The gift in shared HRM ethics in SMEs
| Pages | 997-1014 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-06-2018-0171 |
| Date | 02 August 2019 |
| Published date | 02 August 2019 |
| Author | Ludivine Adla,Virginie Gallego-Roquelaure |
| Subject Matter | Hr & organizational behaviour |
The gift in shared HRM ethics
in SMEs
Ludivine Adla and Virginie Gallego-Roquelaure
iaelyon School of Management, Universite Jean Moulin Lyon 3, Lyon, France
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to understand how the relationship of gifts/counter-gifts between
actors enables us to build an HRM policy that we call “shared and ethical”. It is shared because it is
co-constructed by both owner-manager and employees, and ethical because it is deemed desirable by the
players and meets their expectations. This approach aims to make HRM more responsible in view of the
commitments made by stakeholders.
Design/methodology/approach –Drawing upon the Maussian theory of gift/counter-gift, a longitudinal
and retrospective study was conducted over a period of three years with a French SME.
Findings –The authors highlight two key stages in the gift process: the initial gift of the owner-manager,
which is reflected in the establishment of a social pact, and the gap in perception between employees’
contribution and the counter-gift expected of the owner-manager. The authors show the complexity of the
gift-chain by building a shared and ethical HRM and highlight the tensions identified between the existence of
tools and mutual adjustments in HRM through gifts and counter-gifts.
Originality/value –Usual HRM in SMEs is centred on the owner-manager. On the contrary this research
highlights how an SME can develop an alternative HRM. A longitudinal and retrospective study, carried out
with a French SME, led to the construction of a process modelling of a shared HRM ethics.
Keywords Small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), Relations, Gift, Shared HRM ethics
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
HRM practices in SMEs are not very formal and usually stem from the owner-manager
(Galang and Osman, 2013). HRM in SMEs has aroused increasing interest from researchers
and practitioners over the past 30 years (Lai et al., 2016; Hornsby and Kuratko, 1990).
However, the construction of these practices remains largely unknown (Singh and Vohra,
2009) and more specifically as regards the role of leadership/personnel relations in their
development. Psychogios et al. stress the fact that SME wage-earners become more
dedicated because of the informal nature of the HRM. In the continuation of these
authors’work, we are interested in the construction of such HRM under the prism of the gift/
counter–gift relationship. More precisely, our ambition is to show how the gift/counter-gift
process can contribute to the construction in SMEs of a kind of HRM that we describe as
shared and ethical. By “shared”we mean a form of HRM that is co-constructed by the
employees and the manager, and by ethics we mean a form of HRM that the stakeholders
want as it is in line with their expectations.
Emphasising the exchange between actors, the theory of gift/counter-gift provides
insight into the value of social ties between individuals and, more precisely, between the
SME’s manager and employees. From there, we have chosen to subscribe to a relational
perspective by mobilising the Maussian approach to giving.
Unlike the theory of social exchange (Blau, 1964) and contrary to the psychological
contract (Delobbe et al., 2016), the gift/counter-gift theory offers more opportunities to
consider the context in which exchanges take place (Pihel, 2008). The author adds that it
contextualises sustainable interactions and the context in which exchange dynamics take
place (Pihel, 2008). Moreover, this theoretical foundation is not limited to the study of a
bilateral exchange relationship. Finally we depart from the leader–member exchange
theory, which deals with the relationships between leaders and subordinates. Here,
relationships concern the owner-manager as well as management and employees.
Employee Relations: The
International Journal
Vol. 41 No. 5, 2019
pp. 997-1014
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0142-5455
DOI 10.1108/ER-06-2018-0171
Received 22 June 2018
Revised 1 September 2018
26 October 2018
6 November 2018
Accepted 6 November 2018
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0142-5455.htm
997
The gift in
shared HRM
ethics in SMEs
The gift/counter-gift theory, as Pihel shows, is not linear. The complexity of the chain of
gifts between actors is particularly well suited to SME contexts, where relations are
intertwined and where mutual adjustment is permanent.
This research aims to answer the following question: how do gift/counter-gift
relationships make it possible to achieve shared and ethical HRM? More specifically, two
research questions have guided our work:
RQ1. Which gift/counter-gift chain makes it possible to establish this form of HRM?
RQ2. How does a type of HRM based on a gift/counter-gift relationship affect its
formalisation degree?
Finally, we show the complexity of the chain of gifts in the development of shared and
ethical HRM and underline the ambiguity identified between the existence of tools and the
stakes of relations in the type of HRM conducted through gift/counter-gift relationships.
To do this, we conducted a longitudinal and retrospective case study (Calabretta et al.,
2017) with an SME in the social and solidarity economy sector, using the Gioia et al.
(2013) methodology.
After presenting the literature on HRM in SMEs and the gift/counter-gift theory
developed by Mauss (1954), we present our methodological approach. Finally, we deal with
the main findings of the gift/counter-gift process in HRM policy, before highlighting the
contributions and limitations of this research.
Theoretical background
Maussian gift: what is at stake in SMEs?
The multiplication of works imbued with the theory of gift has given rise to debates at the
end of which four currents emerged. The first pleads in favour of pure gift (Hénaff and
Morhange, 2010) that is strictly disinterested and free, where no other consideration comes
into play. The second refers to gratuitous gift and emphasises the unconditional nature of
the gift (Malinowski, 1922). The third stream is concerned with relational giving, which
allows us to overcome the free/reciprocity dichotomy by introducing the concept of
unconditional reciprocity (Bruni, 2009). Finally, we are particularly interested in the last
approach, which focuses on social ties, relating to gift/counter-gift (Mauss, 1954; Alter,
2009). This approach emphasises that the gift is based on a double ambivalence with regard
to its “the so to speak voluntary character of these total services, apparently free and
disinterested but nevertheless constrained and self-interested”(Mauss, 1954, p. 4). This
would therefore not result from an altruistic manoeuvre insofar as the counter-gift is
expected (Berthoin Antal and Richebé, 2009). In this approach, social bonding can take
precedence over personal interests, which actors do not hesitate to sacrifice.
The logic of gift follows a sequential process consisting of three stages: giving,
receiving and giving back (Mauss, 1954). This cycle begins when one of the actors gives:
this gesture involves the giver sacrificing part of the resources he holds (Mauss, 1954).
Making a gift is a gratuitous but uncertain action, as no return is guaranteed. When the
recipient of the gift receives it, one alternative arises: accept or refuse it. If the individual
accepts it, he in turn will make a gift to keep up the relationship. This counter-gift,
deferred over time, is not planned.
In addition, it goes by a standard of reciprocity and not an equivalence principle: the
exchange is meant to be fair. In his work, Alter (2009) points out that reciprocity is not only
between two individuals but also between the individual and the community; it therefore
benefits a third party who may be related to a project, a group or the company, among other
things. We are therefore talking of generalised reciprocity. A new dynamic of giving, based
on the same ternary cycle, is initiated.
998
ER
41,5
To continue reading
Request your trial