Samenvatting
Summary Articles
- Instelling
- Universiteit Van Amsterdam (UvA)
An extended summary of the articles of Marketing Management for the pre-master course Business Administration at UvA.
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 3 van de 22 pagina's
Voorbeeld 3 van de 22 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
How much do high-performance work practices matter? A meta-analysis of their effectson organizational performance
Human resources can be an organization’s largest and most difficult to control expense, but it
can also be central ingredients affecting organizational performance. Human resource practices
that SHRM theorist consider performance enhancing are known was high-performance work
practices (HPWP). Hpwp’s include for example, incentive compensation, training, employee
participation, selectivity and flexible work arrangements. Shrm theory asserts that these
practices increase employees’ knowledge, skills, and abilities empower employees to leverage
their KSAs for organizational benefit, and increase their motivation to do so. The result is greater
job satisfaction, lower employee turnover, higher productivity, and better decision making, all of
which help improve organizational performance.
Theory and hypothesis
Shrm researchers point to three mediators through which hpwps affect organizational
performance. Hpwps operate by:
Increasing employees’ knowledge, skills and abilities.
Empowering employees to act.
Motivating them to do so.
Broad recruiting and selectivity in staffing brings ksas into organizations. Ksas are further
advance through practices such as training, job design and compensation tied to skill
development. Hpwps such as incentive compensation, performance appraisal and internal
promotion policies are though to offer incentives to aid motivation. Hpwps such as employment
security, flexible work schedules, procedures for airing grievances, and high overall
compensation can also increase motivation by increasing employee commitment. Finally, even
knowledgeable, skilled and motivated employees will not deploy their discretionary time and
talent unless the organizational structure and job designs offer the latitude to act. Overall, hpwps
improve organizational performance by increasing ksaa, empowering employeese to leverage
their ksa for organizational benefit and motivating them to do so.
Hpwps or organizational performance is further by their impact on organizations internal social
structures. Hpwps such as self-managed teams and flexible job designs link people who do not
typically interact with each other, which facilitate information sharing and resource exchange.
Hpwps such as training, compensation, and selectivity in staffing increase generalized norms of
reciprocity by helping select and retain people most likely to develop such norms. Also hpwps
such as selectivity, training, and information sharing help establish shared mental models among
employees. These postivie changes in the internal social structure increase organizational
flexibility and efficiency. Jointly, these processes increase job satisfaction and help employees
work more productively and make better decisions. These in turn reduce employee turnover and
improve organizational performance vis-à-vis competitors.
Hypothesis 1: the use of hpwps is positively related to organizational performance
Two reasons for why the value of hpwps increases when multiple practices are combines into a
coordinated system. The first is that practices have additive effects. The second reason is that
synergies occur when one practice reinforces another. It is possible for multiple practices to
reduce organizational performance. This happens when two practices are substitutes. Two
practices might also produce a deadly combination wherein they work against each other. Hpwp
systems should outperform individual practices.
Hypothesis 2: the positive relationship between hpwps and organizational performance is larger
for hpwp systems than for individual practices
Because hpwps increase employee ksas empower employees to leverage their ksas and motivate
them to do so, they influence employee discretionary effort, creativity, and productivity. These in
,turn, increase operating performance measures such as employee turnover and job satisfaction,
which ultimately translates into increased accounting returns in market value. Hpwps should
affect operational performance measures, more than financial measures. Operational outcomes
are much closer to the behavioural improvements employees are expected to make. There should
be little slippage between the implementation of hpwps, improved employee behaviours, and the
operational performance measures that register these behaviours. The relationship between
hpwpss and the operational performance measures of turnover or productivity should be
stronger than for more remote financial performance dimensions.
Hypothesis 3: the positive relationship between hpwps and organizational performance is larger
for operational measures than for financial measures
One potentially important moderators that deserves attention is industry context. Service
employees are close to customers, so the effects of hpwps on employee behaviour should more
directly affect quality. Nevertheless, there are four reasons why we expect the effect of hpwps to
be greater among manufacturers. First, manufacturing jobs often involve complex and
potentially dangerous machinery. Hpwps interact with other programs such as total quality
management and lean manufacturing to significantly increase manufacturers’ flexibility and
ability to adapt. Because manufacturers depend more than service on their ability to flexibly
adapt to changes in their physical infrastructure and increased workforce flexibility is a major
benefit of hpwps. A second reason to expect manufacturing organiations to realize greater gains
is because they rely more than service organizations do on their human resource system to
deliver two key hpwp outcomes – ksas and motivation. Manufacturers do not benefit from these
sources of ksa development or motivation. Because the ksas needed in manufacturing are often
organiation-specific, generally trained workers usually must receive formal training on machine
use and production procedures. Similarly, manufacturers must motivate employees to put forth
discretionary effort without the benefits of direct customer contact. The third reason we expect
manufacturers to benefit more from hpwps arises from the co-production of services by
employees and customers.
Even the most effective hpwp system can only influence a range of production outcomes that is
limited by customers’ varying levels of ability and willingness to participate. Manufacturers
confront no such limitation in controlling production outcomes. The impact of hpwps on
manufacturing performance can be larger because their influence is not capped by a limited
ability to control final outcomes. A final reason we expect hpwps to have larger effects among
manufacturers is that some hpwps appear better aligned with manufacturing work. The level of
alignment between hpwps and the work environment is less in service organizations, and the
observed affects are likely smaller. We do expect hpwps to have a positive and significant effect
on organizational performance in service organizations. In addition to ksas and motivation,
empowerment is the third key outcome of hpwps. Empowering hpwps foster a service climate
that enables service workers to offer the best service possible. Finally hpwps offer service
workers motivational incentives to engage in extra-role activities that lead to higher customer
satisfaction. However, whereas the benefits of hpwps to service organizations is, alrge, their
potential to impact organizational performance among manufacturers is even greater. The
reasons are that:
Manufacturers benefit more from the flexibility wrought by hpwpw.
Services have alternative sources for ksa development and motivation that reduce the
available hpwp gain.
Customer participation in service production places a ceiling on the ragne in which hpwps
work.
Some hpwp align better with manufacturing work.
Method
, To be included in the analysis a study needed to report bivariate measures of effect size, hpwps
had to have been used broadly in the organizations studies and the study’s measures had to
reflect the use of or emphasis on hpwps. Hpwp practices include: incentive compensation
training, compensation level, participation, selectivity, internal promotion, HR planning, flexible
work, performance appraisal, grievance procedures, teams, information sharing and
employment security. We divided organizational performance measures into five dimensions
productivity, retention, accounting returns, growth and market returns.
Meta-analytic techniques
This estimate offers increase accuracy relative to those obtained from any one study because
positive and negative sampling errors cancel out. After sampling errors, measurement error has
the largest impact on effect size. For most studies, internal consistency among measures was the
only reported reliability statistics. Variance among correlations comprises true variance in the
population relationships and variance due to artifacts such as sampling and measurement error.
When artifacts do not explain a large proportion of variance, the probability increases that
moderators shape the relationship.
Results
Hypothesis 1 predicted that hpwps enhance organizational performance, which was supported.
Hypothesis 2 predicted that the relationship between HPWPs and organizational performance is
stronger when measures depict hpwp systems rather than individual practices, which is
supported. Hypothesis 3 was nog supported. Operational measures did not reveal stronger
effects than financial measures. Finally, hypothesis 4 predicted that studies of manufacturing
organizations would show larger effects than studies of service organizations, which as also
supported.
Discussion
We find that hpwps materially affect organizational performance. We find support for the
hypothesis that systems of hpwps have stronger effects than individual hpwps. Contrary to shrm
theory, the relationship appears invariant to the choice of organizational performance measure.
The model depicts main effects and a feedback loop between hpwps and hpwpw systems, and
orgnaizaitonal performance, the mediators that drive the hpwp-performance relationship
according to shrm theory, and the three major classes of moderators found in the literature, that
is, research design, context, and organizational strategy. Our fist contribution is to offer a
conservative point estimate of the overall main effect of hpwps on organizational performance.
20% of the utility available from predicting performance dfiferences among organizations is
given by hpwps.
Whereas hpwps have an important positive effect on organizational performance, our
robustness test reveal that the effects for three practices have not thus far been shown to be
greater than zero. Performance appraisal and information sharing do not appear unduly
influence by outlying studies. Although there is less debate surrounding information sharing, ti
seems apparent that some types of information are more critical than other for empowering
employees. A key implications is that all hpwps are not equal. For some practices, such as
incentive compensation, the specific version of the practice, such as groups versus individual
bonuses, might matter less than for other practices, such as developmental versus control-
oriented performance appraisal. Similarly, the mere implementation of some practices might
affect organizational performance whereas the effectiveness of the implementation might
determine outcomes for others.
Our second contribution is testing the assertion that hpwp systems have stronger organizational
performance effects than individual hpwps. Shrm resrach has shifted its focus awasy from
individual hpwps toward hpwp systems. Although the notion that a combination of interventions
has stronger effects than single interventions is supported in other research venues certina
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper deveneyjacqueline. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €6,49. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 59804 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 15 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen