High-Performance Work Systems and Job Control

Abstract

This study examines relationships among high-performance work systems (HPWS), job control, employee anxiety, role overload, and turnover intentions. Building on theory that challenges the rhetoric versus reality of HPWS, the authors explore a potential "dark side" of HPWS that suggests that HPWS, which are aimed at creating a competitive advantage for organizations, do so at the expense of workers, thus resulting in negative consequences for individual employees. However, the authors argue that these consequences may be tempered when HPWS are also implemented with a sufficient amount of job control, or discretion given to employees in determining how to implement job responsibilities. The authors draw on job demands-control theory and the stress literatures to hypothesize moderated-mediation relationships relating the interaction of HPWS utilization and job control to anxiety and role overload, with subsequent effects on turnover intentions. The authors examine these relationships in a multilevel sample of 1,592 government workers nested in 87 departments from the country of Wales. Results support their hypotheses, which highlight several negative consequences when HPWS are implemented with low levels of job control. They discuss their findings in light of the critique in the literature

High-Performance HR Practices, Work Stress and Quit Intentions in the Public Health Sector: Does person–organization fit matter?

“…Little attention has been paid to the link between HPHRP and work outcomes that undermine employee health and well-being such as stress at work (Jensen et al, 2011). Baptiste (2008) found that HPHRP had a significant positive effect on the well-being of employees in the UK.…”

“…Second, these outcomes are critical for organizations nowadays and have been shown to have significant implications for both employees and organizational performance (Eatough et al, 2011;Khatri et al, 2001;Kim, 2005). Finally, testing the effects of HPHRP on job stress, a well-being variable, and quit intentions, which is the strongest indicator of turnover behaviour, will help evaluate whether HPHRP, which are aimed at providing organizations with a competitive advantage, do so at the expense of employees by resulting in negative consequences for workers (Jensen et al, 2011).…”

The Implementation of High Performance Work System in Public Organizations: Implication for Organizational Performance.

“…These innovative practices are referred to as HPWS (Datta et al, 2005;Ferreiraa, Neirab, & Vieirac, 2012;Huselid, 1995;Jensen, Patel, & Messersmith, 2013), dated back to the middle of 80s (Lawler, 1986;Watson, 1985) from American tradition of human resource management which argued that employees contribution is significant to organizational performance (Ferreiraa et al, 2012). Since then HPWS has continued to gain rising support.…”

High-Performance Human Resource Practices and Team Job Satisfaction: Moderating Role of Team Citizenship Behaviors

“…Ramsay, Scholaris and Harley, 2000;White, Hill, McGovern, Mills, C., and Smeaton, 2003;Jensen, Patel, and Messersmith, 2013;Van De Voorde and Jensen, 2016). These scholars present a "dark side" high performance work practices, arguing that while the implementation of these practices may increase organizational performance, they do so at the cost of making employees work harder and reduce employees" job satisfaction.…”

“…While organizational citizenship behaviors are a positive outcome at the workplace, one could argue that these practices make people work harder and they are expected to put in more than what is required of their job. This could potentially result in negative outcomes for the individual employee in terms of longer working hours that have consequences for their satisfaction at work (White et al, 2003;Jensen et al, 2013;Van De Voorde and Jensen, 2016).…”