Implementation of an Employee Involvement Programme in a Small, Emerging High‐technology Firm

Abstract

Reports the effects of an employee involvement programme on members of a small, emerging high tech firm. (Names of firm, industry, and officers used in this study have been disguised). The attitudes of these employees towards management and their perceptions of behavioural changes are described. A consultant’s experience in the development and implementation of such a programme is presented.

Exploring quality management practices and high tech firm performance

“…The findings also corroborate the argument that as their relationships with customers become closer, entrepreneurial high tech firms improve their management of quality and human resources (Chaston, 1998). Furthermore, the findings extend the generalizability of results from studies conducted in a single company (Howard & Foster, 1999;Latona & La Van, 1993;Sohal & Lu, 1998).…”

Change Recipients’ Reactions to Organizational Change

“…To examine the impact of change content, studies compared change recipient reactions with different pre- and postchange situations, or with different types of organizational changes. Some of the changes, such as a shift from piece-rate compensation to gain-sharing bonuses (Hatcher & Ross, 1991), or the implementation of a change recipient involvement program (Latona & La Van, 1993), yielded positive change consequences, such as more favorable job attitudes and improved performance. Others assessed changes that yielded negative outcomes.…”

The adoption of high‐involvement practices and processes in emergent and developing firms: A descriptive and prescriptive approach

“…The arguments made thus far shed light on when EI/HIWP initiatives are typically adopted over the life cycle of the organization, as well as how these initiatives should affect the organization's development cycle through early adoption. Given the positive effects these initiatives have been found to have on employees and organizational outcomes (Fenton-O'Creevy, 1998;Latona & LaVan, 1993;Lawler et al, 1995;O'Reilly & Pfeffer, 2000) and their posited connection to a sustainable competitive advantage (Bowen & Lawler, 1995), it seems perplexing why the adoption of such practices is not conventional among the throngs of new ventures created every year. Notwithstanding the exception of a few high-profile examples, the norm seems to be that new ventures are created in a highly centralized fashion, with the founding entrepreneur having direct control or final say in the decision-making process, sharing little information with employees, offering few rewards, and providing the minimum training necessary (Collins, 1997).…”