What Works at Work: Overview and Assessment

Ichniowski, Casey; Kochan, Thomas A.; Levine, David I.; Olson, Craig A.; Strauss, George

doi:10.1111/j.1468-232x.1996.tb00409.x

Cited by 549 publications

(240 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

202

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Organisational policy now contains numerous welfare facilities and how they are to be provided for the benefits of the employees (Ichniowski, et al 1996). The company's annual reports and financial statement now reflect the amount of money being spent on various welfare schemes to the employees.…”

Section: Implementation Of Welfare Measures and Amenitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Importance of the Welfare Facilities in the Workplace: Issues in Perspectives

Odeku¹,

Odeku²

2015

SJSECO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Implementation Of Welfare Measures and Amenitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Importance of the Welfare Facilities in the Workplace: Issues in Perspectives

Odeku¹,

Odeku²

2015

SJSECO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Certains auteurs les définissent par contraste en les opposant au taylorisme (Caudron, 1993 ;Ichniowski et al, 1996). Ainsi, l'organisation tayloriste du travail serait caractérisée par la division du travail, la différentiation fonctionnelle et hiérarchique des structures organisationnelles, le contrôle, la supervision directe et l'obéissance aux règles (Caudron, 1993).…”

Section: Cadre Conceptuel Et Hypothèses Les Nfot : Brève Définitionunclassified

“…Selon la théorie de l'inertie, l'âge et la taille des organisations limiteraient leur habileté à s'adapter aux menaces et opportunités de leur environnement (Hannan et Freeman, 1977). L'organisation du travail se cristalliserait au cours de la première période de croissance de l'entreprise et il serait difficile, par la suite, de la modifier, ce qui laisserait présager un taux d'adoption des NFOT moins élevé au sein des entreprises plus âgées (Ichniowski et al, 1996 ;Balkin et Markman, 1998). Il serait également plus difficile aux grandes entreprises de s'adapter aux menaces et opportunités de l'environnement et de mettre en place des changements organisationnels importants (Bergeron, Rivard et Raymond, 1998).…”

Section: Pressions Des Normes Et Mimétismeunclassified

Les nouvelles formes d’organisation du travail

Chênevert

Dubé

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cette étude analyse le taux de pénétration des nouvelles formes d’organisation du travail (NFOT) ainsi que leurs déterminants. Pour ce faire, les perspectives contingente et institutionnelle ont été mises à profit afin de caractériser les facteurs explicatifs des NFOT dans 252 entreprises québécoises. Les résultats de cette étude sont concluants : la perspective contingente explique mieux la présence des NFOT lorsque le taux de pénétration de ces pratiques est élevé, alors que la perspective institutionnelle s’avère dominante lorsque ce taux est faible. Concrètement, les résultats suggèrent que la stratégie d’affaires, la gestion participative, le type de culture et la qualité totale, caractérisant la perspective contingente, sont les facteurs déterminants d’une pénétration élevée des NFOT, alors que le secteur d’activités, la concurrence à l’international et la structure de gouvernance, caractérisant la perspective institutionnelle, expliquent mieux la présence des NFOT lorsque celles-ci sont implantées superficiellement.

show abstract

“…Finally, training, for example in the basics of business administration, communication or seminars about the economic situation of the firm, increases the competence of the employees and their readiness to engage themselves in the firm (Ichniowski et al, 1996;Godard and Delaney, 2000). Especially in highly participative work organisations, continuous training seems to be a necessary complement to the increased demand for skills of non-managerial staff.…”

Section: Theoretical Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The theoretical considerations expounded above suggest, however, that there are complementarities between employee involvement, training activities and incentive systems, provided that they are implemented properly. Therefore, we expect that isolated organizational changes have a lower impact on productivity than a complete new orientation of personnel management (Osterman, 1994;Huselid, 1995;Ichniowski et al, 1996;Appelbaum et al, 2000).…”

Section: Theoretical Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reassessing the Impact of High Performance Workplaces

Wolf

Zwick

2003

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Die Discussion Papers dienen einer möglichst schnellen Verbreitung von neueren Forschungsarbeiten des ZEW. Die Beiträge liegen in alleiniger Verantwortung der Autoren und stellen nicht notwendigerweise die Meinung des ZEW dar.Discussion Papers are intended to make results of ZEW research promptly available to other economists in order to encourage discussion and suggestions for revisions. The authors are solely responsible for the contents which do not necessarily represent the opinion of the ZEW.Download this ZEW Discussion Paper from our ftp server:ftp://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/dp/dp0207.pdf Non-technical summaryInnovative personnel measures that increase involvement, qualification and motivation of (non-managerial) employees (so-called high performance workplaces or just HPW) were extolled as an efficient means to increase firm productivity. The theoretical literature further stresses the complementarities between these measures. In practice, it is however noticeable that some measures, such as profit sharing or employee share ownership have been adopted by a small minority of firms. Despite the supposed complementarities, only very few firms use the full set of measures or combinations of some measures. Some authors point to the fact that extensive organizational changes or incentive contracts may not necessarily provide the expected results, but may even impair employee satisfaction and hence firms' performance. Other reasons for the finding that the incidence of high performance workplaces is smaller than the theoretical literature suggests could be the high implementation costs, employee resistance against innovations and last but not least small and uncertain productivity effects.The empirical evidence on the productivity effects of HPW is not clear either. While a couple of papers find significant and durable positive effects of HPW on productivity, several studies are rather sceptical about the productivity impacts. The differences between the results may be due to measurement problems, limited and deliberately chosen samples of firms, and the fact that most studies analyse different sets of personnel measures. We show that unobserved heterogeneity among firms and endogeneity of the management practices may affect the conclusions substantially. While unobserved heterogeneity is corrected for in several studies, the endogeneity problem is ignored in most analyses. The vast majority of the empirical studies on the productivity effects of HPW refers to Anglo-Saxon countries, whereas the evidence for Germany is very scarce.The original contribution of our paper is that we simultaneously account for both unobserved heterogeneity and endogeneity using representative and very detailed establishment panel data for Germany from 1996 to 2000. We find that firms often introduce specific related bundles of individual HPW measures. One common set of measures includes the reduction of hierarchies and the introduction of team-work and independent work groups (denoted here as "organizational changes"). The other (some...

show abstract

What Works at Work: Overview and Assessment

Cited by 549 publications

References 21 publications

Importance of the Welfare Facilities in the Workplace: Issues in Perspectives

Importance of the Welfare Facilities in the Workplace: Issues in Perspectives

Les nouvelles formes d’organisation du travail

Reassessing the Impact of High Performance Workplaces

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About