In the literature on workplace innovation or organizational innovation, the concept of high-performance work systems (HPWS) has gained a prominent position. Theoretical and empirical evidence supports the argument that HPWS and their innovative workplace practices can increase firms’ performance. However, several studies have shown that, surprisingly, these practices are only infrequently adopted. Drawing insights from labour process theory and by using an in-depth qualitative approach, this article sheds light on this innovation diffusion paradox. It demonstrates how the realm of micro-politics and related conflicts, resistance and factory games affect the introduction of new practices in two Finnish factories.
Appelbaum E. ( 2002) The impact of new forms of work organization on workers . In: Murray G, Belanger J, Giles A, and Lapointe PA (eds) Work and Employment Relations in the High-Performance Workplace. London: Continuum, 120-149.
2.
Appelbaum E., Bailey T., Berg P., and Kalleberg AK ( 2000) Manufacturing Advantage: Why High-Performance Work Systems Pay Off. Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell University Press.
3.
Batt R. ( 2004) Who benefits from teams? Comparing the outcomes for managers, supervisors, and workers. Industrial Relations43(1): 183-213.
4.
Beynon H. ( 1988) Regulating research: Politics and decision making in industrial organizations. In: Bryman A (ed.) Doing Research in Organizations. London: Routledge, 21-33.
5.
Blasi JR, Kruse DL ( 2006) US high-performance work practices at century’s end. Industrial Relations45(4): 547-578.
6.
Boreham N, Samurcay R, and Fischer M (eds) (2002) Work Process Knowledge. London and New York: Routledge.
7.
Braverman H. ( 1974) Labour and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century. New York: Monthly Review Press.
8.
Burawoy M. ( 1979) Manufacturing Consent: Changes in the Labor Process under Monopoly Capitalism. Chicago, IL and London: The University of Chicago Press.
9.
Contu A., Grey C., and Örtenblad A. (2003) Against learning. Human Relations56(8): 931- 952.
10.
Danford A., Richardson M., Stewart P., Tailby S., and Upchurch M. ( 2004) High performance work systems and workplace partnership: A case study of aerospace workers. New Technology, Work and Employment19(1): 14-29.
11.
Danford A., Richardson M., Stewart P., Tailby S., and Upchurch ( 2005) Partnership and the High Performance Workplace: Work and Employment Relations in the Aerospace Industry. Basingstoke : Palgrave Macmillan.
12.
Delaney J., Godard J. ( 2001) An industrial relations perspective on the high-performance paradigm. Human Resource Management Review11(4): 395-429.
13.
Edwards R. ( 1979) Contested Terrain: The Transformation of the Workplace in the Twentieth Century. New York: Basic Books.
14.
Friedman A. ( 1977) Industry and Labour: Class Struggle at Work and Monopoly Capitalism. London: Macmillan.
15.
Godard J. ( 2004) A critical assessment of the high-performance paradigm . British Journal of Industrial Relations42(2): 349-378.
16.
Guest D. ( 1998) Is the psychological contract worth taking seriously? Journal of Organizational Behavior 19 (December, Suppl.1): 649-664.
17.
Ichniowski C., Kochan T., Levine D., Olson O., and Strauss G. ( 1996) What works at work. Industrial Relations35(3): 299-333.
18.
Järvensivu A. ( 2007) Työprosessitieto - avain monitaitoisuuteen. Tampere: Tampere University Press.
19.
Jorgenson DL ( 1989) Participant Observation: A Methodology for Human Studies . London: Sage.
20.
Kalmi P., Kauhanen A. ( 2008) Workplace innovations and employee outcomes: Evidence from Finland. Industrial Relations47(3): 430-459.
21.
Kauhanen A. ( 2007) The incidence of the high-performance work systems: Evidence from a nationally representative employee survey. In: Kauhanen A (ed.) Essays on Empirical Personnel Economics, Acta Universitatis Oeconomicae Helsingiensis A-305. Helsinki : Helsinki School of Economics, 35-66.
22.
Knights D. ( 2001) Hanging out the dirty washing: Labor process debate and its dualistic legacies. International Studies of Management and Organization30(4): 40-67.
23.
Knights D., McCabe D. ( 1998) When life is but a dream: Obliterating politics through business process reengineering? Human Relations51(6): 761-798.
24.
Littler CR ( 1982) The Development of the Labour Process in Capitalist Societies . London: Heinemann.
25.
Lloyd C., Payne J. ( 2006) Goodbye to all that: A critical re-evaluation of the role of the high performance work organization within the UK skills debate. Work , Employment and Society20: 151-165.
26.
Niemelä J., Kalliola S. ( 2007) Team membership and experiences of work in the finnish Context. Economic and Industrial Democracy28(4): 522-588.
27.
Pil FK, MacDuffie JP ( 1996) The adoption of high-involvement work practices. Industrial Relations35(3): 423-455.
28.
Ramsay H., Scholarios D., and Harley B. ( 2000) Employees and high-performance work systems: Testing inside black box. British Journal of Industrial Relations38(4): 501-531.
29.
Smith C., Thompson P. ( 1998) Re-evaluating the Labour process debate. Economic and Industrial Democracy19(4): 551-557.
30.
Thompson P., Ackroyd S. ( 1995) All quiet on the workplace front? A critique of recent trends in British industrial sociology. Sociology29(4): 615-633.
