This paper investigates the relationship between workplace flexibility practices (WFPs) and corporate performance using data from the British Workplace Employment Relations Survey 2004.Disaggregating WFPs into numerical, functional and cost aspects, enables the analysis of their relationships to an objective measure of corporate performance, namely workplace financial turnover.Furthermore separate analyses are presented for different types of workplace: differentiated by workforce size; ownership; age; wage level and unionisation. Results show that different types of workplaces need to pay attention to the mix of WFPs they adopt. We find that certain cost WFPs (profitrelated pay, merit pay and payment-by-results) have strong positive relationships with corporate performance. However, training delivers mixed corporate performance results, while the extent of job autonomy and the proportion of part-time employees in a workplace have an inverse association with corporate performance. Given the limited existing research examining disaggregated measures of WFPs and objectively measured corporate performance, this paper offers useful insights for firms, policy makers and the overall economy.

This workplace flexibility study uses primary data on private sector Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) Introduction: Motivation for Researching Workplace Flexibility in SMEsConditions of weak demand are, by definition, problematic for firms, conflicting with organisational interests to maintain production and protect human capital assets. One potential response to recessionary pressures relates to an increase in workplace flexibility. This approach might enable firms to adapt to new market conditions whilst increasing organisational efficiency. It may also have particular resonance for small and medium-sized enterprises There is little consensus over an exact definition of workplace flexibility practices (WFPs), which is unexpected when taking into account the wide interest in their utilisation from government, policy makers and practitioners. *The authors are grateful to the Lancashire Business School, UCLan (UK) for the financial support given to this research project (Report

Purpose-The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationship between human resource management (HRM) practices and workers' overall job satisfaction and their satisfaction with pay. Design/methodology/approach-The paper uses British data from two different cross-sectional datasets. It estimates probit models with overall job satisfaction and satisfaction with pay as subjective dependent variables. Findings-After controlling for personal, job and firm characteristics, it is found that several HRM practices raise workers' overall job satisfaction and their satisfaction with pay. However, these effects are only significant for non-union members. Satisfaction with pay is higher where performance-related pay and seniority-based reward systems are in place. A pay structure that is perceived to be unequal is associated with a substantial reduction in both non-union members' overall job satisfaction and their satisfaction with pay. Although HRM practices can raise workers' job satisfaction, if workplace pay inequality widens as a consequence then non-union members may experience reduced job satisfaction. Research limitations/implications-The data sets used in the analysis are cross-sectional, presenting a snapshot of impacts of HRM practices on job satisfaction at a particular point in time. Dynamic effects are therefore not captured. Originality/value-The paper adds to the empirical literature on effects of HRM practices, focussing on impacts on both overall job satisfaction and satisfaction with pay. A novel feature of the paper is the use of two separate data sets to develop complementary empirical results.

No abstract

There is no doubt that management practices are linked to the productivity and performance of a company. However, research findings are mixed. This paper provides a multi-disciplinary review of the current evidence of such a relationship and offers suggestions for further exploration. We provide an extensive review of the literature in terms of research findings from studies that have been trying to measure and understand the impact that individual management practices and clusters of management practices have on productivity at different levels of analysis. We focus our review on Operations Management (OM) and Human Resource Management (HRM) practices as well as joint applications of these practices. In conclusion, we can say that taken as a whole, the research findings are equivocal. Some studies have found a positive relationship between the adoption of management practices and productivity, some negative and some no association whatsoever. We believe that the lack of universal consensus on the effect of the adoption of complementary management practices might be driven either by measurement issues or by the level of analysis. Consequently, there is a need for further research. In particular, for a multi-level approach from the lowest possible level of aggregation up to the firm-level of analysis in order to assess the impact of management practices upon the productivity of firms.