You are here

Home » Content

TRAINING AND COMPANIES’ PERFORMANCE THROUGH THE LENS OF THE HIGH-PERFORMANCE PARADIGM: A CROSS-NATIONAL STUDY OF EUROPEAN COUNTRIE

Journal Name:

  • Bilgi Ekonomisi ve Yönetimi Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2012

Key Words:

Author Name
Abstract (2. Language): 
The high-performance paradigm approach to human resources management argues that the combination of human resources and work organization practices can boost individual and collective performance as well. Among those practices, knowledge is an important dimension in so far it prepares workers to be more participative and more autonomous. Although several studies look at the relation between high -performance systems and companies’ performance, there is still a lack of understanding of the importance and contribution of the training and development practices for companies’ performance, in the context of the high-performance paradigm. This paper’s aim is to contribute to this subject by looking at the differences between companies with and without training and development practices. Are the performance levels really different? To accomplish thi s goal, we develop a cross-national study of European countries, using data from the last European Company Survey (2009). The main conclusion is that there are differences between companies with and without training and development practices, having the former higher levels of performance than the latter.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
The high-performance paradigm approach to human resources management argues that the combination of human resources and work organization practices can boost individual and collective performance as well. Among those practices, knowledge is an important dimension in so far it prepares workers to be more participative and more autonomous. Although several studies look at the relation between high -performance systems and companies’ performance, there is still a lack of understanding of the importance and contribution of the training and development practices for companies’ performance, in the context of the high-performance paradigm. This paper’s aim is to contribute to this subject by looking at the differences between companies with and without training and development practices. Are the performance levels really different? To accomplish thi s goal, we develop a cross-national study of European countries, using data from the last European Company Survey (2009). The main conclusion is that there are differences between companies with and without training and development practices, having the former higher levels of performance than the latter.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastrmx_91824_7_pp_133-144.pdf
  • 2
133-144
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

Appelbaum, E., & Batt, R. (1994) The new American workplace: transforming work systems in the United
States. Ithaca, New York: ILR Press
Applebaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P., and Kalleberg, A. (2000) Manufacturing Advantage: Why high-performance work systems pay off, Ithaca: ILR Press
Beltrán-Martín, I.; Roca-Puig, V.; Escrig-Tena, A.; Bou-Llusar, J.C. (2008) Human Resource Flexibility as a
Mediating Variable Between High Performance Work Systems and Performance, Journal of
Management, 34(5), 1009-1044
Boxall, P., and Macky, K. (2007) High-performance work systems and organisational performance: bridging
theory and practice, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 45(3), 261-270.
Boxall, P., and Macky, K. (2009) Research and theory on high-performance work systems: progressing the high
involvement stream. Human Resource Management Journal, 19(1), 3-23.
Brewster. C. (2007) Comparative HRM: European views and perspectives, The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 18(5), 769-787
Camps, J. & Luna-Arocas, R. (2009) High involvement work practices and firm performance, International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(5), 1056-1077
Cappelli, P., and Neumark, D. (2001) Do ‘high-performance’ work practices improve establishment level
outcomes?, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 54, 737–76.
Delaney, J.T., & Huselid, M.A. (1996) The impact of human resource management practices on perceptions of
organisational performance, Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 949-969.
Guerrero, S. & Barraud-Didier, V. (2004) High-involvement practices and performance of French firms, The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 15(8), 1408-1423
Godard, J. (2004) A critical assessment of the high-performance paradigm. British Journal of Industrial
Relations, 42(2), 349–378.
Guthrie, J.P., Spell, C.S., and Nyamori, R.O. (2002) Correlates and consequences of high involvement work
practices: the role of competitive strategy, International Journal of Human Resource Management,
13(1), 183–197
Harley, B. (2002) Employee responses to High-Performance Work System Practices: an analysis of the AWIR95
data, The Journal of Industrial Relations, 44(3), 418-434
Harley, B., Allen, B.C., & Sargent, L.D. (2007) High performance work Systems and Employee Experience of
Work in the Service Sector: the case of aged care. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 45(3), 607-633.
Huselid, M. (1995) The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and
corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38(3), 635-672.
Ichniowski, C.; Shaw, K.; Prennushi, G. (1997) T he effects of human resources management practices on
productivity: a study of steel finishing lines. The American Economic Review, 87(3), 291-313.
Kalmi, P. & Kauhanen, A. (2008) Workplace Innovations and Employee Outcomes: Evidence from Finland,
Industrial Relations, 47(3), 430-459
Kintana, M.L.; Alonso, A.U. & Olaverri, C.G. (2006) High-performance work systems and firms' operational
performance: the moderating role of technology, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 17(1), 70-85
Lawler, E. (1986) High-Involvement Management, New Jersey, Jossey-Bass
Lindbeck, A. & Snower, D. J. (2000). Multi-task learning and the reorganization of work: from tayloristic to
holistic organization, Journal of Labour Economics, 18(3), 353-376
Pfeffer, J. (1998) The Human Equation: Building Profits by Putting People First, Boston: Harvard Business
School Press
Ramsay, H, Scholarios, D., and Harley, B. (2000) Employees and High-Performance Work Systems: Testing
inside the Black Box. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 38(4), 501-531.
Scotti, D.J.; Harmon, J. & Behson, S.J. (2007) Links Among High-Performance Work Environment, Service
Quality, and Customer Satisfaction: An Extension to the Healthcare Sector, Journal of Healthcare
Management, 52(2), 109-124
Swanson, R. (1995)Human resource development: performance is the key, Human Resource Development
Quarterly, 6(2), 207-213
Tapia, I.; Correa, J.A; & Guthrie, J.P. (2009) High performance work systems and export performance, The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(3), 633-653
Tomer, J.F. (2001). Understanding high-performance work systems: The joint contribution of economics and
human resource management, Journal of Socio-Economics, 30, 63-73
Tsai, C. (2006) High performance work systems and organizational performance: an empirical study of Taiwan's
semiconductor design firms, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(9), 1512-1530
The Journal of Knowledge Economy & Knowledge Management / Volume: VII FALL
Tüm hakları BEYDER’e aittir 146 All rights reserved by The JKEM
Whitener, E.M. (2007) Do “high commitment” human resource practices affect employee commitment? A cross-level analysis using hierarchical linear modelling, Journal of Management, 27, 515-535
Yalabik, Chen, Lawler & Kim, (2008) High-Performance Work System and Organizational Turnover in East and
Southeast Asian Countries, Industrial Relations, 47(1), 145-152
Zacharatos, A.; Barling, J. & Iverson, R.D. (2005) High-Performance Work Systems and Occupational Safety,
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 77–93

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com