Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T17:47:18.241Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The impact of employee involvement on small firms' financial performance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 March 2020

Alex Bryson
Alex Bryson*
Affiliation:
Policy Studies Institute, London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The author examines the relationship between employee involvement (EI) and small firms‘ financial performance using statistical analyses of establishment-level data from the 1990 Workplace Industrial Relations Survey. The author finds EI practices and EI combinations which ‘work’ for small-firm establishments are very different from those that work for large-firm establishments. The least bureaucratic and least costly EI methods have the potential to benefit small firms most. Whether they actually do so depends on the array of other EI and non-EI practices in operation: an inappropriate configuration can have a negative effect on performance. The findings take account of factors associated with being an ‘EI firm’.

Type
Articles
Information
National Institute Economic Review , Volume 169 , July 1999 , pp. 78 - 95
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 National Institute of Economic and Social Research

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This research was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council (grant reference R000222294). The author thanks Net) Millward, his collaborator in the study from which this paper emanates. I also thank Michael White and Richard Dorsett at the Policy Studies Institute, and Chris Skinner and Ray Chambers at the University of Southampton, for useful comments. Copies of the data and computer programs used to generate these results are available from the author by e-mailing him at [email protected].

References

Airey, C., Tremlett, N. and Hamilton, R. (1992), The Workplace Industrial Relations Survey (1990): Technical Report (Main and Panel Surveys), London: Social and Community Planning Research.Google Scholar
Arthur, M.B. and Hendry, C. (1990), ‘Human resource management and the emergent strategy of small to medium sized business units’, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1, 3, pp. 233–50.Google Scholar
Atkinson, J. and Meager, N. (1994), ‘Running to stand still: the small firm in the labour market’ in Atkinson, J. and Storey, D. (eds), Employment, the Small Firm and the Labour Market, London: Routledge, pp. 28–102.Google Scholar
Baird, L. and Meshoulam, I. (1988), ‘Managing two fits of strategic human resource management’, Academy of Management Review, 13, pp. 116–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ben-ner, A. and Jones, J.C. (1995), ‘Employee participation, ownership and productivity: a theoretical framework’, Industrial Relations, 34, 4, pp. 532–54Google Scholar
Bishop, J. (1987), ‘The recognition and reward of employee performance’, Journal of Labor Economics, 5, 4, s36–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanchflower, D.G. and Oswald, A.J. (1988), ‘Profit-related pay: prose discovered?’, The Economic Journal, 98, pp. 720–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryson, A. and Millward, N. (1997), Employee Involvement in Small Firms: A Review of the Literature, London: Policy Studies Institute.Google Scholar
Cooke, W.N. (1994), ‘Employee participation programs, group-based incentives and company performance: a union-nonunion comparison’, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 47, 4, pp. 594–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curran, J., Kitching, J.Abbott, B. and Mills, V. (1993), Employment and Employment Relations in the Small Service Sector Enterprise, Kingston, Surrey: Kingston Business School.Google Scholar
Curran, J. and Stanworth, J. (1979), ‘Worker involvement and social relations in the small firm’, Sociological Review, 27, pp. 317–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Defourney, J., Estrin, S. and Jones, D.C. (1985), ‘The effects of workers' participation on enterprise performance: empirical evidence from French cooperatives’, International Journal of Industrial Organisation, 3, pp. 197–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernie, S. and Metcalf, D. (1995), ‘Participation, contingent pay, representation and workplace performance: evidence from Great Britain’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 33, 3, pp. 379–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, R.B. and Medoff, J.L. (1984), What Do Unions Do?, New York : Basic Books.Google Scholar
Goss, D.M. (1988), ‘Social harmony and the small firm: a reappraisal’, Sociological Review, 36, pp. 114–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, F. and McIntosh, S. (1996), ‘Workers' effort in unionised workplaces: cost of job loss and human resource management’, unpublished mimeo, School of Business and Economic Studies, University of Leeds, and Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics.Google Scholar
Hammer, T.H. (1988), ‘New developments in profit sharing, gainsharing, and employee ownership’, in Campbell, J. P. and Campbell, R. J. (eds), Productivity in Organisations, San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Holl, P. and Dassiou, X. (1993), ‘The determinants of performance in British establishments’, City University, Applied Econometrics Research Unit Discussion Paper, No. 32.Google Scholar
Holl, P. and Pickering, J.F. (1991), ‘Takeovers and other influences on economic performance: a plant level analysis’, Applied Economics, 23, pp. 1779–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huselid, M.A. (1995), ‘The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity and corporate financial performance’, Academy of Management Journal, 38, 3, pp. 635–72.Google Scholar
Huselid, M.A. and Becker, B.E. (1996), ‘Methodological issues in cross-sectional and panel estimates of the human resource-firm performance link’, Industrial Relations, 35, 3, pp. 400–22.Google Scholar
Ichniowski, C., Kochan, T.A., Levine, D., Olson, C. and Strauss, G. (1996), ‘What works at work: overview and assessment’, Industrial Relations, 35, 3, pp. 299–333.Google Scholar
Ichniowski, C., Shaw, K. and Prennushi, G. (1997), ‘The effects of human resource management practices on productivity: a study of steel finishing lines’, American Economic Review, 87, 3, pp. 291–313.Google Scholar
Idson, T.L. and Feaster, D.J. (1990), ‘A selectivity model of employer-size wage differentials’, Journal of Labor Economics, 8, 3, pp. 99–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingham, G.K. (1970), Size of Industrial Organisation and Worker Behaviour, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kessler, I. and Purcell, J. (1992), ‘Performance related pay: objectives and application’, Human Resource Management Journal, 2, 3, pp. 16–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruse, D.L. (1993), ‘Does profit sharing affect productivity?’, NBER Working Paper No. 4542, Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazear, E.P. and Rosen, S. (1981), ‘Rank-order tournaments as optimum labor contracts’, Journal of Political Economy, 100(4), pp. 841–64.Google Scholar
Levine, D.I., and Tyson, L.D. (1990), ‘Participation, productivity and the firm's environment’, in Blinder, A. S. (ed.), Paying for Productivity: Looking at the Evidence, Washington D.C.: Brookings Institute.Google Scholar
McNabb, R. and Whitfield, K. (1996), ‘The impact of financial participation and employee involvement on financial performance’, Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 45, 2, May, pp. 171–87.Google Scholar
McNabb, R. and Whitfield, K. (1997), ‘Unions, flexibility, team working and financial performance’, Organisation Studies, 18, 5, pp. 821–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machin, S. and Stewart, M. (1990), ‘Unions and the financial performance of British private sector establishments’, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 5, pp. 327–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
-(1996), ‘Trade unions and financial performance’, Oxford Economic Papers, 48, 2, pp. 213–41.Google Scholar
Maddala, G.S. (1983), Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics, Cambridge: Econometric Society Monographs, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchington, M., Goodman, J., Wilkinson, A. and Ackers, P. (1992), New Developments in Employee Involvement, London: Employment Department, Research Series No.2.Google Scholar
Marchington, M., Wilkinson, A., Ackers, P. and Goodman, J. (1993), ‘The influence of managerial relations on waves of employee involvement’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 31, 4, pp. 553–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsden, D. and Momigliano, S. (1995), ‘Economic theory of incentives and its implications for the design of public service performance related pay schemes’, unpublished mimeo, London School of Economics.Google Scholar
Millward, N., Stevens, M., Smart, D. and Hawes, W. (1992), Workplace Industrial Relations in Transition: the ED/ESRC/PSI/ ACAS Surveys, Aldershot: Dartmouth.Google Scholar
Mitchell, D.J.B., Lewin, D., and Lawler, E.E. III. (1990), ‘Alternative pay systems, firm performance and productivity’, in Blinder, A.S. (ed.), Paying for Productivity. A Look at the Evidence, Washington D.C.: Brookings Institute.Google Scholar
Rainnie, A. (1989), Industrial Relations in Small Firms: Small Isn't Beautiful, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Scott, M., Roberts, I., Holroyd, G. and Sawbridge, D. (1989), Management and Industrial Relations in Small Firms, London: Department of Employment Research Paper No. 70.Google Scholar
Skinner, C. (1997), ‘The use of sample weights in the regression analysis of WIRS data’, unpublished paper, University of Southampton.Google Scholar
Weitzman, M.L. and Kruse, D.L. (1990), ‘Profit sharing and productivity’, in Blinder, A.S. (ed.), Paying for Productivity. A Look at the Evidence, Washington D. C.: Brookings Institute.Google Scholar