Beyond Profit? Sectoral Differences in High-Performance Work Practices

Abstract

Drawing on a recent survey of establishments in the United States, the authors examine how nonprofit, public, and for-profit establishments vary in the use of high-performance work organization (HPWO) practices that offer opportunities for participation in decision making (via self-directed teams and offline committees), enhance the capacity for participation (via multiskilling practices such as job rotation), and provide incentives for participation (via compensation practices). Nonprofit and public organizations are less likely to use performance incentives (gain sharing and bonuses) and some multiskilling practices than are for-profit organizations but more likely to use both self-directed work teams and offline committees. Sectoral differences in the prevalence of incentive compensation and self-directed teams persist after correlates of sector that predict HPWO prevalence—including establishment size, industry, computational requirements, and unionization—are controlled.

Work and social well-being: the impact of employment conditions on quality of life

“…To be effective these practices need to be intertwined with trustworthy information flows, upward as well as downward communications, and training investments to provide enhanced opportunities for employees to take initiatives arising from their empowerment and to give them the capability to contribute to important work decisions (Harley, 2005;Reissnera and Pagana 2013). At a specific level, participative management practices can give employees an opportunity to influence work practices and employment arrangements that affect other aspects of their lives (Kuoppala et al, 2008;Kalleberg et al, 2006). However, in this paper we are interested in the extent to which these capabilities have consequences beyond the workplace and provide individuals with motivations and capacities that impact directly on their quality of life or social wellbeing.…”

Employee involvement, the quality of training and the learning environment: an individual level analysis

“…These scores are then standardized so that all questions are of equal weight (either by creating z-scores or binary variables). Finally, they are added together to produce an overall measure of involvement (see, e.g., Harley, Allen and Sargent 2007;Kalleberg, Marsden, Reynolds and Knoke 2006;Bryson, Forth and Kirby 2005;Felstead and Gallie 2004;Forth and Millward 2004;Ramsay, Scholarios and Harley 2000).…”

Attitudes Toward Organizational Change Among Public Middle Managers

“…On the other hand, high-performance HRM practices, also called "high commitment" HRM practices (Whitener, 2001) or "high-performance" work practices (Gould-Williams & Davies, 2005;Kalleberg et al, 2006), can be described as a set of HRM practices that are intended to have an impact on employees' commitment towards their organization (Taylor et al, 2008). These HRM practices are devised to enhance the performance of employees while promoting mutual influence, respect, and responsibility (Huselid, 1995;Lindorff, 2009).…”