High Performance Work Organizations (HPWOs) took root in the early 1990s but then faced an environment of organizational turmoil and restructuring. This paper, drawing on a second-round survey of employers that replicated and extended a 1992 survey, addresses two questions: whether HPWO practices continued to spread, and whether their productivity and quality gains redounded to employees' benefit. The results show that HPWO practices continued to diffuse at a rapid rate between the 1992 and 1997 survey dates, although more slowly for self-managed teams than for other practices. With regard to the second question, however, the author finds that adoption of HPWO practices in 1992 was associated with increased layoff rates in subsequent years and no compensation gains. In addition, HPWO practices are linked to employment reorganization, such as reductions in contingent and managerial employment.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdlerPaul. 1993. “The New Learning Bureaucracy.” In CummingsL.L. and StrawBarry, eds., Research in Organizational Behavior. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, pp. 111–94.
2.
AppelbaumEileen, and BattRosemary. 1994. The New American Workplace. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
3.
BaileyThomas. 1994. “‘High Performance’ Work Organization and the Apparel Industry: The Extent and Determinants of Reform.”New York: Columbia University, Institute on Education and the Economy, October.
4.
BattRosemary. 1995. Performance and Welfare Effects of Work Restructuring: Evidence from Telecommunications Services. Diss., Sloan School of Management, M.I.T.
5.
BattRosemary, and AppelbaumEileen. 1995. “Worker Participation in Diverse Settings: Does the Form Affect the Outcome, and if So, Who Benefits?”British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 33, No. 3 (September), pp. 353–78.
6.
CappelliPeter. 1992. “Examining Managerial Displacement.”Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 35, No. 1 (March), pp. 203–17.
7.
DiMaggioPaul, and PowellWalter. 1983. “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields.”American Sociological Review, Vol. 48, No. 2 (April), pp. 147–60.
8.
DoeringerPeterEvans-KlockChristine, and TerklaDavid. 1998. “Hybrids or Hodgepodges? Workplace Practices of Japanese and Domestic Startups in the United States.”Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 51, No. 2 (January), pp. 171–86.
9.
FreemanRichard, and RogersJoel. 1995. “Worker Representation and Participation Survey: First Report of Findings.” In VoosPaula, ed., Proceedings of the Forty-Seventh Annual Meeting. Madison: Industrial Relations Research Association.
10.
GittlemanMauryHorriganMichael, and JoyceMary. 1998. “‘Flexible’ Workplace Practices: Evidence from a Nationally Representative Survey.”Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 52, No. 1 (October), pp. 99–115.
11.
HeckscherCharles. 1995. White Collar Blues: Management Loyalty in an Age of Corporate Restructuring. New York: Basic Books.
12.
IchniowskiCaseyKochanThomasLevineDavidOlsonCraig, and StraussGeorge. 1996. “What Works at Work.”Industrial Relations, Vol. 35, No. 3 (July), pp. 299–333.
13.
JenkinsDavis, and ForthcomingRichard Florida. “Work System Innovation among Japanese Transplants in the United States.” In AdlerPaulFruinMark, and LikerJeffrey, eds., Remade in America: Japanese Manufacturing Transformed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14.
KochanThomas, and OstermanPaul. 1994. The Mutual Gains Enterprise. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
15.
LeighDuane, and GiffordKirk. 1999. “Workplace Transformation and Worker Upskilling: The Perspective of Individual Workers.”Industrial Relations, Vol. 38, No. 2 (April), pp. 174–91.
16.
MacDuffieJohn PaulHunterLarry, and DoucetLorna. 1996. “What Does Transformation Mean to Workers? The Effects of the ‘New Industrial Relations’ on Union Employee Attitudes.” Mimeo, Department of Management, the Wharton School, April.
17.
National Center on the Educational Quality of the American Workforce. 1995. “First Findings from the EQW National Employer Survey.”Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Center on the Educational Quality of the American Workforce.
18.
OstermanPaul. 1988. Employment Futures: Reorganization, Dislocation, and Public Policy. New York: Oxford University Press.
19.
OstermanPaul. 1994. “How Common Is Workplace Transformation and Who Adopts It?”Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 47, No. 2 (January), pp. 175–88.
20.
OstermanPaul. 1996. Broken Ladders: Managerial Careers in the New Economy. New York: Oxford University Press.
21.
OstermanPaul. 1999. Securing Prosperity: How the American Labor Market Has Changed and What to Do about It. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
22.
PilFrits, and MacDuffieJohn-Paul. 1996. “The Adoption of High Involvement Work Practices.”Industrial Relations, Vol. 35, No. 3 (July), pp. 423–55.
23.
TolbertPamela, and ZuckerLynn. 1983. “Institutional Sources of Change in the Formal Structure of Organizations: The Diffusion of Civil Service Reform, 1880–1935.”Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 1 (March), pp. 22–39.
