preferences andmanagement styles had a significant influence on the perceptions of EOR. The mostinteresting example about such influence came from the German electronics company.The participants (both managers and employees) said they seemed to have worked inthree different companies in the recent years. This happened because they had threegeneral managers sent from Germany that had totally different styles. As a result, therelationships with the organization changed drastically. The first manager had atechnical background and did not do much management. The second manager wasdemocratic and created a good environment. The relationship was more towardcovenantal. However, the third manager had a generally distrusting attitude towardemployees. One vivid example came from one employee with a 7-year tenure:

When the old general manager was here, when someone was working overtime, then eventhough he couldn’t communicate with them in Chinese, he would do things like buyingsomething for them to eat. But this manager [the third one], if you are working overtime, hewould come and see whether you are indeed working. So it’s so different. One is like family,the other is not [Interview conducted on April 11, 2005].

As a result, the current EOR was more like a contractual or exchange relationship.Employees felt restrained and not acknowledged.

Organizational level factorsDevelopmental stages of organizations. Changes in the developmental stages oforganizations brought about changes in overall organizational goals and in turn changesin EOR. For example, a recurring theme in this study was a comparison between the entrystage and the growth stage of organizations. When organization changed strategic focusesfrom gaining presence in a market to making profit, they changed their relationshipcultivation strategies too. For example, one employee in the consulting company said:

For one period of time, it [the company] does not aim to make profit, but to establish thenetwork locally and its brand name. During this period of time, the benefits provided to

JCOM11,1

64

employees and the communication between employees and the company are pretty good,because at this time, it wants to retain the good people. But more multinational companiescome to China not only for the brand name, but also to make profits . . . For example, going tothe US for training used to be something common, but now it’s getting cut [Interviewconducted on March 16, 2005].

Organizational types. The different organizational types also played a role. Participantsfrom multinational companies talked more about how the practices in EOR wereinfluenced by the practices of their competitors, thus the impact of institutionalizationwas essential. For example, for some participants with work experiences inmultinational companies only, they were familiar with most of the relationshipcultivation methods. Therefore, they did not feel that any strategies were especiallynoteworthy. This lessened the motivation effect of EOR, but served more of amaintenance function.

On the other hand, participants from domestic companies perceived EOR as moreclosely related to the managers’ inclination and that a consideration of local employees’concerns was essential. The second feature was best demonstrated by a comparisonwith multinational companies. According to the participants, MNCs would definitelyfollow legal requirements in terms of providing housing benefits and health insurance.However, they would not do anything beyond that.

As a comparison, the two domestic companies (or SOEs) took care of many moretasks. These included building apartments for employees, taking care of the schoolingof employees’ children, assisting the employment of employees’ children, and evenother miscellaneous tasks such as fixing a leaking roof for employees. The thingsdescribed above might not be directly relevant to a company, but the companies stilldid them. One public relations manager in the domestic meteorological productscompany commented on helping the employee’s children enter better schools:

This is really human-based. We have tried to address their major concerns. You know, whatdo workers expect? Except for benefits, pay, they are mainly concerned about their children,offspring . . . Actually this is none of the company’s business. This is totally a personalproblem [italics added] . . . However, we pay attention to this [Interview conducted on March21, 2005].

Macro-environmental factorsOne of the most salient macro-environmental factors on the perceptions of EOR wasthe overall employment prospect. Given the macro environment in which employmentprospects were not positive, many employees stayed in one company not necessarilybecause of commitment but to avoid being unemployed.

In addition, as many employees mentioned, such environmental factor also ledmany organizations to worry less about not getting enough employees because thesupply of general employees was much greater than the demand. However, at the sametime, these organizations were also sincere in attracting and retaining outstandingtalents.

Earlier in RQ2, I discussed how employees evaluated satisfaction with EOR.Such evaluation was to some extent influenced by such employment prospect too.Many employees expressed doubt about finding a better alternative, and as a result,they tended to feel satisfied when making comparisons to other people.

Employee-organizationrelationships

65

Discussion and conclusionsIn conclusion, this study helped refine the understanding of different dimensions ofEOR. The following elements in EOR are worth discussing and offer importantimplications to both theory and practices in EOR.

Refining the concept of employee-organization relationshipsThis study explicated special features of relationships between employees andorganizations. The findings helped refine our understanding of the types and theconcept of relationships as applied to employees.

Basic types. Exchange and contractual relationships turned out to be the mostsalient types when it came to EOR. This is consistent with the literature on the specialnature of employee publics, which determined the reasons for their entry into and themeans of establishing EOR.

Consistently, the findings suggested the importance of having fair exchange inEOR. This not only forms the foundation for any positive EOR, but also determines toa great extent employees satisfaction with the relationships.

Enriched understanding of EOR. Rather than being a single-layered construct,EOR involved multiple levels and dimensions. As the results illustrated, organizationalmembers perceived EOR at both interpersonal and organizational levels.The relationships with colleagues/superiors and those with the organizations mightnot be the same but work together to form the overall relationship experiences.

At the same time, the distinction between the job and human dimensions of EORindicated that employees’ perceptions of work achievements might contribute to howthey perceive EOR as a whole. As most participants (both managers and employees)recognized, the relationships employees had with an organization usually had to dowith how involved the employees were in the organization. The more responsibilitiesemployees had, the more work achievement they had gained, the more likely theywould treat themselves as a part of the organizations, and thus the more likelythey would have communal or covenantal relationships.

The enriched understanding of EOR had implications for employee relations.Theoretical advances in relationship research can be made when scholars start to comeup with more comprehensive measures of the construct of relationships that wasspecific to employee publics. Practically speaking, it suggested the possibility of morerelationship cultivation strategies. First, good interpersonal relationships withcolleagues and superiors might contribute to good EOR as a whole. This supportedthe importance of group communication in organizations (Lee, 2001). Second, Rhee(2004) suggested looking into the perceptions of people when they were activelyinvolved in organizational issues. The two dimensions in EOR suggested in this studyalso indicated that making employees assume more responsibilities and letting themdevelop an emotional attachment for what they have achieved within the organizationmight be a good cultivation strategy for EOR. It could enhance the communal orcovenantal relationship.

Refining the evaluation of employee-organization relationshipsAs a result of multi-level and multi-dimensional nature of EOR, the evaluationof outcomes of relationships also reveals some special features for employeepublics. Specifically, trust involved two levels: trust toward supervisors and trust

JCOM11,1

66

toward the organization. Control mutuality turned out to be very different dependingon whether the issues at hand were related to the job or personal issues such asbenefits. As much literature suggested, satisfaction also was found to contain twolevels: satisfaction toward the job and satisfaction toward the organization. Thesefindings made it imperative for scholars and practitioners alike to look deeper intowhat constituted these outcome indicators of relationships. One most interestingfinding about EOR outcomes is about commitment, which is discussed below.

Organizational identity and commitment. Although the distinction between affectiveand continuance commitment has not received much attention in previous studies onrelationship management, the current study revealed that such distinction wasessential in our understanding of employee publics and their relationships withorganizations. The fact that some employees were willing to leave their organizations(lack of continuance commitment) does not necessarily indicate that they were notemotionally attached to the organizations (demonstration of affective commitment).

As I discussed in the section on exchange relationships, employees emphasized theircareer development. In a word, employees did not feel a strong continuancecommitment to the employers and would just treat it as a short-term stay for themto accumulate necessary skills and experiences before they could gain momentum intheir career.

It is necessary to look into some deeper reasons for demonstration of commitment.The cosmopolitan-local role orientations (Gouldner, 1957) may be a useful notion tointroduce here. This continuum has been influencing many scholars examining thetopic of organizational commitment. Briefly stated, the “cosmopolitan” refers to thoseindividuals that were “low on loyalty to the employing organization, high oncommitment to specialized role skill, and likely to use an outer reference grouporientation” and the “local” refers to those who were “high on loyalty to the employingorganization, low on commitment to specialized role skills, and likely to use an innerreference group orientation” (Gouldner, 1957, p. 290).

Therefore, it was not surprising that some employees did not always want tomaintain a long-term relationship with a particular employing organization. Thementality of “stepping stone” and the sometimes lack of continuance commitment maybe explained by some employees being more cosmopolitan oriented. It is thusimportant for employee relations practitioners to understand the organizationalidentification and role orientations of employees.

Influencing factors on EORThis study classified the influencing factors on EOR into three levels: individual,organizational, and macro-environmental. The classification of all these influencingfactors contributed to the understanding of EOR as a special type of relationship andsuggested the following for practitioners.

Individual level. Among these factors, the categories of employee publics at theindividual level seemed to be the most salient factor. The theme of distinction betweencore and non-core employees appeared constantly throughout different types ofcompanies. This indicated that employees belong to a special type of publics for anyorganization. An organization has relationships with employees mainly because theycan contribute to the organization’s growth. Just as several employees commented,their relationship with the organization eventually boiled down to that of employment.

Employee-organizationrelationships

67

While core members of an organization may be more likely to feel emotionalattachment and have covenantal relationships with an organization, the non-coremembers usually used the ratio of their work vs their pay to evaluate their EOR. It isinteresting, then, to ask whether it is possible or desirable for organizations to cultivatethe same type of relationships with all employees. The challenge for public relationspractitioners is often that even if it may not be realistic to pay an equal attention toeach employee, they should have a clear understanding of the formation of differentemployee publics and consequently their different demands and expectations out ofa relationship.

Organizational level. The changes in organizations’ developmental stages bringabout different problems and priorities. Public relations practitioners thus need to facethe challenge of reconciling the overall organizational goals with the expectations ofinternal publics. At the same time, the finding about different organizational typessuggested the influence of institutionalization of relationship development, or in otherwords, how a company’s relationship development is influenced by what it perceives tobe the prevalence of certain practices in other companies.

Additional factor. This paper did not start out attempting to collect data oncomparing the situations in China and those in other more developed countries.Therefore, it might be premature to offer any comparative analysis at this point.However, it is still interesting to note that the level of economic development mighthave played an important role in how organizational members perceive EOR. While theemployees from developing countries might be willing to accept EOR that involvedmore or less equal exchange, those from developed countries would probably be moredemanding about their career opportunities and other conditions. This would bea useful direction for future research.

Conclusions, limitations, and directions for future researchThis study coorientationally examined the perspectives from both parties in the sameset of relationship (EOR). This overcame the limitations of only studyingorganizations’ perspectives pointed out in previous research (e.g. Hung, 2002). Inaddition, within each organization, the interviews with people of different positionsprovided detailed contexts for relationship management.

One limitation was about the participants. Because of restraints in access, I was notable to find many high-level foreign managers. Most of the manager-level participantsI got access to were Chinese. This may have influenced my findings. For example, Iwas not able to make any meaningful comparison between expatriates and natives inthe organizations, which should be an interesting direction for future research.In addition, I was not able to get access to any assembly-line workers, who were at thebottom level of organizations and would probably talk about things different fromemployees working as office staff.

References

Adler, N.J. (2002), International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior, 4th ed., South-WesternThompson Learning, Cincinnati, OH.

Ashforth, B.E. and Mael, F.A. (1989), “Social identity theory and the organization”, Academy ofManagement Review, Vol. 14, pp. 20-39.

JCOM11,1

68

Banks, S.P. (1995), Multicultural Public Relations: A Social-Interpretive Approach, Sage,Thousand Oaks, CA.

Baumeister, R.F. and Leary, M.R. (1995), “The need to belong: desire for interpersonalattachments as a fundamental human motivation”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 117,pp. 497-529.

Cameron, G.T. and McCollum, T. (1993), “Competing corporate cultures: a multi-method, culturalanalysis of the role of internal communication”, Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol. 5,pp. 217-50.

Clark, M.S. and Mills, J. (1993), “The difference between communal and exchange relationships:what it is and is not”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 19, pp. 684-91.

Cutlip, S.M., Center, A.H. and Groom, G.M. (2005), Effective Public Relations, 9th ed.,Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (1998), “Entering the field of qualitative research”, in Denzin, N.K.and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds), The Landscape of Qualitative Research: Theories and Issues, Sage,Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 1-34.

Gouldner, A.W. (1957), “Cosmopolitans and locals: toward an analysis of latent social roles – I”,Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 2, pp. 281-306.

Grunig, J.E. (1992), “Symmetrical system of internal communication”, in Grunig, J.E. (Ed.),Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management, Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 531-76.

Grunig, J.E. (1997), “A situational theory of publics: conceptual history, recent challenges andnew research”, in Moss, D., MacManus, T. and Vercic, D. (Eds), Public Relations Research:An International Perspective, International Thomson Business Press, London, pp. 3-48.

Grunig, J.E. and Huang, Y.H. (2000), “From organizational effectiveness to relationship indicators:antecedents of relationships, public relations strategies, and relationship outcomes”, inLedingham, J.A. and Bruning, S.D. (Eds), Public Relations as Relationship Management:A Relational Approach to the Study and Practice of Public Relations, Lawrence Erlbaum,Mahwah, NJ, pp. 23-53.

Grunig, J.E. and Hunt, T. (1984), “Managing public relations”, Holt, Rinehart & Winston,New York, NY.

Grunig, L.A., Grunig, J.E. and Dozier, D.M. (2002), Excellent Public Relations and EffectiveOrganizations: A Study of Communication Management in Three Countries, LawrenceErlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

Grunig, L.A., Grunig, J.E. and Ehling, W.P. (1992), “What is an effective organization?”, inGrunig, J.E. (Ed.), Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management,Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 65-90.

Hung, C.J.F. (2002), “The interplays of relationship types, relationship cultivation, andrelationship outcomes: how multinational and Taiwanese companies practice publicrelations and organization-public relationship management in China”, unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.

Hung, C.J.F. (2005), “Exploring types of organization-public relationships and their implicationsfor relationship management in public relations”, Journal of Public Relations Research,Vol. 17, pp. 393-426.

Lee, J. (2001), “Leader-member exchange, perceived organizational justice, and cooperativecommunication”, Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 14, pp. 574-87.

Locke, L.F., Spirduso, W.W. and Silverman, S.J. (2000), Proposals That Work: A Guide forPlanning Dissertations and Grant Proposal, 4th ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Employee-organizationrelationships

69

Luo, Y. (2002), “Product diversification in international joint ventures: performance implicationsin an emerging market”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 23, pp. 1-20.

Maddox, R.C. (1993), Cross-Cultural Problems in International Business: The Role of the CulturalIntegration Function, Quorum Books, Westport, CT.

Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N. (1984), “Testing the side-best theory of organizational commitment:some methodological considerations”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 69, pp. 372-8.

Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook,2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Moorman, C., Zaltman, G. and Deshpande, R. (1992), “Relationships between providers and usersof marketing research: the dynamics of trust within and between organizations”, Journal ofMarketing Research, Vol. 29, pp. 314-29.

Morgan, J.M., Reynolds, C.M., Nelson, T.J., Johanningmeier, A.R., Griffin, M. and Andrade, P.(2004), “Tales from the fields: sources of employee identification in agribusiness”,Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 17, pp. 360-95.

Putnam, L.L. and Cheney, G. (1985), “Organizational communication: historical development andfuture directions”, in Benson, T.W. (Ed.), Speech Communication in the 20th Century,Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, IL, pp. 130-56.

Rhee, Y. (2004), “The employee-public-organization chain in relationship management: a casestudy of a government organization”, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University ofMaryland, College Park.

Scott, C.R. (2001), “Establishing and maintaining customer loyalty and employee identification inthe new economy: a communicative response”, Management Communication Quarterly,Vol. 14, pp. 629-36.

Seitel, F.P. (2006), The Practice of Public Relations, 10th ed., Macmillan, New York, NY.

Stafford, L. and Canary, D.J. (1991), “Maintenance strategies and romantic relationship type,gender, and relational characteristics”, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, Vol. 8,pp. 217-42.

Therkelsen, D.J. and Fiebich, C.L. (2003), “The supervisors: the linchpin of employee relations”,Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 8, pp. 120-9.

About the authorLan Ni is an Assistant Professor in the School of Communication at the University of Houston.Her research is centered on strategic management of organization-public relationships (with afocus on employee relations) as organizational resources in the global context. She has presentedpapers at major conferences such as ICA, AEJMC, and PRSA. She won Top Student Paper atICA, the Roschwalb Award from AEJMC, and has published in Public Relations Review. Lan Nican be contacted at: lni@uh.edu

JCOM11,1

70

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints