This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Boxall, P. Articles by Macky, K. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

High-performance work systems and organisational performance: Bridging theory and practice

University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand, p.boxall{at}auckland.ac.nz

Keith Macky

Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand

This commentary paper explores the meaning and significance of high-performance work systems (HPWSs), an important topic in the debate around how to build a `high-skill' or `high-road' economy. Work reforms to increase the involvement of production or front-line service workers are at the heart of these systems, which are therefore more aptly called `high-involvement work systems' (HIWSs). While emphasising that the specific practices in such systems need to be customised to industry and occupational conditions, this paper outlines the core features of HIWSs, including the wider managerial and governance processes in which they are embedded. The paper goes on to explain how the literature in the HPWS area is making a valuable contribution to our understanding of the role of intervening management and employee variables in the performance of any kind of HR system. This underlines the value to any company concerned about its HR performance of looking at the chain of links that runs from management intentions through management practices and employee responses to organisational outcomes.

Key Words: high-performance work systems • high-involvement work systems

References

• Appelbaum, E., T. Bailey, P. Berg, and A. Kalleberg. 2000. Manufacturing advantage: Why high-performance work systems pay o f. Ithaca: ILR Press.
• Appelbaum, E., and R. Batt. 1994. The new American workplace. Ithaca, New York: ILR Press.
• Appelyard, M., and C. Brown. 2001. Employment practices and semiconductor manufacturing performance. Industrial Relations 40(3): 436—71.[CrossRef]
• Bartram, T. 2005. Small firms, big ideas: The adoption of human resource management in Australian small firms. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 43(1): 137—54.[Abstract]
• Berg, P. 1999. The effects of high performance work practices on job satisfaction in the United States steel industry. Relations Industrielles 54(1): 111—34.
• Boxall, P. 2003. HR Strategy and competitive advantage in the service sector. Human Resource Management Journal 13(3): 5—20.
• Boxall, P., and J. Purcell. 2003. Strategy and human resource management. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Challis, D., D. Samson, and B. Lawson. 2005. Impact of technological, organizational and human resource investments on employee and manufacturing performance: Australian and New Zealand evidence. International Journal of Production Research 43(1): 81—107.[CrossRef]
• Cooke, F.L. 2004. Foreign firms in China: Modelling HRM in a toy manufacturing corporation. Human Resource Management Journal 14(3): 31— 52.
• Delbridge, R. 2007. HRM and contemporary manufacturing. In The Oxford handbook of human resource management, eds P. Boxall, J. Purcell, and P. Wright, 405—27. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Gollan, P. 2005. High involvement management and human resource sustainability: The challenges and opportunities. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 43(1): 18—33.[Abstract]
• Haynes, P., and G. Fryer. 2000. Human resources, service quality and performance: a case study. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 12(4): 240—8.[CrossRef]
• Kochan, T. 2004. Restoring trust in the human resource management profession. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 42(2): 132—46.[Abstract]
• Lawler, E. 1986. High-involvement management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Lawler, E. 2005. Creating high performance organisations. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 43(1): 10—17.[Abstract]
• Legge, K. 2005. Human resource management: Rhetorics and realities. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
• MacDuffie, J. 1995. Human Resource bundles and manufacturing performance: Organizational logic and flexible production systems in the world auto industry. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 48(2): 197—221.[CrossRef]
• Mackie, K., C. Holahan, and N. Gottlieb. 2001. Employee involvement management practices, work stress, and depression in employees of a human services residential care facility. Human Relations 54(8): 1065—92.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Macky, K., and P. Boxall. 2006. Work intensification, high-involvement work processes and employee well-being. Paper presented to KCL-ACREW Conference, Prato, 1—4 July.
• Macky, K., and P. Boxall. 2007. The relationship between high-performance work practices and employee attitudes: An investigation of additive and interaction effects. International Journal of Human Resource Management 18(4): 537—67.
• Park, H.J., T.M. Gardner, and P.M. Wright. 2004. HR practices or HR capabilities: Which matters? Insights from the Asia Pacific region. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 42(3): 260—73.[Abstract]
• Purcell, J., and S. Hutchinson. 2007. Front-line managers as agents in the HRM-performance causal chain: Theory, analysis and evidence. Human Resource Management Journal 17(1): 3—20.[CrossRef]
• Purcell, J., N. Kinnie, S. Hutchinson, J. Swart, and B. Rayton. 2003. Understanding the people and performance link: Unlocking the black box. London: CIPD.
• Sprigg, C., P. Jackson, and S. Parker. 2000. Production teamworking: The importance of interdependence and autonomy for employee strain and satisfaction. Human Relations 53(11): 1519—43.[Abstract]
• Vandenberg, R.J., H.A. Richardson, and L.J. Eastman. 1999. The impact of high involvement work processes on organizational effectiveness: A second-order latent variable approach. Group & Organization Management 24(3): 300—39.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Wall, T., M. Corbett, R. Martin, C. Clegg, and P. Jackson. 1990. Advanced manufacturing technology, work design and performance: A change study. Journal of Applied Psychology 75(6): 691—7.[CrossRef]
• Wall, T., P. Jackson, and K. Davids. 1992. Operator work design and robotics system performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 77(3): 353—62.[CrossRef]
• Walton, R.E. 1985. From control to commitment in the workplace. Harvard Business Review 63(2): 77—84.
• Womack, J., D. Jones, and D. Roos. 1990. The machine that changed the world: The triumph of lean production. New York: Rawson Macmillan.
• Wood, S., and P. Albanese. 1995. Can we speak of high commitment management on the shop floor? Journal of Management Studies 32(2): 215—247.[CrossRef]
• Wright, P., and T. Gardner. 2004. The human resource—firm performance relationship: Methodological and theoretical challenges. In The new workplace: A guide to the human impact of modern work practices, eds D. Holman, T. Wall, C. Clegg, P. Sparrow, and A. Howard, 311—30. London: John Wiley.

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 45, No. 3, 261-270 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/1038411107082273.


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Boxall, P. Articles by Macky, K. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?