Exploring Effectiveness level of High Performance Work Practices

 

Dr. K. R. Chaturvedi¹, Preeti Vats²

¹HOD, Krishna Institute of Engineering and Technology, Ghaziabad

²Research Scholar, Dr APJ Abdul Kalam Technical University, Lucknow

 

ABSTRACT:

Companies across the globe are working hard to be most sought by customers and delivering high profiteering to stakeholders. Various industrial sectors earlier focused on government clearances, production output, fixed cost and variable cost of operation. With this approach companies managed to reach a certain level of operational profitability but realized during the course that exponential performance too is possible with more employee focus. This trend in recent decades has fancied many Industry leaders recognizing that the task at their hand is not easy and would need grooming resource pool on continuous basis with scalable High Performance Work Practices (HPWPs) characterized to meet any globally ambitious company. Many companies started initiatives like employee first campaign; however same time how an employee sees the modern-day changes in work practice with its effectiveness is this study attempt. The present paper tends to investigate effectiveness level of employees of the High Performance Work Practices. In all, 36 HPWPs were identified by the researchers and the effectiveness level was measured on a five-point scale. Factor analysis has been used for categorization of data and t-test is applied to explore variations in perception regarding effectiveness of High Performance Work Practices.

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

Everyone tries to improve and maximize their performance in current business arena. Private sector as well as Public sector organizations, from large corporation to midsize to small cap with varied business verticals - strive to improve their performance vis-à-vis their peer group in terms of quality of qualitative and quantitative parameters. Industrial sectoral productivity and profitability is deriving towards human capital productivity and awareness towards HPWPs example – human capital satisfaction, motivation and devotion not only to enhance performance but are also considered as the end objective, too. Various efforts are made from time to time to incorporate delta increments through classical researchers and theorists, who postulated scientific human resource organization principles and management, yet with time the emphasis has moved on to human engagement and New-behavioral school of thought.

 

This school of thought considers human resource pool as a rational oriented and matrix being who welcomes typical, sub-complex, complex work derivatives and innovative spirited. Employee likes to take responsibility of their work outcome and indeed works well for maximizing work output through efficient work means, and strikes individual goals for self-development and social recognition. To achieve such standards; any sized organization looks for quantitative innovative and unprecedented practices to achieve harmonize organizational goals with individual goals via high performance work practices. HPWPs integrates human resource pool of an organization in work practices like continuous skill enhancement and providing employees an platform to engage their belongingness for such an organization. So, way forward is to engage employees with a thorough organization framework in building a strong trustworthy relationship among the employee and the organization. Additionally, HPWPs help to attain basic trustworthy framework of collaborative and mutually win-win work environment in any organization.

 

LITERATRE REVIEW:

Defining High Performance Work Practices (HWPWs):

Different organization segments qualify them differently and so is true that no consistent or uniform definition ever so marked, HPWPs (Baker, Olson, and Morisseau, 1994) are notified with different representations as‘high performance work systems’, ‘alternate work practices’ and ‘flexible work practices’ (Delaney and Godard, 2001). Thus, we find multiple narrations and theories with respect to HPWPs (Punia and Garg, 2012). These practices are basic underlining tool of value generation and value increment. Interestingly, ‘high performance work practices’ (HPWPs) has now become one of ‘best and revolutionary practices’ as these practices leads to organization wide improvements and are associated with higher performance and sustainable profitable level than organizations with traditional work practice-and employment-related practices (Godard, 2004).

 

If we look at some of best world economies example USA, the term ‘high performance work practices’ has instigated innovation and motivations for experiments that helped to leap frog human resource practices to that of contemporary competition and work environment (Osterman, 1994). Interesting aspects of previous studies are that the practices are have a common default quality like quantitative and objective aspect of recruitment and selection process, incentivized performance based scales and employee level based focused training program to suit business (Becker and Gerhart, 1996).

 

It is quite a point to note that HPWPs require investment in human resource to have up to date resource quality for future demands and business conditions through continuous increment employee’s skills, role based know how, reaching higher motivation levels, morale, loyalty and flexibility in adoptions (Garg and Punia, 2017). Van Buren and Werner (1996) emphasize employee empowerment as a contributor to HPWPs basic tenants. Quiet in their own space all studies tend to differ on elements that constitutes common HPWPs. Thus, a range of practices governs the high-performance arena (Becker and Gerhart, 1996). Hence, segregating different practices under different subheads is a challenging task. Same are the views shared by Godard(1999) stating differences exists considerably in real practicing HPWPs. Godard (1999) bifurcated the practices into ‘alternate work deals practices’ with alternate job design philosophy in enriching job quality, job rotation, quality circle, etc. and ‘high commitment work practices’ which include targeted resource development and training, behavior aspect as a component in appraisal. Thompson (2001) divided HPWPs under three categories: (a) problem-solving and semi-autonomous team etc.; (b) formal recruitment and interview practice, frequency based appraisal, etc.; (c) formal grievance redressal, social gathering for trust and loyalty etc.

 

Need for High Performance Work Practices:

Pragmatic approach and greater insights help develop a set of practices and principles which sets or erases certain elements of choice ever since formal study has begun on HPWPs likewise its true for study in various fields. Through many studies, many researchers have helped building HPWPs in their unique way few of which are highlighted below:

•          Such practices motivate workers to enhance their skills, to develop and apply their knowledge at their workplace, with positive outcome on both qualitative figures and quantitative approach of the job. Thus, such practices lead to optimum utilization level of resource pool (Godard, 2004).

•          HPWPs a win-win aspect for all stakeholders: organization, its employees and even for the employee union also; as they induce awareness and opportunities or union focusing their role, to a partnership oriented role from a traditional role. Thus, HPWPs help in nurturing partnership between all three (Kochan and Osterman, 1994).

•          They are of interest to Government officials and policy formulators alike, as HPWPs help to address labor related issues; not through stringent labor laws instead through practices to enhance productivity output of labor force (Garg and Kardam, 2016).

•          HPWPs emphasize on employee empowerment through seamless information transfers and the devolution of power to respective employees for able decision-making. Thus, HPWPs are related to increased employee loyalty and productivity to an organization (Wood, 1999).

•          HPWPs and principles are identified as playing a pivotal role in helping organizations achieving organizational goals and objectives. They help to improve organizational effectiveness (Boxall and Macky, 2009).

•          HPWPs are associated with positive impact on risks and issues around the operation of an organization including labor turnover, Revenue per employee, sales per employee and certain other financial performance indicators (Wood, 1999).

•          HPWPs also holds a perceptual notion as ‘psychological contract ’with the management and the labors, it instill fair and trustworthy delivery on promises and commitment provided by management (Guest, 2002).

 

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:

The main objective of the present research study is to explore perception of employees regarding effectiveness level of HPWPs and to understand various distinct categories within HPWPs. The objective notations of this study are as under:

•          To examine the overall effectiveness for HPWPs.

•          To execute segmentation of HPWPs by applying relevant statistical tools.

•          To study the gender and sectoral variations in employees’ perception regarding effectiveness level of HPWPs.

 

 

The present study is based upon exploratory-cum descriptive research design and is based on primary data. Random sampling has been used to collect data from companies situated in Delhi-NCR region. Sample size is 300 respondents. Data has been collected through structured questionnaire comprising of 36 High Performance Work Practices as used by Punia and Garg (2012). The questionnaire used has been designed on a 5-point scale ranging from ‘Ineffective’ (1) to ‘Highly Effective’ (5). Further, while administering the survey, it has been ensured that data come from all categories like men, women, highly experienced to less experienced ones, and aged personnel to fresh recruits, etc. Reliability of data is checked with the help of Cronbach’s. Cronbach’s alpha of the present data is calculated as .83 and any value greater than 0.80 indicates significant reliability (Field, 2000). Factor analysis has been used for categorization of 36 HPWPs. Appropriateness of data for factor analysis is ensured through KMO and Bartlett Test of Sphericity. Moreover, t-test has been used to study the variations in employees’ perception regarding effectiveness of HPWPs among various categories of respondents.

 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:

Employees’ Perception regarding Effectiveness HPWPs:

Previous research studies have concluded that the perception of employees is of utmost importance for successful implementation of any HR practice or HR initiative. Positive perception of employees leads to its proper implementation and facilitation of practices (Garg, 2015). This becomes all the more important in case of HPWPs.

 

 

Table-1: Employees’ Perception regarding Effectiveness HPWPs

Source: Primary Data (Collected through a structured questionnaire),

* Significant at .05 level of Significance

 

Table 1 reveals that overall employees’ perception regarding effectiveness level of HPWPs lies at the ‘Effective’ level on five-point scale with a mean of 3.41. It has been reported that male’s (mean = 3.71) perception regarding effectiveness of HPWPs is more positive than that of women (mean = 3.18). Further, result of t-test concludes that perceptual difference among male and female employees is statistically significant. However, perceptual difference between employees of manufacturing (mean= 3.37) and service sector (mean= 3.54) is concluded as statistical insignificant.

 

Segmentation of High Performance Work Practices:

Thirty-six HPWPs were subjected to principal component factor analysis which gives minimum number of factors that explain maximum amount of variance. Factor loadings exceeding 0.5 were considered and included in the factor. The result of KMO and Bartlett’s Test were represented in table 2. Values of both tests –KMO test and Bartlett’s test of sphericity- concludes that the data is appropriate for applicability of factor analysis. Thereafter, factor analysis was administered to have distinct factors out of the 36 statements (Table 3), and in all, seven factors were extracted.

 

Table-2: Results of KMO and Bartlett’s test

KMO Measure of Sample Adequacy                                      0.692
Approx Chi- Square	0.692
d.f.	32
Bartlett’s test of sphericity              Sig.	0.46

Source: Primary Data

 

Table-3: Factor Analysis

Source- Primary Data

The nine factors extracted as per Table 3 are discussed as under

 

F1- Traditional HRM Practices:

The factor highlights the perception of the employees for ‘traditional HRM practices’, which includes performance appraisal, competency and potential test, regular Performance appraisal, training and development.

 

F2- Team Oriented HPWPs:

This factor measures the practices which help in team-building and bring team spirit among the group members. As various sorts of teams like continuous improvement teams, semi-autonomous teams, Continuous improvement team etc., have been included in this factor.

 

F3- Employee Participation oriented HPWPs:

High performance work practices like Participative Leadership, information sharing, MBO etc. are included in this factor. These practices are implemented to increase employees’ participation at workplace.

 

F4- Reward related HPWPs:

Researchers have highlighted the importance of reward for performance maximization. The factor includes ESOP, Reward ceremony, team reward, incentive pay, surprise factor and highlight best employee of the month.

 

F5- Job designing oriented HPWPs:

Job characteristics theory highlighted the importance of designing for appropriate level of employee motivation. This factor includes various practices that promote rational and motivating job design.

 

F6: Social and Safety need driven HPWPs:

Job safety is the key issue for almost everyone, and rest of the dimensions of safety comes later on only. This factor includes employees’ social and safety need driven practices like Counseling session, feedback, social gathering, family insurance plan and employees’ wish for a safe, healthy and happy workplace.

F7- Miscellaneous HPWPs:

Miscellaneous factor includes four residual practices namely Yoga and meditation session, Human Resource Audit, Human Resource Information System and Human Resource Accounting.

 

 

Table-4: Employees’ Perception and Seven Extracted Factors of HPWPs

Source- Primary Data, * Significant at .05 level of Significance

 

Further on analyzing the mean of these factors (table-4), it could be inferred that employees’ perception has been found to be most positive for Factor-1- Traditional HRM Practices with a mean score of 3.89. However, the least favorable perception is witnessed for Factor-5- Job designing oriented HPWPs with mean value of 3.18. Further, all factors fall in ‘Effective’ category of five-point rating scale used in the study. It can be gauged from Table 4 that although difference in perceptions of employees serving in manufacturing and service sector was reported insignificant in table-1 but perceptual difference is reported to be significant for two factors i.e. for Social and Safety need driven HPWPs and for Miscellaneous HPWPs. Further, in line with significant difference in overall perception among male and female employees, as high as five factors reported statistical significant variations in perception of male and female employees.

 

CONCLUSION:

In this age of relentless and cut-throat competition, HPWP shave established themselves as distinct and important paradigm of performance excellence. High performance organization looks for certain innovative and unconventional practices to achieve the desired goal. In this background, the present article has successfully highlighted the importance of employees’ perception regarding effectiveness of HPWPs for effective implementation of HPWPs. It was found that effectiveness level for HPWPs rests at a comfortable category, that is, ‘Effective’ on 5-point scale, and it signifies excellent prospects of HPWPs in Indian organizations because positive perception leads to easy and effective adoption. The article has astutely discussed perception for HPWPs among male and female employees, and also of employees of manufacturing and service sectors. Favorable perception of men in comparison to women suggests that organizations need to create positive perception of women so that these practices can benefit both men and women equally. Further, it is desirable for organizations also as both men and women act as two inseparable wheels of a vehicle, and any imbalance in perception may cause problem in implementation. The categorization of HPWPs through factor analysis brought broader dimensions of HPWPs to light and a total of 36 HPWPs were reduced in nine factors. This segregation will enlighten further researchers to concretize their research work as future researchers can use broader dimensions extracted here instead of dealing with a large number of dimensions of HPWPs.

 

REFERENCES:

1.     Abraham, J.Y. and Knight, D.J. (2001). Strategies innovation: Leveraging creative action for more profitable growth. Strategy and Leadership, 29(1), 21–27.

2.     Baird, C.L. and Reynolds, J.R. (2004). Employee awareness of family leave benefit: The effects of family, work, and gender. The Sociological Quarterly, 45(2), 325–353.

3.     Baker, K., Olson, J. and Morisseau, D. (1994). Work practices, fatigue and nuclear power plant safety performance. Human Factors, 36(2), 244–257.

4.     Becker, B. and Gerhart, B. (1996). The impact of human resource management on performance: Progress and prospects. Academy of Management Journal, 38(4), 779–801.

5.     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.

6.     Cappelli, P. and Neumark, D. (1999). Do high performance work practices improve establishment-level outcome? Retrieved 18 August 2017, from http://www.nber.org/papers/ w7374.pdf

7.     Combs, J., Liu, Y., Hall, A. and 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.

8.     Delaney, J.T. and Godard, J. (2001). An industrial relations perspective on the high performance paradigm. Human Resource Management Review, 11(4), 395–429.

9.     Field, A. (2000). Discovering statistics using SPSS for Windows. London: SAGE.

10.  Garg, N and Kardam, B. (2016). Exploring the Linkage between Awareness and Perception of High Performance Work Practices with Employee Well-being at Work Place- A New Dimension for HRM. Jindal Journal of Business Research, 4(1-2), 81-100.

11.  Garg, N. (2015), Readiness of Indian Inc. for Modern HRM Practices. IUP Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(1), 58-76.

12.  Garg, N. and Punia, B.K (2017). Developing High Performance Work System for Indian Insurance Industry. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 66(3), 320-337.

13.  Godard, J. (1999). Do implementation processes and rationales matter? The case of workplace reforms. Journal of Management Studies, 36(5), 679–704.

14.  Godard, J. (2004). Critical assessment of high performance paradigm. British Journal of Industrial Relation, 42(2), 349–378.

15.  Guest, D. (2002). Human resource management, corporate performance and employee well-being: Building the worker into HRM. The Journal of Industrial Relations, 44(3), 335–358.

16.  Hirsh, E. and Kmec, J.A. (2009). HR structures: Reducing discrimination or raising right awareness. Industrial Relation: A Journal of Economy and Society, 48(3), 512–523.

17.  Kochan, T.A. and Osterman, P. (1994). The mutual gains enterprise for going a winning partnership among labor management and government. Retrieved 26 September 2017, from http:// www.mngt.waikato.ac.nz/ejrot/Vol4_1/Tilly.pdf

18.  Osterman, P. (1994). How common is workplace transformation and who adopts it? Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 47(2), 173–188.

19.  Punia B. K. and Garg N. (2012). High Performance Work Practices: Exploration and Employees’ Awareness. Asia- Pacific Journal of Management Innovation and Research, 8(4), 509-516.

20.  Thompson, P. (2001). Systems of production: Markets, organizations and performance. Employee Relation, 25(3), 627–629.

21.  Van Buren, M.E. and Werner, J.M. (1996). High performance work systems. Business and Economic Review, 43(1), 15–35.

22.  Wood, S. (1999). Human resource management and performance. International Journal for Management Review, 1(4), 367–413.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Received on 17.12.2017          Modified on 15.01.2018

Accepted on 05.02.2018           ©A&V Publications All right reserved