It's a Monday, the start of the week. Do you want to read this? Probably you should for reasons that as employees and employers, our apple carts are rattled by this mind-boggling question often. It seems a really controversial topic to tread on actually. But "no fighting, no fighting" we say.

Going by the conventional school of thought, it is always the employers who are seen to have an upper edge as the "Giver" of an opportunity while the employees come seeking a livelihood. For many of you that's a typically capitalist working framework. But let's not get into the ideological squabble of the wage giver versus earner. In fact, terminologies such as employees, wages have undergone a cathartic change over the decades.

Both the employee and employer are equal entities with respective role plays in the organizational heirarchy in the sense that not everyone can do everyone's work. Specialized skill sets of each make them an important (not irreplacable) part of the work team. Touching on a minor thought here, 'entrepreneurship' too has evolved in its ambit. It's more about leading the pack from the front rather than being the absentee money-minting boss. The 'stakes' factor in a business is getting horizontally distributed too.

Now coming back to where we started "Who actually runs your business?". There are two sides to the debate - An employee story and the Employer story.

In a series of surveys and casual word-to-mouth surveys at an insider level, the buzz is that both the employees and employers, realize their place and importance in a business set up. The inter-dependibility is spelt clearly. Employers aspire for a good market hold and prosperity and employees want to be treated with equanimity and given incentives at appropriate intervals. A fair deal, oft spoken about but practically shunned by many organizations.

Questions like why does a particular enterprise performed better than others, does strike you. The trick is to balance out expections and aspirations rightly. Keeping your employees happy is not a "coming down the ego ladder" step but a responsibility. And for employees, likewise, giving back to the institution that absorbs you is a heart thing more than being a mechanical response. Once you love your work, the lines automatically blur.

Companies that offered their employees additional facilities or services say food or drinks during late night stay overs or a weekend picnic or simple freebies are said to have earned worker loyalty much more than ones who work like factory production units. Decision making is now more of a participative activity. That's how bosses at the top send the "you too are a stakeholder" message. Now these are real boons in disguise of the much smirked about "corporate culture". The quality of a worker's life has attained a measure of security and adventure with good pay perks in store as well.

Coming to our SMBs, the employee-employer relationship is the soul of the organization,literally. The most apparent disadvantage in the set up, however, is role sets are so compartmentalized that spaces to overlap are few and small. A long standing employee quits or goes on an off, it becomes quite difficult to leverage business performances.

The debate is unending practically. The pros and cons for either side will keep on shifting. What remains with us at the end of the day is not to make a generic case of the issue. After all business success is not about hiring the best in the market but creating your own dream team and hitting base with a real committed heart. Forget the "Carrot-n-Stick" days, the boss and the workforce are the vanguards of the business, with a wheel missing the cart is sure to hit rough patches.

What are your thoughts about this fluctuating employee-employer nexus? Leave us a reply below.

To be a part of more insightful discussions and updates, stay tuned with E-junkie.