IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/treure/v7y2001i3p422-440.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

High performance work systems in the U.S. context

Author

Listed:
  • Paula B. Voos

    (Professor and PhD student, respectively, School of Management and Labor Relations, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA, 08901)

  • Haejin Kim

    (Professor and PhD student, respectively, School of Management and Labor Relations, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA, 08901)

Abstract

In the 1990s, a dominant consensus has been established among industrial relations scholars in the United States regarding the effects of high performance work systems on productivity and firm performance. High performance work systems result in economically meaningful improvements in efficiency and profitability, particularly when they are implemented in an integrated fashion that gives workers significant responsibility and authority to make decisions, provides the needed skills to those workers, and simultaneously gives them appropriate incentives for solving problems. The article reviews the research base for this view, along with challenges to and criticisms of it. One conclusion is that more focus on the effect of these systems on employees is needed. While some recent studies find positive effects on compensation and job security, others are less sanguine, particularly for certain types of employees. The article ends with an overview of how U.S. union policy debates have evolved with increased experience with these work systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Paula B. Voos & Haejin Kim, 2001. "High performance work systems in the U.S. context," Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, , vol. 7(3), pages 422-440, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:treure:v:7:y:2001:i:3:p:422-440
    DOI: 10.1177/102425890100700307
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/102425890100700307
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/102425890100700307?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sandra E. Black & Lisa M. Lynch, 2004. "What's driving the new economy?: the benefits of workplace innovation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 114(493), pages 97-116, February.
    2. Sandra E. Black & Lisa M. Lynch, 2001. "How To Compete: The Impact Of Workplace Practices And Information Technology On Productivity," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 83(3), pages 434-445, August.
    3. Batt, R. & Applebaum, E., 1995. "Worker Participation in Diverse Settings: Does the Form Affect the Outcome, and If So, Who Benefits?," Papers 95-06, Cornell - Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies.
    4. Douglas L. Kruse, 1993. "Profit Sharing: Does It Make a Difference?," Books from Upjohn Press, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, number ps.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Surendra Gera & Wulong Gu, 2004. "The Effect of Organizational Innovation and Information and Communications Technology on Firm Performance," International Productivity Monitor, Centre for the Study of Living Standards, vol. 9, pages 37-51, Fall.
    2. Jed Devaro & Fidan Ana Kurtulus, 2011. "What types of organizations benefit from teams, and how do they benefit?," UMASS Amherst Economics Working Papers 2011-16, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Department of Economics.
    3. Hristos Doucouliagos & Patrice Laroche & Douglas L. Kruse & T. D. Stanley, 2020. "Is Profit Sharing Productive? A Meta‐Regression Analysis," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 58(2), pages 364-395, June.
    4. Philippe Askenazy & Eve Caroli, 2006. "Innovative work practices, information technologies and working conditions: evidence for France," EconomiX Working Papers 2006-2, University of Paris Nanterre, EconomiX.
    5. Natalie Chun & Soohyung Lee, 2015. "Bonus compensation and productivity: evidence from Indian manufacturing plant-level data," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 47-58, February.
    6. Bayo-Moriones, Alberto & Merino-Díaz-de-Cerio, Javier & Antonio Escamilla-de-León, Sergio & Mary Selvam, Rejina, 2011. "The impact of ISO 9000 and EFQM on the use of flexible work practices," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(1), pages 33-42, March.
    7. Oliner, Stephen D. & Sichel, Daniel E. & Stiroh, Kevin J., 2008. "Explaining a productive decade," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 633-673.
    8. Mazzanti, Massimiliano & Mancinelli, Susanna, 2007. "SME Performance, Innovation and Networking Evidence on Complementarities for a Local Economic System," Knowledge, Technology, Human Capital Working Papers 9554, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    9. Spitz, Alexandra & Bertschek, Irene, 2003. "IT, Organizational Change and Wages," ZEW Discussion Papers 03-69, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    10. Philippe Askenazy & Ève Caroli & Vincent Marcus, 2002. "New Organizational Practices and Working Conditions . Evidence from France in the 1990's," Recherches économiques de Louvain, De Boeck Université, vol. 68(1), pages 91-110.
    11. Sandra E. Black & Lisa Lynch & Anya Krivelyova, 2003. "How Workers Fare When Employers Innovate," NBER Working Papers 9569, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Riccardo Leoni, 2013. "Organization of work practices and productivity: an assessment of research on world- class manufacturing," Chapters, in: Anna Grandori (ed.), Handbook of Economic Organization, chapter 17, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. Dorgyles C.M. Kouakou, 2022. "Determinants of employees' participation in decision‐making in developing countries: Does a firm's formal versus informal status matter?," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 43(5), pages 1501-1514, July.
    14. Michael Waldman, 2012. "Theory and Evidence in Internal LaborMarkets [The Handbook of Organizational Economics]," Introductory Chapters,, Princeton University Press.
    15. Takao Kato & Ju Ho Lee & Jang-Soo Ryu, 2010. "The productivity effects of profit sharing, employee ownership, stock option and team incentive plans: evidence from Korean panel data," Advances in the Economic Analysis of Participatory & Labor-Managed Firms, in: Advances in the Economic Analysis of Participatory & Labor-Managed Firms, pages 111-135, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    16. repec:lan:wpaper:4012 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Jirjahn, Uwe & Mohrenweiser, Jens, 2023. "Variable Payment Schemes and Productivity: Do Individual-Based Schemes Really Have a Stronger Influence than Collective Ones?," IZA Discussion Papers 16267, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    18. Sandra E. Black & Lisa M. Lynch, 2005. "Measuring Organizational Capital in the New Economy," NBER Chapters, in: Measuring Capital in the New Economy, pages 205-236, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Rasel, Fabienne, 2014. "Combining technology and work organization: An analysis of complementarity between IT and decentralization across firms of different size," ZEW Discussion Papers 14-071, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    20. Heli Koski & Luigi Marengo & Iiro Mäkinen, 2009. "Firm size, managerial practices and innovativeness: some evidence from Finnish manufacturing," LEM Papers Series 2009/01, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    21. Bloom, Nicholas & Van Reenen, John, 2011. "Human Resource Management and Productivity," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 19, pages 1697-1767, Elsevier.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:treure:v:7:y:2001:i:3:p:422-440. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.