The UK productivity gap in the service sector: do management practices matter?

Abstract

PurposeThis paper aims to contribute to the debate on the drivers of the productivity gap that exists between the UK and its major international competitors.Design/methodology/approachFrom the macro perspective the paper explores the quantitative evidence on the productivity differentials and how they are measured. From the micro perspective, the article explores the quantitative evidence on the role of management practices claimed to be a key determinant in promoting firm competitiveness and in bridging the UK gap.FindingsThis study suggests that management practices are an ambiguous driver of firm productivity and higher firm performance. On the methodological side, qualitative and subjective measures of either management practices or firm performance are often used. This makes the results not comparable across studies, across firms or even within firms over time. Productivity and profitability are often and erroneously interchangeably used while productivity is only one element of firm performance. On the other hand, management practices are multi‐dimensional constructs that generally do not demonstrate a straightforward relationship with productivity variables. To assume that they are the only driver of higher productivity may be misleading. Moreover, there is evidence of an inverse causal relationship between management practices and firm performance. This calls into question most empirical results of the extant literature based on the unidirectional assumption of direct causality between management practices and firm performance.Research limitations/implicationsThese and other issues suggest that more research is needed to deepen the understanding of the UK productivity gap and more quantitative evidence should be provided on the way in which management practices contribute to the UK competitiveness. Their impact is not easily measurable due to their complexity and their complementary nature and this is a fertile ground for further research.Originality/valueThis paper brings together the evidence on the UK productivity gap and its main drivers, provided by the economics, management and performance measurement literature. This issue scores very highly in the agenda of policy makers and academics and has important implications for practitioners interested in evaluating the impact of managerial best practices.

The Future of Public Sector HRM in Mauritius from an Accountability Perspective

“…Accordingly, a survey was conducted by the Bureau to take stock of implementation accomplishments and blockages alike [9]. Many positive results were noted amongst those Ministries (37%) that had fully implemented the PMS, but many findings were points of concern, namely: -For many, it was not clear how PLM was promoting organizational goals -Many were not convinced about how PMS would help in their career or promotion; -Less than a quarter of all organizations reported having been able to use the PMS as a basis for staff training plans or for promotion decisions; -The appraisal forms were cumbersome and unrealistic -PMS seemed to be missing the point of addressing real management challenges -The critical ingredient of senior management "focus" and commitment to PMS in order to make it work was simply not present These findings do echo what already exists in many case study reports and literature reviews, wherein we find that performance management systems seem to fall foul of their lofty ideals ( [16]- [20]) In early 2013, a survey of 1000 companies worldwide shed light on performance management practices showed that, while performance management continue to be of "critical interest worldwide", very few companies (3%) reported that their PMS delivers exceptional value [21] A PBB system, for its part, is a driving force behind the emphasis on identifying goals and measures. Application of PBB is pushing public sector departments and ministries in the direction of aligning all their activities, including HRM, toward achieving strategic goals and measuring progress toward those goals, in an effort to improve the confidence of the public in the Government.…”

High-growth firms and productivity: evidence from the United Kingdom

“…Being a multinational in the service sector significantly increases a firm's likelihood to achieve HGF status, regardless of age group. This is likely driven by successful service firms replicating successful business models in other countries as well as its management practices (Battisti and Lona 2009), showing that the highgrowth service sector is not just focused on the UK economy. However, it does not have a significant effect in the manufacturing sector.…”

How Innovative are UK Firms? Evidence from the Fourth UK Community Innovation Survey on Synergies between Technological and Organizational Innovations

“…In particular, within the economics of innovation and technological change and within the endogenous growth literature one can find several theoretical and empirical studies that have demonstrated the role played by technological innovations in promoting competitiveness at both micro and macro levels. The evidence on the impact of the adoption of organizational innovations, for a number of reasons, tends to be less consistent (see for example Battisti and Iona (2006) for a review of the literature on the impact of a range of such practices upon firm performance). In both cases, however, most of the existing studies tend to analyse the impact of individual innovative practices in isolation.…”