High Work Performance System
1 Introduction
High-performance work system (HPWS) can be defined as a specific combination of HR practices, work structures, and processes that maximizes employee knowledge, skills, commitment, and flexibility (Bohlander & Snell, 2004, p. 690, Marchington and Wilkinson, 2008, P92). A basic aim of HPWS is leveraging human resource system to improve employees’ overall contribution and performance by enhancing their discretion, competency and commitment.
Among enormous researches of HPWS, researchers have empirically established a positive relationship between HPWS and a variety of organizational performance such as turnover (Guthrie, 2001; Huselid, 1995), labor productivity (Huselid, 1995), firm productivity (Guthrie, 2001), and firm financial performance (Guthrie, 2001; Huselid, 1995).
Before we discuss further about HPWS, we need to sort out its main conceptual companions: high-involvement work systems (HIWSs) and high-commitment management (HCM). ‘High commitment management’ (Walton 1985; Guest 2001a, 2001b; Wood & de Menezes, 1998) highlights the role of effective human resource management in enhancing employee commitment and thereby reducing the need for managerial control. And ‘high involvement work system’ (Wood 1999a; Lawler, 1986) is particularly used to emphasize the importance of opportunities for employees to make decisions and exercise discretion. ‘High performance work systems’ (Berg 1999; Appelbaum et al 2000), aim at reducing turnover, absenteeism and costs through a reduction in the need for control and monitoring (Ramsay et al., 2000). In comparison, HPWS appear to be more comprehensive as it usually entails effort on improving both employees’ commitment and involvement. Despite the variation in terminology, the concept is similar: a particular bundle of human resource practices have the potential to engender improved organizational performance (Hegan, 2006).
1.1 Comparison to Taylorism
If we want to examine the implications
High-performance work system (HPWS) can be defined as a specific combination of HR practices, work structures, and processes that maximizes employee knowledge, skills, commitment, and flexibility (Bohlander & Snell, 2004, p. 690, Marchington and Wilkinson, 2008, P92). A basic aim of HPWS is leveraging human resource system to improve employees’ overall contribution and performance by enhancing their discretion, competency and commitment.
Among enormous researches of HPWS, researchers have empirically established a positive relationship between HPWS and a variety of organizational performance such as turnover (Guthrie, 2001; Huselid, 1995), labor productivity (Huselid, 1995), firm productivity (Guthrie, 2001), and firm financial performance (Guthrie, 2001; Huselid, 1995).
Before we discuss further about HPWS, we need to sort out its main conceptual companions: high-involvement work systems (HIWSs) and high-commitment management (HCM). ‘High commitment management’ (Walton 1985; Guest 2001a, 2001b; Wood & de Menezes, 1998) highlights the role of effective human resource management in enhancing employee commitment and thereby reducing the need for managerial control. And ‘high involvement work system’ (Wood 1999a; Lawler, 1986) is particularly used to emphasize the importance of opportunities for employees to make decisions and exercise discretion. ‘High performance work systems’ (Berg 1999; Appelbaum et al 2000), aim at reducing turnover, absenteeism and costs through a reduction in the need for control and monitoring (Ramsay et al., 2000). In comparison, HPWS appear to be more comprehensive as it usually entails effort on improving both employees’ commitment and involvement. Despite the variation in terminology, the concept is similar: a particular bundle of human resource practices have the potential to engender improved organizational performance (Hegan, 2006).
1.1 Comparison to Taylorism
If we want to examine the implications
References: 1. Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P. and Kalleberg, A (2000). Manufacturing advantage: why high performance work systems pay off., Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. ILR Press (an imprint of Cornell University Press) 2 3. Barker, J. R. (1993). “Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, pp 408-437. 4. Barker, J. R., & Cheney, G. (1994).“The concept and the practices of discipline in contemporary organizational life”,. Communication Monographs, 61, pp 19-43. 5. Batt, Rosemary. (2004) “Who Benefits from Teams? Comparing the Outcomes for Managers, Supervisors, and Workers,” Industrial Relations. 43(1): pp 183-213. 6. Becker Brian and Barry Gerhart (1996) “The Impact of Human Resources Management on Organizational Performance: Progress and Prospects”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol.39 No.4, pp 779-801 7 8. Berg, P, Kalleberg, A.L.and Appelbaum, E (2003.) "Balancing Work and Family: The Role of High-Commitment Environments," Industrial and Labor Relations 42:168–88. 9. Berg, P., & Kalleberg, A. L. (2002).“ The effect of high performance work practices on job stress: Evidence from a survey of U.S. workers”. Conference on Work Intensification. Paris. 10. Boxall, P. and Purcell, J. (2003) Strategy and human resource management. Palgrave Macmillan, London. 11. Boxall, P. and Macky K, J. (2009). “Research and theory on high-performance work systems: progressing the high involvement stream.” Human Resource Management Journal, Vol 19, no 1, 2009, pp 3–23. 12. Butler, P., Felstead, A., Ashton, D., Fuller, A., Lee, T., Unwin, L and Walters, S. (2004). “High performance management: a literature review. Learning as Work” Research Paper No1, Centre for Labour Market Studies, University of Leicester. 13. Cappelli, P. and Rogovsky, N (1994). “New work systems and skill requirements” International Labor Review, 133:2, pp205-20. 14. Cappelli, P. and Neumark, D. (2001). “Do ‘High Performance’ work practices improve establishment-level outcomes?” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 54, pp 737-775. 15. Danford, A. (2003) “Workers, unions and the high performance workplace.” Work, employment and society, 17(3), 569-587. 18. Edwards, P., & Wright, M. (2001) “High-involvement work systems and performance outcomes: The strength of variable, contingent and context- bound relationships” International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12(4), pp 565-569. 19. Felstead, A. and Gallie, D. (2002). “For better or worse? Non-standard jobs and high involvement work systems.” SKOPE Research Paper No 29, University of Warwick. 20. Freeman, Richard B. and Morris M. Kleiner. (2000). "Who Benefits Most from Employee Involvement: Firms or Workers?" American Economic Review 90 (May): pp 219-223. 21. Godard, J (2004). “A critical assessment of the high performance work paradigm”. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 42:2, pp 349-378. 22. Godard, J. (2001). “High-performance and the transformation of work? The implications of alternative work practices for the experience and outcomes of work.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 54,pp 776-805. 23. Guest, D (1999). “Human resource management – the workers’ verdict.” Human Resource Management Journal, 9:4,pp 5-25. 24. Guthrie, J. (2001). “High involvement work practices, turnover, and productivity: Evidence from New Zealand”,. Academy of Management Journal, 44, pp 180-192. 25. Hegan, Shannon. J. (2006). “Employees’ Responses to High Performance Work Systems: Assessing HPWS Effectiveness.” Otago Management Graduate Review, Vol.04: pp 25-35. 26. Harley, B. (2002). “Employee responses to high performance work system practices: An analysis of the AWIRS95 data.” Journal of Industrial Relations, 44(3), pp 418-34. 27. Hetrick, W.P. & Boje, D.M.(1992) "Post modernity & Organization: The Body & Post-Fordist Control," Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp : 48-57. 28. Huselid, M. A. (1995). “The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity and financial performance.” Academy of Management Journal, 38: pp 635-672. 32. McDuffie, J.P. and Kochan, T.A. (1995). “Do US firms invest less in human resources? Training in the world auto industry.” Industrial Relations, 34:2, pp 147-168. 33. Macky, K& Boxall, P(2007), “ The Relationship between High Performance Work Practices and Employee Attitudes: An Investigation of Additive and Interaction Effects,” International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18:4, pg 537-567. 34. Marchington. M and Wilkinson, A. N. (2008). “Human resource management at work.” The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, pp 92-137. 35. Pfeffer, J. (1998). The human equation: building profits by putting people first. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Mass. 8(1), pp 3-20. 36. Ramsay, H., Scholarios, D.and Harley, B. (2000). “Employees and high-performance work systems: testing inside the black box.” British Journal of Industrial Relations, 38:4, pp 501-531. 37. Tomer, John F. 2001. “Understanding High Performance Work Systems: The Joint Contribution of Economics and Human Resource Management.” The Journal of socio-economics, pp 3-17. 38. Whitener, E. M. (2001) “Do ‘‘high commitment’’ human resource practices affect employee commitment? A cross-level analysis using hierarchical linear modeling.” Journal of Management, 27, pp 515-535. 39. White, M., Hill, S., McGovern, P., Mills, C., & Smeaton, D. (2003) “High performance management practices, working hours and work-life balance.” British Journal of Industrial Relations, 41(2), pp 175-195. 40. Wood ,S (1996), “ High Commitment management and Payment systems,” Journal of Management Studies, 33(1):pp 53-77.