Structural and relational dimensions

The three case studies reveal that formal role relations shape access to Guanxi relationships, the relational contents of Guanxi relationships and the hierarchy of Guanxi relationships in the organisations. In the structural dimension, the design and functioning of formal job role relations affect the frequency and hierarchy of interpersonal interaction between employees. In the relational dimension, frequent interpersonal interaction shaped by formal role relations facilitates the development of interpersonal trust, affection, obligations and mutual understandings between employees. Table 7.2 highlights similarities and differences in the findings.

Comparison Case I Case II Case III Structural dimension Similarities:

 More frequent interpersonal interaction between team members than between cross-team colleagues.

 Frequent interpersonal interaction between team leaders.

 Hierarchical interpersonal relationships between managers and subordinates. Differences:

 Team members with little task interdependence or working in different locations have limited interpersonal interaction.  Obvious hierarchical distance between managers and subordinates.  Hierarchical differentiation between senior and junior team members.

 Frequent interpersonal interaction across teams.  Reduced hierarchical distance between managers and subordinates.  Removal of hierarchical differentiation between senior and junior team members.  Reduced hierarchical distance between managers and subordinates.  Hierarchical differentiation between senior and junior team members. Relational dimension Similarities:

 Development of more interpersonal trust, affections and obligations and mutual understanding between team members than between cross-team colleagues.

Differences:

 Competitive formal role relations in the sales team hinders the development of trust between sales staff.

 Development of interpersonal affection between organisational members.  Development of generalised trust between organisational members.

Table 7.2 Cross-case comparison: impact of formal role relations on structural and relational dimensions of Guanxi

First of all, all the three case studies demonstrate that the setting and functioning of role relations affect the opportunities for interpersonal interaction by defining task interdependence between roles, team membership, physical proximity, team or cross- team meetings, organisational events, and length of time that employees work together. As a result, there is generally more frequent interpersonal interaction between team

129

members and between team leaders, members of management team, than between cross-team colleagues in all three case organisations. In terms of the differences between the case studies, in Case Study I, there is limited interpersonal interaction between some sales staff in charge of different sales regions with little task interdependence and between some quality control staff working in different offices. Such variation further demonstrates the effects of task interdependence and physical proximity on the frequency of interpersonal interaction. In Case Study II, there is quite frequent cross-team interpersonal interaction due to frequent employee-initiated cross-team job transfer and cross-team projects. Though Case Study III also has cross-team projects, they are often organised by management and not frequent. Such variation explains that by encouraging employee initiatives in cross-team job transfer and cross-team projects, Case Study II amends team membership and strengthens cross-team task interdependence, meetings and social events, greatly increasing the frequency of cross-team interpersonal interaction.

Moreover, all three case studies illustrate that there are more interpersonal trust, affection, obligations and mutual understanding developed within teams than across teams because frequent interpersonal interaction strengthens the development of relational contents through repetitive social exchange. However, Case Study II demonstrates that frequent cross-team job transfer limits the development of strong interpersonal affection developed former team members and promotes the development of interpersonal affection between cross-team colleagues by increasing cross-team interpersonal interaction. Moreover, the stress on family culture and on perceived organisational warmth in Case Study II results in the accumulation of interpersonal affection between organisational members, not just between team members. Furthermore, strong organisational values reinforced by formal performance assessments and collective performance reviews in Case Study II causes the creation of generalised trust between its organisational members. Due to the strong imprint of the organisational values on employee behaviour, the employees in Case Study II believe that their organisational members, even those with which they barely interact, are righteous, collaborative and constructive. In comparison, although Case Study III has developed similar organisational values, these are not so formally reinforced as to create generalised trust between its organisation members.

The findings on the effects of formal role relations on the frequency of interpersonal interaction and the development of relational contents enhance and extend the existing literature with empirical evidence and explanation. Scholars suggest that the position of employees in organisational structure shapes their access to relationships (Huby et al., 2014) so that there is sometimes a lack of social ties between employees whose job roles are horizontally differentiated (Oh et al., 2006). The case studies support these claims with empirical evidence that formal setting of job role relations provides more opportunities for team members to interact and develop interpersonal trust, affection, obligations and

130

mutual understanding than for cross-team colleagues. More importantly, the case studies explain how formal job role relations define task interdependence, team membership, physical proximity, team and cross-team meetings and length of time that employees work together, shaping the access of employees to interpersonal relationships and the development of the relational contents.

As a variation, Case Study II demonstrates that the lack of social ties between cross-team colleagues, whose job roles are horizontally differentiated, is a relative phenomenon rather than an absolute one. Gittell (2011) proposes that cross-team work organisation, such as cross-team projects and project-based rewards, job role design with flexible boundaries and work protocols spanning boundaries, could support the development of cohesive relationships across teams. Case Study II support the proposition of Gittell that the organisation greatly increases cross-team interpersonal interaction by promoting cross-team work organisation and flexible team boundaries. Moreover, Case Study II empirically proves that the organisation develops an affective organisational culture and reinforces the imprint of organisational values on employee behaviour to facilitate the development of interpersonal affection and generalised trust between organisational members. While many questions are unexamined regarding the effects of HR strategies and systems on relational exchange and interpersonal relationships in organisations (Mossholder et al., 2011), Case Study II extends existing understandings of how to promote the development of cross-team interpersonal relationships in both structural and relational dimensions.

In addition, all three case studies establish that the design and functioning of formal job role relations shape the hierarchy of interpersonal interaction. The formal organisational hierarchy defines the social status of and power distance between managers and subordinates, resulting in hierarchical Guanxi relationships between them. In comparison, while the hierarchical distance is obvious in Case Study I, Case Study II and Case Study III reduce the hierarchical distance by encouraging employee participation and offering both professional and managerial career ladders. Moreover, the functioning of formal role relations leads to hierarchical differentiation between senior and junior team members in Case Studies I and III, but not in Case Study II. Whereas Case Study I and Case Study III offer seniority-based compensation and rely on senior team members to lead the junior members in projects, Case Study II does not offer seniority-based compensation but requires senior and junior team members to take turns leading projects. The dissimilarities suggest that while the implementation of the Western job role system in Case Study II and Case Study III lessens the hierarchical distance between managers and subordinates, Case Study II goes further to remove the hierarchical differentiation between its senior and junior team members.

131

The findings of the case studies on the effects of formal role relations on the hierarchy of interpersonal interaction greatly increase the knowledge on the topic. According to Yuan (2013), Chinese sometimes perceive that manager-subordinate role relations can still be maintained after work. The case studies empirically demonstrate that formal hierarchical differentiation between managers and subordinates defines the social status of Chinese managers and subordinates beyond work. Moreover, Case Study I and Case Study III indicate that both organisations legitimise the hierarchical differentiation between senior and junior team members by offering seniority-based compensation and recognising the authority of the senior over the junior. While the social capital literature has mainly focussed on the horizontal structuring of social networks rather than their vertical structuring (Kwon and Adler, 2014), the case studies offers empirical evidence on how the design and function of formal role relations shape the hierarchy of interpersonal relationships not only between managers and subordinates but also between senior and junior team members.

Besides, the case studies provide important insights into how the implementation of the Western job role system reduces the traditional respect for Confucian authority in Guanxi relationships. Scholars advise that the introduction of Western management practices in Chinese organisations may affect the practices of Confucian authority, because delegation and employee initiatives are central ingredients of Western management practices in low-power distance cultures (Ahlstrom et al., 2013; Hong and Engeström, 2004; Björkman and Lu, 1999). After implementing Western formal job role system, Case Study II and Case Study III reduce the perceived hierarchical distance between managers and subordinates by encouraging employee participation and offering both professional and managerial career ladders, while Case Study II further removes the hierarchical differentiation between senior and junior team members by providing no seniority-based compensation and encouraging junior team members to lead projects. Therefore, the case studies offer empirical evidences on how different levels of the implementation of the Western job role system and associated HR practices reduce the traditional respect for Confucian authority to different extent.

As a result, the case studies increase the knowledge of how formal role relations shape access to Guanxi relationships, the relational contents of Guanxi relationships and the hierarchy of Guanxi relationships in Chinese organisations. In particular, the case studies support the limited existing literature on the topic and extend existing understandings with empirical evidences.

132