In this article, I will draw up conclusions on the relationship that exists between employers and employees, like every other relationship, such as a marriage between two people or a buyer-seller relationship. I will focus on the type of relationship that exists between a buyer and a seller; a contractual relationship exists between both parties, whether written or implied. In this context, the sellers are the employees while the buyers are the employers. The relationship starts when the employers have a skill gap within their firm, and they need the right candidates to fill that gap. Employers are the customers who have needs to fill and go in search of the right products to fill those needs. The employer reaches out to the recruiters that act as the intermediary between the employers and employees- ‘I call it the critical link’, then recruiters display different skills (employees as candidates) for the employers to shop around.

It gets to the point within the process where the employers meet with the candidates displayed by the recruiters, then the question of value comes in, the employers want to know if the candidates can do all that they need them to do, just like a product having the features stated on its label( resume/curriculum vitae in this case). The seller-candidates will affirm that they have the requisite skills to fill the need of the employer, and they bargain on the price based on the Value, quality and expected longevity.

In a case where the employer obtains the service of the candidate, they are converted to employees. If the employees fail to provide the promised value, the employer (buyer) is free to return the product (employee) and terminate the relationship, although employers continue searching for the right candidate. However, with the recruiter in the picture, the return risk is minimised through a rigorous screening process and interviews to ascertain the presence of the WAR (willingness, ability, readiness) principles.

The question of who has the higher bargaining power is dependent on the employer and the employee in various scenarios. However, employers may have more bargaining power in one scenario and less in another. Employees in highly skilled occupations are perceived to exhibit greater power vis-à-vis their employer (Keren Modesta Olsen, 2016). This means that the value they can add is connected to their technical capabilities, and this can be transferred from one employer to another, thus increasing their bargaining power. However, the level of skill supply can increase the competition in the labour market, such that supply outweighs demand. This further increases employers’ power. Although the level of growth experienced by firms within the said industry will have a commensurate impact on the propensity of employees to bargain higher for their value.

The value exchange between employees and employers, as viewed by Frow & Payne (2011), is a form of balancing inputs against outputs, weighed by monetary gains created mutually by both parties. In addition, Boukis & Sertan(2016) seem to share the same opinion with me, that value creation is a two-way traffic between employers and employees, which means for the exchange of value to be effective, employers must create an enabling environment to enhance employees ability to give value, while employees must be ready to use their skills to create value by increasing the business bottom line in exchange for monetary value from the employer.

The aforementioned context, from the recruiter’s perspective, seems to be the area that causes conflict between the employers and employees/ candidates. It appears that neither stakeholders nor the company keep to their own part of the value bargain. To ensure both parties have an understanding of the value expectation, I propose four(4) levels of value that employees must go through to prove to their employers that they are assets of the firm. In financial terms, assets are resources owned and controlled by the firm, from which the firm generates economic benefits. In other words, employees are assets of the firm with an obligation to generate economic benefits for the business, both tangible and intangible benefits.

The four levels of valuableness:

1. Availability of Skill
2. Price vs quality promised
3. Willingness to work
4. Readiness to work

I have realised that most candidates document their capabilities, both technical and soft skills, which they cannot provide when hired. Again, I stumbled on two slogans which I hold responsible for this imbalance – “Fake it till you make it” and “keep saying you can even when you can’t”. They lack the understanding that “hope without strategy is a waste of time”, which is another factor responsible for such behavioural patterns amongst candidates. Faking or saying something without implementing strategies to create that reality is just like living in a fool’s paradise. The lack of willingness (loyalty and commitment) and readiness to work (energy and reliability) stifles value creation, which reflects in the quality of service offered to the employers. Hence, employers and recruiters begin to question the price paid for this invaluableness.

On the other hand, I must highlight the fact that most employers are not leaders; they cannot communicate the vision, and cannot inspire employees to create value by aligning their goals to those of the organisation, so employees are left with no option. When employers fail in their responsibility to create essential non-monetary value, employee satisfaction declines because, according to the proponents of motivational theory, it has the capacity to improve performance much more than monetary value.

In conclusion, employees must be ready and willing to create value in any way necessary to the employer. I believe in the art of commitment and loyalty. Employees should be less transactional, focus on value creation, and be impact-oriented. Let the first reason for gaining employment be to add value to the business. More importantly, employers must be trained to become leaders; only leaders have followers. Employers should be able to manage their employees such that they are able, willing, and ready to give their value to ensure the business prospers. Employers and entrepreneurs should adopt the right leadership style that suits the business lifecycle, culture, and industry. This is aimed at improving the level of value offered by employees – leadership is the ability to ” sell ” a vision to people(or a group), and provide them with the right resources, motivation, whilst creating an enabling environment to ” buy into” that vision.

References:

Karen Modesta Olsen (2016), “The power of workers: Knowledge work and power balance in Scandinavian countries”, Employee Relations, vol 38 No3, 2016, pp 390- 405.

Frow. P. & Pyne. A. (2011). A stakeholder perspective of the value proposition concept, European Journal of Marketing, 45.5, 223-240

Boukis, A., & Kabadayi, S., A classification of resources for employee-based value creation and a future research agenda, European Management Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2020.05.001