THE IMPACT OF EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT PRACTICES ON ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61841/49hr3388Keywords:
Employee Involvement,, Information, Organizational Performance, , Participative decision making,, RewardsAbstract
It has been largely believed that the individuals are the foremost resource of any organization and the fundamental element for attaining exceptional performance. Studies directed to examine the organizational- level influence of the Employee Involvement (EI) initiatives has become common in the contemporary phenomenon. The literature incorporates the researches directed on investigating the performance impact of individual Employee Involvement practices, such as participative-decision making, training, performance-based rewards, and information sharing practices, as well as the research directed to investigate the impact of systems of Involvement initiatives on the establishment outcomes.Researchers from diverse domains have proposed varied empirical and theoretical frameworks for establishing the association among the EI practices and the organizational outcomes. While the review of every one of these frameworks is outside the scope of this research, the earlier literature broadly unites on the significance of Employee Involvement practices in ascertainment of organizational and employee outcomes. Based on this fundamental, our study focussed on determining the relationship of EI in problem-solving and decision-making with the organizational performance. The study utilized structural equation modelling to examine the impact of EI on performance. The results of our study are not supportive of the assertion that synergies or complementarities between the EI practices would be related positively with the performance of an organization, contrary to the hypothesis formulated in the study. The study also highlighted some key limitations and observations which deserve attention.
Downloads
References
1. Becker, B. E., Huselid, M. A., Pickus, P. S., & Spratt, M. F. (1997). HR as a source of shareholder value: Research and recommendations. Human Resource Management, 36(1), 39–47. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1099- 050x (199721)36:1<39: aid-hrm8>3.0.co;2-x
2. Benson, G. S., & Lawler, E. E. (2003). Employee Involvement: Utilization, Impacts, and Future Prospects. The New Workplace, 155–173. doi: 10.1002/9780470713365.ch9
3. 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(3), 501–528. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006. 00045.x
4. Cooke, F. L. (2001). Human resource strategy to improve organizational performance: a route for firms in Britain? International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(4), 321–339. doi: 10.1111/1468-2370.00071
5. Cotton, J. L., Vollrath, D. A., Froggatt, K. L., Lengnick-Hall, M. L., & Jennings, K. R. (1988). Employee Participation: Diverse Forms and Different Outcomes. The Academy of Management Review, 13(1), 8. doi: 10.2307/258351
6. Delaney, J. T., & Huselid, M. A. (1996). The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices On Perceptions of Organizational Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 949–969. doi: 10.2307/256718
7. Delery, J. E., & Shaw, J. D. (2001). The strategic management of people in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and extension. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 165–197. doi: 10.1016/s0742-7301(01)20003-6
8. Dess, G. G., & Robinson, R. B. (1984). Measuring organizational performance in the absence of objective measures: The case of the privately held firm and conglomerate business unit. Strategic Management Journal, 5(3), 265–273. doi: 10.1002/smj.4250050306
9. Dollinger, M. J., & Golden, P. A. (1992). Interorganizational and Collective Strategies in Small Firms: Environmental Effects and Performance. Journal of Management, 18(4), 695–715. doi: 10.1177/014920639201800406
10. Evans, W. R., & Davis, W. D. (2005). High-Performance Work Systems and Organizational Performance: The Mediating Role of Internal Social Structure. Journal of Management,31(5), 758-775. doi:10.1177/0149206305279370
11. Ford, J. D., & Schellenberg, D. A. (1982). Conceptual Issues of Linkage in the Assessment of Organizational Performance. The Academy of Management Review, 7(1), 49. doi: 10.2307/257248
12. Goodman, P. S., & Pennings, J. M. (1981). New perspectives on organizational effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
13. Guest, D., Peccei, R., & Thomas, A. (1993). The impact of employee involvement on organisational commitment and them and us attitudes. Industrial Relations Journal, 24(3), 191–200. doi: 10.1111/j.1468- 2338. 1993.tb00672.x
14. Guest, D. E. (1997). Human resource management and performance: a review and research agenda. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8(3), 263–276. doi: 10.1080/095851997341630
15. Guthrie, J. P. (2001). High-Involvement Work Practices, Turnover, And Productivity: Evidence from New Zealand. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1), 180–190. doi: 10.2307/3069345
16. Huselid, M. A. (1995). The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices On Turnover, Productivity, And Corporate Financial Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38(3), 635–672. doi: 10.2307/256741
17. Ichniowski, C., Kochan, T. A., Levine, D., Olson, C., & Strauss, G. (1996). What Works at Work: Overview and Assessment? Industrial Relations, 35(3), 299–333. doi: 10.1111/j.1468- 232x.1996.tb00409.x
18. Kelly, J., & Kelly, C. (1991). ‘Them and Us’: Social Psychology and ‘The New Industrial Relations.’ British Journal of Industrial Relations, 29(1), 25–48. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8543. 1991.tb00226.x
19. Kim, S. (2004). Individual-Level Factors and Organizational Performance in Government Organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(2), 245–261. doi: 10.1093/jopart/mui013
20. Koch, M. J., & Mcgrath, R. G. (1996). Improving Labor Productivity: Human Resource Management Policies Do Matter. Strategic Management Journal, 17(5), 335–354. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097- 0266(199605)17:5<335: aid-smj814>3.0.co;2-r
21. Lado, A. A., & Wilson, M. C. (1994). Human Resource Systems and Sustained Competitive Advantage: A Competency-Based Perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 19(4), 699. doi: 10.2307/258742
22. Lawler, E. E. (1986). High-involvement management: Participative strategies for improving
organizational performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
23. Lawler, E. E., Mohrman, S. A., & Ledford, G. E. (1992). Employee Involvement and Total Quality
Management: Practices and Results in Fortune 1000 Companies. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
24. Lawler, E. E. (1994). Total Quality Management and employee involvement: Are they
compatible? Academy of Management Perspectives, 8(1), 68–76. doi: 10.5465/ame.1994.9411302396
25. Leana, C. R., Ahlbrandt, R. S., & Murrell, A. J. (1992). The Effects of Employee Involvement Programs On Unionized Workers Attitudes, Perceptions, And Preferences In Decision Making. Academy of Management Journal, 35(4), 861–873. doi: 10.2307/256319
26. Levine, D. I. (1995). Reinventing the workplace: how business and employees can both win. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.
27. Macduffie, J. P. (1995). Human Resource Bundles and Manufacturing Performance: Organizational Logic and Flexible Production Systems in the World Auto Industry. ILR Review, 48(2), 197–221. doi: 10.1177/001979399504800201
28. Mullins, L. J. (1993). Management and organisational behaviour. London: Pitman.
29. Pfeffer. (1995). Competitive advantage through people. Mcgraw Hill.
30. Pfeffer, J. (2007). The human equation: building profits by putting people first. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
31. Richard, P. J., Devinney, T. M., Yip, G. S., & Johnson, G. (2009). Measuring Organizational Performance: Towards Methodological Best Practice. Journal of Management, 35(3), 718–804. doi: 10.1177/0149206308330560
32. Staw, B. M. (2008). Research in organizational behavior. Amsterdam: JAI.
33. Vandenberg, R. J., Richardson, H. A., & Eastman, L. J. (1999). The Impact of High Involvement Work Processes on Organizational Effectiveness. Group & Organization Management, 24(3), 300–339. doi: 10.1177/1059601199243004
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
