The formalisation of job role relations affected the structural, relational and cognitive features of Guanxi relationships in the case organisation. As analysed in this subsection, the formalisation of job role relations resulted in more frequent interpersonal interaction and the development of more interpersonal affection, trust, obligations and mutual
54
understanding between team members than between cross-team colleagues, and hierarchical differentiation between managers and subordinates and between senior and junior team members. Moreover, the stress on formal organisational obligations and professional values competed with the influence of relational obligations and values, enhancing and discouraging the relationship intention of employees in the organisation.
In the structural dimension, the formalisation of job role relations shaped the frequency and hierarchy of interpersonal interaction. It was found that there was generally more frequent interpersonal interaction within teams than across teams due to stronger task interdependence within teams, shared team membership, close physical proximity between team members, and more time of team members working together (IS, RDE1, RDE2, RDE3, RSM &QC2). However, because some sales staff responsible for different sales regions had little task interdependence and some quality control employees worked in different offices, they had less frequent interaction with their team members than with their cross-team colleagues (IS & QC2). Due to frequent management meetings, team leaders interacted frequently with each other (QCM).
It was also shown that the formalisation of job role relations resulted in hierarchical differentiation between managers and subordinates and between senior and junior team members. Due to hierarchical differentiation between the roles of managers and subordinates, there was obvious hierarchical distance between them and the subordinates were strongly aware of the importance of respecting the authority of their managers and be cautious about communicating with the managers (QCM, SDM, TSM & QC2). Moreover, because the company recognised the value of senior employees by offering seniority-based benefits, involved senior employees in decision-making and relied on them to manage junior team members, there was respect towards the authority of the senior (SDM, QC1, DGM, RDE2 & RDE3). In other words, the functioning of the formal role relations legitimised the hierarchical differentiation between senior and junior team members.
In the relational dimension, the formalised job role relations impacted the development of trust, affection, obligations and mutual understanding between employees by shaping the frequency of interpersonal interaction. The employees developed trust in each other if they often fulfilled their organisational obligations towards each other and behaved consistently in frequent interaction (IS). Moreover, interpersonal affection was nurtured while the employees developed positive experience with each other in frequent interaction (PCM, PC1 & RDE1). Furthermore, some managers felt obliged to offer favour to their subordinates after they worked together for many years (DGM). In addition, while formal team differentiation defined shared team goals and priorities, the frequent interpersonal interaction within teams further promoted the development of mutual understanding
55
between team members (DS, QC1, QCM & QC2). Therefore, the frequent within-team interpersonal interaction resulted in the development of more interpersonal trust, affection, obligations and mutual understanding between team members than between cross-team colleagues. However, it was indicated that the nature of formal role relations influenced the development of trust between employees. Because some sales staff competed with each other for customers, limited trust was developed between them (IS & DS).
In the cognitive dimension, the formalisation of role relations resulted in the stress on organisational obligations and professional values, reducing the influences of relational obligations and values. Many interviewees recognised the importance of fulfilling organisational obligations prior to relational obligations because the failure to fulfil organisational obligations had negative consequences on employees (PC1, DS & RSM). Moreover, the interviewees highlighted some professional values, such as rationality, but not letting interpersonal affection jeopardise work nor making work-related issues personal (QC1, PC1 & QCM). However, it was reported that relational obligations often overrode organisational obligations and task-related conflicts often turned into relational conflicts (DGM, SDM & PC1). As a result, there was constant competition between the organisational obligations and professional values and the relational obligations and values. PC1 reported some frustrations about the competition between the organisational and relational obligations:
‘He [my line manager] ever said: ‘if you take me as brother, you should do your job well. You are not my brother if you did not fulfil your responsibilities.’ (PC1)
The stress on organisational obligations and professional values both enhanced and discouraged the intention of employees to develop Guanxi relationships. On one hand, the task interdependence in formal role relations enhanced the employees’ intention to develop and maintain interpersonal relationships for fulfilling their organisational obligations. Many interviewees emphasised that the development and maintenance of interpersonal relationships were important for obtaining cooperation from colleagues (TSM, IS, SDM & DS). Sometimes employees performed their colleagues’ tasks to develop good interpersonal relationships to smooth the way for future collaboration (SDM). On the other hand, the competition between organisational and relational obligations discouraged employees from developing close interpersonal relationships. The interviewees reported that close interpersonal relationships with colleagues made it difficult to fulfil organisational obligations and command colleagues to comply with organisational requirements due to a concern for interpersonal obligations, as illustrated in Table 4.1.
56
Interviewee Quotes
IS ‘Sometimes close Guanxi relationships are not beneficial for work. Afterall, in a company we have to take responsibilities. … I tell him the truth that what you do crosses my bottom line, …, and hurt work-related interests [of the company] …If I have told you that you cross my bottom line and you shouldn’t but you still demand me to do that [for you], you are hurting me and our Guanxi relationships will be broken. If you understand my points, apologize and promise that you will not do that anymore, we will become better friends.’
QC1 ‘It is sometimes not very good if we are too familiar [close] with each other. …When there is a problem, from my [job] perspective I ask him to made a correction but he may think that the problem does not matter or not significant …. When we are too familiar, it is impossible to directly demand him to do that due to the consideration of interpersonal affection and his Face.’
Table 4.1 Competition between organisational and relational obligations discourages close Guanxi relationships in Case Study I
As a result, it was rather favourable for employees that their interpersonal relationships with colleagues were not too close because of the competition between organisational and relational obligations, but also not too distant for the need of cooperation (QC2, PCM & RDE1).