23013
High-performance
Work Systems

Key concepts and terms•

High-commitment management•

High-commitment model•

High-involvement management•

High-performance culture•

High-performance management••

Performance management model

High-performance work system(HPWS)

Learning outcomes
On completing this chapter you should be able to define these key concepts.
You should also know about:•

The characteristics of a highperformance culture•

The components of a HPWS•

Developing high-performancework systems•

The characteristics of a highperformance work system(HPWS)•

Impact of high-performancework systems

High-performance Work Systems

231

Introduction
Organizations are in the business of achieving sustained high performance. They do thisthrough the systems of work they adopt but these systems are managed and operated by people.
Ultimately, therefore, high-performance working is about improving performance throughpeople. The aim is to achieve a high-performance culture as defined in the first section of thischapter. This can be done through the development and implementation of high-performancework systems (defined in the second section of his chapter), which incorporate to varying
degrees processes of high performance, high commitment and high involvement management, as described in Chapter 3.
High-performance working can involve the two ‘ideal type’ approaches to HRM identified by
Guest (2007): 1) the ‘high-commitment’ model – ‘a move from external control through management systems, technology and supervision to self-control by workers or teams of workers,
who, because of their commitment to the organization, would exercise responsible autonomy
and control in the interests of the organization’. The emphasis is on intrinsic control andintrinsic rewards. 2) The ‘performance management model’ in which management retains
much of the control – ‘the focus is on the adoption of practices designed to maximize highperformance by ensuring high levels of competence and motivation.’ The emphasis is on external control and extrinsic rewards.
According to Guest, reconciling these has been attempted through high-performance work systems.
These achieve high performance by ensuring that HR practices are adopted ‘that lead to workers
having high ability/competence, high motivation, and an opportunity to contribute through jobs
that provide the discretion, autonomy and control required to use their knowledge and skills and to
exercise motivation’. The focus is on performance and not the well-being of employees.

High-performance culture
The aim of a HPWS is to achieve a high-performance culture, one in which the values, normsand HR practices of an organization combine to create a climate in which the achievement ofhigh levels of performance is a way of life.

Characteristics of a high-performance culture•

Management defines what it requires in the shape of performance improvements, sets goals for success and monitors performance to ensure that the goals
are achieved.

•

Alternative work practices are adopted such as job redesign, autonomous work
teams, improvement groups, team briefing and flexible working.

232

Human Resource Management Processes•

People know what’s expected of them – they understand their goals andaccountabilities.

•

People feel that their job is worth doing, and there is a strong fit between the job
and their capabilities.

•

People are empowered to maximize their contribution.

•

There is strong leadership from the top that engenders a shared belief in theimportance of continuing improvement.

•

There is a focus on promoting positive attitudes that result in an engaged, committed and motivated workforce.

•

Performance management processes are aligned to business goals to ensure thatpeople are engaged in achieving agreed objectives and standards.

•

Capacities of people are developed through learning at all levels to support performance improvement and people are provided with opportunities to makefull use of their skills and abilities.

•

A pool of talent ensures a continuous supply of high performers in key roles.

•

People are valued and rewarded according to their contribution.

•

People are involved in developing high-performance practices.

•

There is a climate of trust and teamwork, aimed at delivering a distinctive service
to the customer.

•

A clear line of sight exists between the strategic aims of the organization andthose of its departments and its staff at all levels.

High-performance work system defined
There are many definitions of a high-performance work system (HPWS) and high-performance working. In their seminal work, Manufacturing Advantage: Why high performance work
systems pay off, Appelbaum et al (2000) stated that high-performance work systems facilitate
employee involvement, skill enhancement and motivation. An HPWS is ‘generally associatedwith workshop practices that raise the levels of trust within workplaces and increase workers’
intrinsic reward from work, and thereby enhance organizational commitment’. They definehigh performance as a way of organizing work so that front-line workers participate in decisions that have a real impact on their jobs and the wider organization.

High-performance Work Systems

233

SOURCE REVIEW

It is sometimes believed that high-performance work systems are just about HR policies andinitiatives. But as Godard (2004) suggested, they are based on both alternative work practices
and high-commitment employment practices. He called this the ‘high-performance paradigm’and described it as follows.

The high-performance work paradigm, Godard (2004)
Alternative work practices that have been identified include: 1) alternative
job design practices, including work teams (autonomous or non-autonomous), job enrichment, job rotation and related reforms; and 2) formal participatory practices, including quality circles or problem-solving groups,
town hall meetings, team briefings and joint steering committees. Of thesepractices, work teams and quality circles can be considered as most central tothe high-performance paradigm. High-commitment employment practices
that have been identified include: 1) sophisticated selection and training,emphasizing values and human relations skills as well as knowledge skills; 2)
behaviour-based appraisal and advancement criteria; 3) single status policies;4) contingent pay systems, especially pay-for-knowledge, group bonuses, andprofit sharing; 5) job security; 6) above-market pay and benefits; 7) grievancesystems; and others.

However, research conducted by Armitage and Keble-Allen (2007) indicated that people management basics formed the foundation of high-performance working. They identified the following three themes underpinning the HPWS concept.

Themes underpinning the HPWS concept•

An open and creative culture that is people-centred and inclusive, where decision taking is communicated and shared through the organization.

•

Investment in people through education and training, loyalty, inclusiveness andflexible working.

•Measurable performance outcomes such as benchmarking and setting targets,
as well as innovation through processes and best practice.

Sung and Ashton (2005) defined what they call ‘high-performance work practices’ as a set or‘bundle’ of 35 complementary work practices covering three broad areas:

234

Human Resource Management Processes

1. High employee involvement work practices – eg self-directed teams, quality circles andsharing/access to company information.
2. Human resource practices – eg sophisticated recruitment processes, performance appraisals, mentoring and work redesign.
3. Reward and commitment practices – eg various financial rewards, family-friendly policies, job rotation and flexi hours.

Characteristics of a high-performance work system
A high-performance work system is described by Becker and Huselid (1998) as: ‘An internallyconsistent and coherent HRM system that is focused on solving operational problems andimplementing the firm’s competitive strategy.’ They suggest that such a system ‘is the key to theacquisition, motivation and development of the underlying intellectual assets that can be asource of sustained competitive advantage’. This is because it has the following
characteristics.

Characteristics of an HPWS•

It links the firm’s selection and promotion decisions to validated competencymodels.

•

It is the basis for developing strategies that provide timely and effective support
for the skills demanded to implant the firm’s strategies.

•

It enacts compensation and performance management policies that attract,
retain and motivate high-performance employees.

Nadler and Gerstein (1992) have characterized an HPWS as a way of thinking about organizations. It can play an important role in strategic human resource management by helping toachieve a ‘fit’ between information, technology, people and work.
High-performance work systems provide the means for creating a performance culture. They
embody ways of thinking about performance in organizations and how it can be improved.
They are concerned with developing and implementing bundles of complementary practices
which, as an integrated whole, will make a much more powerful impact on performance thanif they were dealt with as separate entities.
Becker et al (2001) have stated that the aim of such systems is to develop a ‘high-performance
perspective in which HR and other executives view HR as a system embedded within the larger

High-performance Work Systems

235

system of the firm’s strategy implementation’. As Nadler (1989) commented, they are deliberately introduced in order to improve organizational, financial and operational performance.
‘High-performance work systems’ are also known as ‘high-performance work practices’ (Sung andAshton, 2005). Thompson and Heron (2005) referred to them as ‘high-performance work organizations’ that ‘invest in the skills and abilities of employees, design work in ways that enable employee
collaboration in problem solving, and provide incentives to motivate workers to use their discretionary effort’. The terms ‘high-performance system’ and ‘high-commitment system’ often seem tobe used interchangeably. There is indeed much common ground between the practices included inhigh-performance, high-commitment and high-involvement work systems, as described in Chapter
3 although, following Godard (2004) there may be more emphasis in a high-performance work
system on alternative work practices. Sung and Ashton (2005) noted that:

In some cases high-performance work practices are called ‘high commitment practices’(Walton, 1985b) or ‘high-involvement management’ (Lawler, 1986). More recently
they have been termed ‘high-performance organizations’ (Lawler et al, 1998, Ashton
and Sung, 2002) or ‘high-involvement’ work practices (Wood et al, 2001). Whilst thesestudies are referring to the same general phenomena the use of different ‘labels’ hasundoubtedly added to the confusion.
The term ‘high-performance work system’ (HPWS) is the one most commonly used in bothacademic and practitioner circles and it is therefore adopted in this chapter. But it is recognized that high commitment and high involvement are both important factors in the pursuitof high performance. The notions incorporated in these practices therefore need to be incorporated in any programme for improving organizational effectiveness wherever they add tothe basic concepts of a high-performance work system.

Components of an HPWS
There is no generally accepted definition of an HPWS and there is no standard list of the features or components of such a system. Appelbaum and Batt (1994) identified six models: USlean production, US team production, German diversified quality production, Italian flexible
specialization, Japanese lean production and Swedish socio-technical systems. These systems
vary in the degree of autonomy they give the workforce, the nature of the supporting humanresource practices, and the extent to which the gains from the systems are shared.
In spite of this problem of definition, an attempt to define the basic components of an HPWS
was made by Shih et al (2005) as follows:•

Job infrastructure – workplace arrangements that equip workers with the proper abilities to do their jobs, provide them with the means to do their jobs, and give them the236

Human Resource Management Processes

motivation to do their jobs. These practices must be combined to produce their proper
effects.
•

Training programmes to enhance employee skills – investment in increasing employee
skills, knowledge and ability.

•

Information sharing and worker involvement mechanisms – to understand the available alternatives and make correct decisions.

•Compensation and promotion opportunities that provide motivation – to encourageskilled employees to engage in effective discretionary decision making in a variety ofenvironmental contingencies.

Many other descriptions of high-performance systems include lists of desirable practices andtherefore embody the notion of ‘best practice’ or the ‘universalistic’ approach described in
Chapter 2. Lists vary considerably, as is shown in the selection set out in Table 13.1. Gephart(1995) noted that research has not clearly identified any single set of high-performance practices. Becker et al (1997) remarked that: ‘Organizational high-performance work systems arehighly idiosyncratic and must be tailored carefully to each firm’s individual situation to achieve
optimum results.’ And Sung and Ashton (2005) commented: ‘It would be wrong to seek one
magic list.’ It all depends on the context.
Table 13.1 Lists of HR practices in high-performance work systems
US Department ofLabor (1993)• Careful andextensive systems
for recruitment,
selection andtraining• Formal systems
for sharing
information with
employees• Clear job design• High-levelparticipation
processes• Monitoring of
attitudes

Appelbaum et al(2000)

Sung and Ashton(2005)• Work is organized • High-involvement
to permit frontwork practices
line workers to– eg self-directedparticipate inteams, quality
decisions thatcircles, andalter organizasharing/access totional routines
company
information• Workers require
more skills to do• Human resource
their jobs successpractices – eg
fully, and many ofsophisticatedrecruitment
these skills areprocesses, perfirm-specificformance apprais• Workers experials, work redesign
ence greater

Thompson andHeron (2005)• Information
sharing.
• Sophisticatedrecruitment• Formal induction
programme• Five or more daysof off-the-job
training in the lastyear
• Semi or totallyautonomous work
teams; continuous
improvement
teams; problem-

High-performance Work Systems

237

Table 13.1 continued
US Department ofLabor (1993)• Performanceappraisals• Properly functioning grievanceprocedures• Promotion andcompensation
schemes thatprovide for therecognition andreward of highperforming
employees

Appelbaum et al(2000)

Sung and Ashton(2005)and mentoring
autonomy overtheir job tasks and • Reward andmethods of workcommitment
practices – eg
• Incentive pay
various financial
motivates workers
rewards, family
to extend extra
effort on developfriendly policies,
ing skills
job rotation andflexi hours• Employment
security provides
front-line workers
with a long-term
stake in thecompany and areason to invest in
its future

Thompson andHeron (2005)
solving groups• Interpersonal skill
development• Performance
feedback• Involvement– works council,suggestion
scheme, opinion
survey• Team-based
rewards, employee
share ownership
scheme, profitsharing scheme.

However, Ashton and Sung (2002) noted that the practices may be more effective when they
are grouped together in ‘bundles’. For example, the isolated use of quality circles is not as effective as when the practice is supported by wider employee involvement/empowerment
practices.
Godard (2004) suggested that that there is a general assumption that the benefit of an HPWS
increases with the number of practices adopted. However, it is often argued that high-performance practices are complementary to, and hence interact with, each other, so that theirtrue potential is not fully realized unless they are adopted in combination or as part of a fullblown high-performance system (the complementarities thesis). It is also sometimes argued
that these effects are not fully realized unless integrated with or matched to a particular
employer strategy (the ‘matching’ thesis).
It is possible to interpret these descriptions of HPWS activities as in effect incorporating thehigh-commitment principle that jobs should be designed to provide intrinsic satisfaction andthe high-involvement principle of treating employees as partners in the enterprise whose interests are respected and who have a voice on matters that concern them.

238

Human Resource Management Processes

Impact of high-performance work systems
A considerable number of studies as summarized below have been conducted that demonstrate that the impact of high-performance work systems is positive.

US Department of Labor (1993)
In a survey of 700 organizations the US Department of Labor found that firms that used innovative human resource practices show a significantly higher level of shareholder and gross
return on capital.

King (1995)
King cites a survey of Fortune 1000 companies in the United States revealing that 60 per centof those using at least one practice, increasing the responsibility of employees in the businessprocess, reported that the result was an increase in productivity while 70 per cent reported an
improvement in quality.
He examined the impact of the use of one practice. A study of 155 manufacturing firms showedthat those which had introduced a formal training programme experienced a 19 per cent larger
rise in productivity over three years than firms that did not introduce a training programme.
Research into the use of gainsharing in 112 manufacturing firms revealed that defect anddowntime rates fell 23 per cent in the first year after the approach was introduced. His review
of 29 studies on the effects of workplace participation on productivity indicated that 14 had apositive effect on productivity, only two had negative effects and the rest were inconclusive.
However, he noted that such work practices may have only a limited effect unless they are elements of a coherent work system. Further research examined changes over time in 222 firms
and found that these and other practices are associated with even greater productivity when
implemented together in systems.
He concluded that the evidence suggest that it is the use of comprehensive systems of work
practices in firms that is most closely associated with stronger firm performance. Yet he notedthat ‘the nature of the relationship between high-performance work practices and productivity is not clear’.

Varma et al (1999)
A survey of 39 organizations was conducted by Varma et al to examine the antecedents, designand effectiveness of high-performance initiatives. Results indicated that HPWSs are primarily
initiated by strong firms that are seeking to become stronger. First and foremost, firms reported
that in general their HPWS:

High-performance Work Systems

239•

had a significant impact on financial performance;•

created a positive culture change in the organization (eg, cooperation andinnovation);•created higher degrees of job satisfaction among employees;•

positively influenced the way in which work was designed;•

led to marked improvement in communication processes within the organization.

In particular, the use of team-based and non-financial rewards was closely related to improved
performance, as was rewarding people for improving their competencies.

Appelbaum et al (2000)
A multifaceted research design was used by the authors in their study of the impact of HPWSs.
This included management interviews, the collection of plant performance and data surveys
of workers on their experiences with workshop practices. Nearly 4,400 employees were surveyed and 44 manufacturing facilities were visited. The findings of the research were that:•in the steel industry HPWSs produced strong positive effects on performance, forexample, substantial increases in uptime;•in the apparel industry the introduction of a ‘module system’ (ie group piecework rates
linked to quality as well as quantity rather than individual piecework, plus multi-skilling) dramatically speeded up throughput times, meeting consumer demands for fastdelivery;•in the medical electronics and imaging industry those using an HPWS ranked highlyon eight diverse indicators of financial performance and production efficiency andquality.

The impact of HPWS on individual workers was to enhance:•

trust by sharing control and encouraging participation;•

intrinsic rewards because workers are challenged to be creative and use their skills andknowledge – discretion and autonomy are the task-level decisions most likely to enhance
intrinsic rewards;•

organizational commitment through opportunity to participate, and incentives thatmake people feel that organizational relationships are beneficial for them;•job satisfaction because of participation, perception of fairness in pay and adequate
resources to do jobs (inadequate resources is a cause of dissatisfaction, as is working inan unsafe or unclean environment).

240

Human Resource Management Processes

They concluded that taken as a whole, the results suggested that the core characteristics of
HPWSs – having autonomy over task-level decision making, membership of self-directing
production and off-line teams and communication with people outside the work group – generally enhance workers’ levels of organizational commitment and satisfaction:

HPWSs are generally associated with workshop practices that raise the levels of trust
within workplaces and increase workers’ intrinsic reward from work, and thereby
enhance organizational commitment. Wages are higher as well… The adoption of
HPWSs sets positive productivity dynamics in motion.

Sung and Ashton (2005)
This survey of high-performance work practices (HPWP) was conducted in 294 UK companies. It provided evidence that the level of HPWP adoption as measured by the number ofpractices in use is linked to organizational performance. Those adopting more of the practices
as ‘bundles’ had greater employee involvement and were more effective in delivering adequate
training provision, managing staff and providing career opportunities.

Combs et al (2006)
A meta-analysis of 92 studies showed a link between high performance HR practices and organization
performance. The three sets of influential HR practices identified were those that: 1) increased skills;2) empower employees; and 3) improve motivation. HPWSs also improve the internal social structure
within organizations, which facilitates communication and cooperation among employees.

Ericksen (2007)
Research was conducted in 196 small businesses to test the hypothesis that HPWSs create a humanresource advantage by aligning key employee attributes and the strategic goals of the firm and byadapting their workforce attributes in response to new strategic circumstances. Dynamic workforcealignment exists when firms have ‘the right types of people, in the right places, doing the rightthings right’, and when adjustments are readily made to their workforces as the situation changes.
The research showed that there was a strong positive relationship between workforce alignment and sales growth when adaptation was high.

Reservations about the impact of an HPWS
Research conducted by Ramsay et al (2000) aimed to explore linkages from HPWS practices to
employee outcomes and via these to organizational performance. They referred to the existence of the ‘black box’, meaning that while the introduction of an HPWS may be associatedHigh-performance Work Systems

241

with improved performance, no researchers have yet established how this happens. Theirresearch was based on data from the UK 1998 Workplace Employee Relations Survey. They
commented that ‘the widely held view that positive performance outcomes from HPWS flow
via positive employee outcomes has been shown to be highly questionable’, a finding that ran
counter to most of the other studies. They admit that their analysis was ‘perhaps too simplistic
to capture the complex reality of the implementation and operation of HPWS’, but they note,realistically, that ‘there are major limitations to the strategic management of labour which
severely constrain the potential for innovative approaches to be implemented successfully’.
Godard (2001) concluded, following his research in Canada, that the actual effects of HPWSs
can vary considerably and many have a limited lifespan. Following further research, Godard(2004) commented that:

The full adoption of this (high-performance) paradigm may not yield outcomes thatare appreciably more positive than those yielded by practices that have long been associated with good management, including professional personnel practices (eg job
ladders, employment security, grievance systems, formal training, above-market pay),group work organization, information sharing and accommodative union relations
policies… There may be positive effects in some workplaces. However, these effects may
be inherently more limited than assumed and, in a great many workplaces, may not be
sufficient to justify full adoption.
Farnham (2008) summed up the reservations about the high-performance or high-commitment model by referring to issues about the direction of the causality in the black box, lack ofconsistency in the practices included in the bundle, variations in the proxies used to measurehigh-commitment HRM, variations in the proxies used to measure performance, relying on
the self-report scores of HR managers, doubts about how much autonomy organizations haveintroduced in decision making in practice, and doubts about the universal application of highcommitment HRM as an approach to HR strategy.
These reservations usefully modify the often starry-eyed enthusiasm for the notion of highperformance working and emphasize that it is not an easy option. But it is difficult to argue
against the basic concept and there is enough evidence that it is effective to encourage its development as described below, albeit being realistic about what is possible and how well it will
work.

Developing a high-performance work system
A high-performance work system has to be based on a high-performance strategy that sets out
intentions and plans on how a high-performance culture can be created and maintained. The

242

Human Resource Management Processes

strategy has to be aligned to the context of the organization and to its business strategy. Everyorganization will therefore develop a different strategy, as is illustrated by the case study examples set out in Table 13.2.
Table 13.2 Examples of high-performance working ingredients
Organization

High-performance working ingredients

Halo Foods• A strategy that maintains competitiveness by increasing added
value through the efforts and enhanced capability of all staff• The integration of technical advance with people development• Continuing reliance on team-working and effective leadership,with innovation and self and team management skills

Land Registry• Organizational changes to streamline processes, raise skill levels
and release talents• Managers who could see that the problems were as much cultural
as organizational• Recruitment of people whose attitudes and aptitudes match theneeds of high performance work practices

Meritor Heavy
Vehicle Braking
Systems• Skill enhancement, particularly of management and self management skills using competence frameworks• Team-working skills and experience used on improvement
projects• Linking learning, involvement and performance management

Orangebox• A strategy that relies on constant reinvention of operational
capability• Engagement and development of existing talent and initiative in
productivity improvement• Increasing use of cross-departmental projects to tackle wider
opportunities

Perkinelmer• A vision and values worked through by managers and supervisors• Engagement of everyone in the organization and establishment of
a continuous improvement culture• Learning as a basis for change

United Welsh
Housing
Association• Linking of better employment relations with better performance• Using staff experience to improve customer service• Focusing management development on the cascading of apartnership culture(Source: Stevens, 2005)

High-performance Work Systems

243

Approach to developing an HPWSThe approach to developing an HPWS is based on an understanding of what the goals of thebusiness are, what work arrangements are appropriate to the attainment of those goals andhow people can contribute to their achievement. This leads to an assessment of what type of
performance culture is required.
The development programme requires strong leadership from the top. Stakeholders – line
managers, team leaders, employees and their representatives – should be involved as much as
possible through surveys, focus groups and workshops.

The development programme
The steps required to develop an HPWS are described below.

1. Analyse the business strategy•

Where is the business going?

•

What are the strengths and weaknesses of the business?

•

What threats and opportunities face the business?

•

What are the implications of the above on the type of work practices and people
required by the business, now and in the future?

2. Define the desired performance culture of the business and the objectives ofthe exercise
Use the list of characteristics of a high-performance culture as set out at the beginning of
this chapter as a starting point and produce a list that is aligned to the culture and context
of the business and a statement of the objectives of developing an HPWS. Answer thequestions:•

What differences do we want to make to working arrangements?

•

How do we want to treat people differently?

•

What do we want people to do differently?

3. Analyse the existing arrangements
Start from the headings defined at Stage 2 and analyse against each heading:•What is happening now in the form of practices, attitudes and behaviours?

•

What should be happening?

244

Human Resource Management Processes•

What do people feel about it? (The more involvement in this analysis from all stakeholders the better.)

4. Identify the gaps between what is and what should be
Clarify specific practices where there is considerable room for improvement.

5. Draw up a list of practices that need to be introduced or improved
At this stage only a broad definition should be produced of what ideally needs to be done.

6. Establish complementarities
Identify the practices that can be linked together in ‘bundles’ to complement and support one
another.

7. Assess practicality
The ideal list of practices, or preferably, bundles of practices, should be subjected to a reality
check:•Is it worth doing? What’s the business case in terms of added value? What contribution
will it make to supporting the achievement of the organization’s strategic goals?

•

Can it be done?

•

Who does it?

•

Do we have the resources to do it?

•

How do we manage the change?

8. Prioritize
In the light of the assessment of practicalities, decide on the priorities that should be given to
introducing new or improved practices. A realistic approach is essential. There will be limits on
how much can be done at once or any future time. Priorities should be established byassessing:•

the added value the practice will create;•

the availability of the resources required;•anticipated problems in introducing the practice, including resistance to change by
stakeholders (too much should not be made of this: change can be managed, but there
is much to be said for achieving some quick wins);•

the extent to which they can form bundles of mutually supporting practices.

High-performance Work Systems

245

9. Define project objectives
Develop the broad statement of objectives produced at Stage 2 and define what is to be achieved,
why and how.

10. Get buy-inThis should start at the top with the chief executive and members of the senior management
team, but so far as possible it should extend to all the other stakeholders (easier if they havebeen involved at earlier stages and if the intentions have been fully communicated).

11. Plan the implementation
This is where things become difficult. Deciding what needs to be done is fairly easy; getting it
done is the hard part. The implementation plan needs to cover:•

who takes the lead – this must come from the top of the organization: nothing will
work without it;•

who manages the project and who else is involved;•

the timetable for development and introduction;•

the resources (people and money required);•

how the change programme will be managed, including communication and further
consultation;•

the success criteria for the project.

12. Implement
Too often, 80 per cent of the time spent on introducing an HPWS is devoted to planning andonly 20 per cent on implementation. It should be the other way round. Whoever is responsiblefor implementation must have considerable project and change management skills.

High-performance work systems – key learning points
The key characteristics of a highperformance culture•

People know what’s expected ofthem – they understand their goals
and accountabilities.

•

People feel that their job is worth
doing, and there is a strong fit between
the job and their capabilities.

•

Management defines what it requiresin the shape of performance

246

Human Resource Management Processes

High-performance work systems – key learning points(continued)
improvements, sets goals for successand monitors performance to ensurethat the goals are achieved.
•

There is a focus on promoting positive attitudes that result in an engaged,committed and motivated workforce.

•

Performance management processes
are aligned to business goals to ensurethat people are engaged in achieving
agreed objectives and standards.

•

Capacities of people are developed
through learning at all levels to
support performance improvement.

The characteristics of a highperformance work system (HPWS)•

Links the firm’s selection and promotion decisions to validated competency models.

•

A basis for developing strategies thatprovide timely and effective support
for the skills demanded to implement the firm’s strategies.

•

Enacts compensation and performance management policies that

attract, retain and motivate highperformance employees.
The components of an HPWS
There is no ‘magic list’ of best practices for
an HPWS although they work best if
bundled together. The lists that have been
produced include sophisticated HR practices in such areas as recruitment, learningand development, performance management and reward processes.
Impact of high-performance work
systems
A considerable number of studies havebeen conducted that demonstrate that the
impact of high-performance work systems
is positive.
Developing high-performance work
systems
The approach to developing an HPWS isbased on an understanding of what thegoals of the business are and how people
can contribute to their achievement. This
leads to an assessment of what type of performance culture is required.

High-performance Work Systems

247

Questions1.

You have received an e-mail from your operations director to the effect that he is confused by the terms ‘high performance’, ‘high commitment’ and ‘high involvement’ management. He wants to know what the differences are between them, if any. He would also
like your views on how any of them might benefit the company, particularly distribution and customer service. Draft a reply.

2.

What has recent research told us about the extent to which high-performance working
leads to improved levels of organizational performance?

3.

Your managing director has asked you to draft a paper for the board on why the organization should introduce a high-performance work system. Prepare the paper explaining
what such as system would look like and how it might be developed.

References
Appelbaum, E, and Batt, R (1994) The New American Workplace, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY
Appelbaum, E, Bailey, T, Berg, P and Kalleberg, A L (2000) Manufacturing Advantage: Why highperformance work systems pay off, ILR Press, Ithaca, NY
Armitage, A and Keble-Allen, D (2007) Why people management basics form the foundation of highperformance working, People Management, 18 October, p 48
Ashton, D and Sung, (2002) Supporting Workplace Learning for High performance, ILO, Geneva
Becker, B E and Huselid, M A (1998) High performance work systems and firm performance: a synthesisof research and managerial implications, Research on Personnel and Human Resource Management, 16,
pp 53–101, JAI Press, Stamford, CT
Becker, B E, Huselid, M A and Ulrich, D (2001) The HR Score card: Linking people, strategy, andperformance, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA
Becker, B E, Huselid, M A, Pickus, P S and Spratt, M F (1997) HR as a source of shareholder value:
research and recommendations, Human Resource Management, Spring, 36 (1), pp 39–47
Combs, J, Liu, Y, Hall, A and Ketchan, D (2006) How much do high performance work practices matter? A
meta-analysis of their effects on organizational performance, Personnel Psychology 59 (3), pp 501–28
Ericksen, J (2007) High performance work systems: dynamic workforce alignment and firm performance,
Academy of Management Proceedings, pp 1–6
Farnham, D (2008) Examiner’s Report (May), CIPD.co.uk
Gephart, M A (1995) The road to high performance: steps to create a high-performance workplace,
Training and Development, June, p 29
Godard, J (2001) Beyond the high-performance paradigm? An analysis of variation in Canadianmanagerial perceptions of reform programme effectiveness, British Journal of Industrial Relations 39(1), pp 25–52
Godard, J (2004) A critical assessment of the high-performance paradigm, British Journal of Industrial
Relations, 42 (2), pp 349–78

248

Human Resource Management Processes

Guest, D (2007) HRM: Towards a new psychological contract, in (eds) P Boxall, J Purcell and P Wright,
Oxford Handbook of Human Resource Management, Oxford University Press, Oxford
King, J (1995) High performance work systems and firm performance, Monthly Labour Review, May, pp
29–36
Lawler, E E (1986) High Involvement Management, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA
Lawler, E E, Mohrman, S and Ledford, G (1998) Strategies for High Performance Organizations: Employee
involvement, TQM, and re-engineering programs in Fortune 1000, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA
Nadler, D A (1989) Organizational architecture for the corporation of the future, Benchmark, Fall,
12–13
Nadler, D A and Gerstein, M S (1992) Designing high-performance work systems: organizing people,
technology, work and information, Organizational Architecture, Summer, pp 195–208
Ramsay, H, Scholarios, D and Harley, B (2000) Employees and high-performance work systems: testinginside the black box, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 38 (4), pp 501–31
Shih, H-A, Chiang, Y-H and Hsu, C-C (2005) Can high performance work systems really lead to better
performance?, Academy of Management Conference Paper, pp 1–6
Stevens, J (2005) High Performance Wales: Real experiences, real success, Wales Management Council,
Cardiff
Sung, J and Ashton, D (2005) High Performance Work Practices: Linking strategy and skills to performanceoutcomes, DTI in association with CIPD, available at http://www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/corpstrtgy/
Thompson, M and Heron, P (2005) Management capability and high performance work organization,
The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16 (6), pp 1029–48
US Department of Labor (1993) High Performance Work Practices and Work Performance, US Government
Printing Office, Washington DC
Varma, A, Beatty, R W, Schneier, C E and Ulrich, D O (1999) High performance work systems: exciting
discovery or passing fad?, Human Resource Planning, 22 (1), pp 26–37
Walton, R E (1985b) Towards a strategy of eliciting employee commitment based on principles ofmutuality, in (eds) R E Walton and P R Lawrence, HRM Trends and Challenges, Harvard Business
School Press, Boston, MA
Wood, S, de Menezes, L M and Lasaosa, A (2001) High involvement management and performance, Paper
delivered at the Centre for Labour Market Studies, University of Leicester, May
Workplace Employee Relations Survey (2004) HMSO, Norwich