The paper "High-Performance Work Systems" is an outstanding example of a management assignment. High-performance work systems (HPWS) are tools of management desired to maximize the contribution of workers. Human resource recognizes that the production process is complex and requires creative, innovative and cooperative employees. These systems reduce transaction costs and increase the asymmetry of information as employees become self-regulating and controlling. It also minimizes employee resistance implying that HPWS increases organizational performance. Lepak et al. (2012) observe that using HPWS enhances employee knowledge, opportunity, motivation, abilities and skills that are positively connected to positive organizational outcomes.
These outcomes are better financial performance, enhanced safety, higher quality and productivity, lower turnover and greater commitment. Their findings show that motivation, skill and opportunity are positively related to employee motivation and human capital. However, Combs et al. (2006) argue that despite strong evidence of a positive relationship between firm performance and HPWS, mechanisms linking organizational outcomes and HRM practices remain vague. The authors point to the notion that there could be multiple dimensions to a more complete and broad picture of the relationship between organizational outcomes and HRM practices.
For example, in 2003/04 a survey was conducted on all company employees and management of the Victorian Healthcare system that uses HPWS. Clear and consistent messages on desired behaviors and attitudes among employees direct them to achieve goals as proposed by the management. Organizations with positive employee attitudes, values, beliefs and behavior tend to have fewer complaints, fewer hours lost, low turnover, less disciplinary case or claims and stress-related episodes. Question 2: “ High-performance work systems always benefits the worker” . Critically assess this statement. There is a full spectrum of debate on whether High-performance work systems are beneficial to the worker, firm or work-life balance.
Base on the original ‘ P-Workplace power, I-Information, R-Rewards and K-Knowledge’ model of Lawler (1986), Richardson, Vandenberg and Eastman (1999) found these variables as mutually reinforcing.
Appelbaum ET Bailey P Berg & Kalleberg AL 2000, Manufacturing advantage: Why high- performance work systems pay off. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.
Bartram T Stanton P Leggat S Casimir G & Fraser B 2007, Lost in translation: exploring the link between HRM and performance in healthcare. Human Resource Management Journal 17(1), 21-41.
Becker B & Huselid M 2006, Strategic human resource management: where do we go from Here? Journal of Management 32(6), 898-925.
Bowen DE & Ostroff C 2004, Understanding HRM-firm performance Linkages: The role of the ‘strength’ of the HRM system. Academy of Management Review. Vol. 29, No. 2, 203- 221.
Boxall P Ang S & Bartram T 2011, Analyzing the ‘black box’ of HRM: uncovering HR goals, mediators and outcomes in a standardized service environment. Journal of Management Studies 48(7), 1504–1532.
Combs J Liu Y Hall A & Ketchen D 2006, How much do high-performance work practices matter? A meta-analysis of their effects on organizational performance. Personnel Psychology, 59: 501-528.
Dyer L & Reeves T 1995, Human resource strategies and firm performance: What do we know and where do we need to go? International Journal of Human Resource Management, 6: 656-670.
Jensen JB & Kletzer L 2005, Tradable services: understanding the scope and impact of services off-shoring. London.
Lawler EE 1986, High-involvement management: Participative strategies for improving organizational performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Leighton P & Painter RW 2001, Casual workers: still marginal after all these years? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 10 (1)24-33.
Lepak DP, Jiang K Hu J & Baer JC 2012, How does Human Resource Management influence organizational outcomes? A meta-analytic investigation of mediating mechanisms. Academy of Management Journal. Vol. 55, No. 6, 1264-1294.
Macky K & Boxall P 2008, High-involvement work processes, work intensification and employee well-being: A study of New Zealand worker experiences. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources. 46(1).
Ployhart RE & Moliterno TP 2011, Emergence of the human capital resource: A multilevel model. Academy of Management Review, 35: 127-150.
Shields J 2007, Managing Employee Performance and Reward: Concepts, Practices, Strategies. Cambridge University Press.
Vandenberg RJ Richardson HA & Eastman LJ 1999, The impact of high involvement work processes on organisational effectiveness: A second order latent variable approach. Group and Organisational Management 24(1): 300–39.
Warr PB 1994, A conceptual framework for the study of work and mental health. Work and Stress 8: 84–97.