INTRODUCTION:

In this world obsessed with performance excellence, High Performance Work Practices has acquired a salutary distinction. Every organization whether public or private, manufacturing or service, big or small irrespective of their size, time, and place works to improve performance both in qualitative and quantitative terms through performance practices. High Performance Work System is a blend of theoretical models and practical approaches backed up with ‘how, why, what and when to plan’ for the organization. It is regarded as a totally win-win approach where employees and employers gain by simply modifying some of the existing procedures, mechanisms and systems. HPWPs tend to involve the employee in work practices, enhance skills and ability of employees and foster their loyalty for the organization. So, they approach employees with a holistic framework of building a healthy relationship between employee and organization. Further one key does not suit every lock. There exist definite differences in the way a practice is perceived in different types of organisations. In this light present paper explore perception of employees of manufacturing and service organisations for HPWPs.

An extensive literature review has been done to get acquainted with various paradigms of High Performance Work Practices. A brief description of reviewed literature has been given below.

LITERATURE REVIEW:

There are multiple nomenclatures and theories regarding HPWPs, as they have been called with different names as high performance work systems, alternate work practices, and flexible work practices (Delaney and Godard, 2001).In the modern times HPWPs have been referred as a mechanism for value creation and value enhancement of employees. They are promoted as ‘revolutionary practices’ as these practices are associated with higher performance level than those associated with traditional work place and employment related practices (Godard, 2004). They act as a tool of workplace innovation and experiments by enterprises in order to escape the works system of the past. Further they help to align human resource practices more closely with contemporary form of competition and environment (Osterman, 1994).

It is noteworthy to clarify that HPWPs require intensive investment in human resource to enhance employee’s skills, value, knowledge, motivation level, morale, commitment and flexibility. Further, they aspire to increase ability and the opportunity of employee to participate in decisions making process (Buren and Werner, 1996). Thus one of the essential elements of HPWPs is employee empowerment.

Thompson (2001) has divided HPWPs into 3 heads : (1) High involvement practices that include Semi-autonomous team, Problem solving team, Continuous improvement team, Job rotation, Attitude survey, Team briefing, Staff suggestion scheme, Job enrichment, MBO, Quality circle. (2) HR practices to build skill motivation and ability including Formal recruitment and interview, Regular Performance appraisal, Competency and performance test, Training, Team reward, Incentive pay, Multi skilling, Flexi timing, Job sharing, HR audit. (3) Employee relation to build loyalty and trust including Formal grievance redress procedure, Social gathering, Reward ceremony, Surprise factor-delight employee with unexpected, Safe, healthy and happy workplace, Family insurance scheme, ESOP ,Corporate Social Responsibility.

A large number of researches are available that depicts the growing presence of HPWPs around the globe. Levine and Tyson (1990) suggested that relatively greater job security and strong group cohesiveness of Japanese workers associated with HPWPs in large manufacturing companies in the post war time resulted into an industrial relations system that was more favourable to successful employee participation. Arthur (1992) studied steel mini mills and found two overarching strategic approaches: cost reduction and enhanced employee commitment in these mills. Further Cappelli and Rogovsky (1994) have shown that most of the high-performance work practices which include employee empowerment through participation in decision making, teamwork are more closely associated with industries that are more concerned with lean production systems.

Further Kumar (2000) studied the status of High Performance Work Practices in various industries across Canada. He found that workplace change in Canada has been all pervasive and that the pace of change has been brisk in latest years. However, big firms are seen more likely to adopt high-performance work practices, and the incidence of change has been greater in manufacturing companies than service organisations. As Quinn (2005) studied High Performance experience is a real and relevant phenomenon in knowledge industry. Knowledge worker tends to desire more joy from their work and feel more control over their job. Parsons and Nacochea (2007) studied High performance work system in the paper industry they found that High Performance practices are not found worldwide. Further they revealed that significant management challenge exist within and between companies with regard to status of HPWPs in the same industry.

Connolly and McGing (2007) studied Dublin-based hotels that displayed some of the human resource practices associated with high performing work practices. They noticed very low levels of employee participation, which many authors argue are the cornerstone of high performance practices. Pfeffer and Veiga (1999) argued that many organizations in manufacturing sector have failed to adopt a full suite of High Performance practices despite the researches indicating that these practices are most effective when they are implemented together as a set of practices or as a bundle of complementary, highly-related and overlapping practices. Applebaum et al. (2000) studied various organisations involved in the production of steel, apparel, and electronic medical equipments and imaging devices. From employee surveys, interviews with managers and union officials and site visits, they found that high-performance work organizations were not only more productive and efficient but also more employees friendly and were associated with greater job satisfaction and dedication among employees.

Thus HPWPs seems to have shown their presence in all sort of organisations over the world. In this background it would be interesting to discuss HPWPs in Indian settings. Moreover a perceptual exploration of manufacturing and service organisations is an interesting pursuit to highlight any differences in adaption of HPWPs. Keeping into consideration literature reviewed and other allied points following objectives and methodology has been used in the paper.

OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY:

The prime objective of the present research has been to give an insight into perceptual differences for High Performance Work Practices in manufacturing and service organisations and also to discuss the significance of such differences. The incidental objectives of the present research were as under:

· To examine the awareness, availability and effectiveness level of two organisations for HPWPs and to discuss the significance of the difference.

· To study the extracted factors of HPWPs and perceptual differences based on nature of organisation.

The present study is based upon exploratory-cum-descriptive research design and has used primary data. For data collection, a structured questionnaire consisting of 35 High Performance Work Practices has been used. In addition to it, there were eight other variables related to general information of respondents. Stratified random sampling has been used to collect data from various industries. The industries mainly included banking, insurance, textile, BPO, sugar, shoe, consultancy, cold drink, rice etc, Sample size of 350. The questionnaire used has been designed on a five-point scale ranging from ‘unaware’ (one) to ‘strongly aware’ (five), ‘ineffective’ (one) to ‘highly effective’ (five) and ‘unavailable’ (one) to ‘’highly available’ (five). Employees were taken from top and middle level keeping in view the consideration that they as more likely to encounter High Performance work Practices. For analysis purpose, it has been strictly supervised that an array of manufacturing, service, private, public, Indian and foreign companies are approached.

Table-1: Organisation Based Description of Various Levels of HPWPs

Organisations	Awareness Level		Availability Level		Effectiveness Level
Organisations	Mean	Rating	Mean	Rating	Mean	Rating
Manufacturing	3.60	Aware	2.65	Fairly Available	3.20	Effective
Service	3.76	Aware	2.87	Fairly Available	3.50	Effective

Table-2: Organisation Based Description of Various Levels of HPWPs (Percentage)

Awareness	M	S	Availability	M	S	Effectiveness	M	S
Highly Aware	23	49	Highly Available	08	07	Highly Effective	20	40
Aware	51	23	Available	13	27	Effective	40	44
Fairly Aware	10	24	Fairly Available	47	53	Fairly Effective	40	12
Partially Aware	16	04	Partially Available	32	13	Partially Effective	00	04
Unaware	00	00	Unavailable	00	00	Ineffective	00	00

(M denotes Manufacturing Organisations and S denotes Service Organisations)

Further while administering questionnaire to employees, it has been ensured that data comes from all category like male, female, highly experienced to less experienced one, aged personnel to fresh recruits etc. Reliability of data is checked using Cronbach’s alpha which is calculated through SPSS. Factor analysis has been used to reduce data to bring broader dimensions forward. Moreover, t-test has been used to study perceptual differences among various categories of respondents.

RESULT AND DISCUSSION:

Awareness, Availability and Effectiveness of HRA

Many research studies have proved that awareness of any practice or phenomenon is of utmost importance as this leads to its proper implementation and facilitation. When the employees are aware of these practices they will resort to innovative work practices which will ultimately affect the individual and organizational performance in an affirmative way. Further perception plays an important role for an individual as same practice could be perceived differently and this may lead to contrasting results and the same fact is also true in the case of performance practices too. Its employee’s perception regarding effectiveness of a practice that defines its utility and value for an organization, as in case if any practice is not regarded as effective by employees then the employees will not participate whole heartedly and hence the very essence of practice gets defeated. Positive perception for a practice not only implies effective implementation of practice but it also ensures effective participation of employees too and this participation leads to innovation and cost effectiveness. In this light various aspects of HPWPs have been taken into the study and have been discussed as below

Above table states that service organisations have higher mean value than manufacturing organisations in all three perceptual measures i.e. awareness level, availability level and effectiveness level. It highlights relatively better status of High Performance Work Practices in service organisations. Further it is interesting to note that employees’ perception regarding availability of HPWPs shows a lean patch for both types of organisation with mean value of 2.665 and 2.87 for manufacturing and service organisations respectively. In the nutshell it could be derived out of the above table that employees’ awareness and perception regarding effectiveness of HPWPs is good enough but employees’ perception regarding availability of HPWPs is a matter of concern in Indian organisations. Here a need of institutionalizing more and more performance practices comes to limelight.

Table-2 gives an extensive coverage of employees’ perception for HPWPs by segregating percentage of employees in five different scales of Likert’s five-point rating scale. It depicts that 49% of employees of service organisations are ‘highly aware’ for HPWPs while corresponding figure for employees of manufacturing organisations is 23% only. Further another 51% and 23% are ‘aware’ for HPWPs in manufacturing and service organisations respectively. On perception regarding availability front, employees of service organisations have been found to possess more ‘availability’ (27%) as compared to manufacturing organisations employees (13%). Further 53% of employees in service organisations perceive them as fairly available and in contrast a bit lesser 47% employee of manufacturing organisations does so. Luckily none of the employee from either organisations or either gender has revealed that they regard these practices as ‘unavailable’. As far as perception regarding effectiveness of HPWPS is concerned, 20% of employees of manufacturing consider them as ‘highly effective’ and exactly 40 % of employees of service organisations do so. Further significance of such perceptual differences is discussed with the help of following hypotheses.

HYPOTHESIS TESTING:

Hypothesis is an assumption through which a researcher tries to come to population parameters with the help of sample statistics. The paper has three hypotheses that try to adjudge the significance of the difference in manufacturing and service organisations employees’ perception for various variables taken in the study.

Hypothesis 1:

H0 (Null hypothesis): There is no variation in the awareness of manufacturing and service organisations’ employees for High Performance Work Practices.

H1 (Alternate Hypothesis): Awareness of employees of manufacturing and service organisations for HPWPs varies significantly. Here two-tailed test would be used.

Hypothesis 2:

H0 (Null hypothesis): There is no variation in the perception of two organisations employees regarding availability of High Performance Work Practices.

H1 (Alternate Hypothesis): There exists significant variation in perception of the employees regarding availability of HPWPs.

Hypothesis 3:

H0 (Null hypothesis): There is no variation in the perception of the employees for effectiveness of High Performance Work Practices.

H1 (Alternate Hypothesis): There exists significant variation in the perception of manufacturing and service organisations’ employee regarding effectiveness of HPWPs.

Table-3: Hypothesis Testing

Hypothesis	Z Value	Critical Value*	Result
Hypothesis-1	5.71	1.96	Rejected
Hypothesis-2	9.79	1.96	Rejected
Hypothesis-3	8.11	1.96	Rejected

*Critical value at 95% Level of Significance

Here all three null hypotheses are rejected which signifies that all alternate hypothesis is accepted. Hence perceptual difference among manufacturing and service organisations comes out to be significant in all three parameters. It means that awareness level of both organisations varies significantly and same is also true for their perception regarding availability and effectiveness. Service organisations have a clear edge over manufacturing organisations as they have higher mean value.

SEGMENTATION OF HPWPs

35dimensions of HPWPs were subjected to principal components factor analysis in which to define factors (scales) clearly, loadings exceeding 0.4 were considered and included in a factor. In all nine factors were extracted. The extracted factors as defined and named as follows: - F-1: Reward Oriented HPWPs, F-2: Traditional HRM Practices, F-3: Value Creating HPWPs, F-4: Employee Engagement HPWPs, F-5: Team Oriented HPWPs, F-6: Social and Safety Need driven HPWPs, F-7: Employee Empowerment HPWPs, F-8: Procedural Improvement HPWPs and F-9: Psycho-Strengthening HPWPs.

AN INSIGHT INTO NINE FACTORS OF HPWPs

Nine factors extracted after factors analysis are studied differently to give further insights into implication of gender on High Performance Work Practices. Perceptual differences based on various parameters have also been discussed using T-test. Here, firstly all these factors were studied to check awareness, availability and effectiveness level of employees. Then t-test is administered to check out the significance of variations among manufacturing and service organisations for all three variables of the study.

Table-4: Organisation based Employees’ Awareness for Nine Factors of HPWPs (Mean)

Factor	Factor Name	Manufacturing	Service
F-1	Reward Oriented HPWPs	3.79	3.85
F-2	Traditional HRM Practices	3.87	3.83
F-3	Value Creating HPWPs	3.25	3.48
F-4	Employee Engagement HPWPs	3.48	3.45
F-5	Team Oriented HPWPs	3.54	3.40
F-6	Social and Safety Need driven HPWPs	4.12	4.01
F-7	Employee Empowerment HPWPs	3.30	3.37
F-8	Procedural Improvement HPWPs	3.56	3.76
F-9	Psycho-Strengthening HPWPs	3.12	3.42

The above table provides employees’ awareness for nine extracted factors of HPWPs for both manufacturing and service organisations. In contrast of employees of service organisations who are least aware for factor-9 (mean=3.12), employees of manufacturing organisations are least aware for factor-3(3.25) i.e. ‘Value creating HPWPs’. But both have maximum awareness for factor-6 which falls in ‘highly aware’ category of five-point rating scale. Employees of service organisations have more awareness than employees of manufacturing organisations for five out of nine factors. The factors are as factor-1, factor-3, factor-7, factor-8 and factor-9 (. And for other four factors mean of manufacturing organisations employees is higher than service organisations employees and these factors are Traditional HRM practices (service organisations mean=3.83, manufacturing organisations mean=3.87), Employee engagement HPWPs (service organisations mean=3.45, manufacturing organisations mean=3.48), Social and safety need driven HPWPs (service organisations mean=4.01, manufacturing organisations mean=4.12) and Team oriented HPWPs (service organisations mean=3.40, manufacturing organisations mean=3.54). Significance of these perceptual variations is discussed with the help of t-test.

Table-5: Organisation based Variations in Employees’ Awareness

FACTORS	Manufacturing v/s Service
FACTORS	t-Value	d.f	Degree of Sig.
Reward Oriented HPWPs	1.959	348	0.012
Traditional HRM Practices	0.423	348	0.673
Value Creating HPWPs	0.303	348	0.762
Employee Engagement HPWPs	2.260	348	0.024
Team Oriented HPWPs	1.976	348	0.040
Social and Safety Need driven HPWPs	1.133	348	0.258
Employee Empowerment HPWPs	2.365	348	0.003
Procedural Improvement HPWPs	0.306	348	0.760
Psycho-Strengthening HPWPs	2.703	348	0.003

The table highlights the significance of difference in awareness level employees of manufacturing and service organisations for factors extracted from factor analysis. When t-test is applied on all nine factors, five factors showed that the difference in the awareness level of manufacturing and service organisations employees is significant. And for rest of four factors difference in awareness level of employees of two organisations is found to be insignificant. Factors with significant variations are Reward Oriented HPWPs, Employee engagement Practices, Employee empowerment HPWPs; Team oriented HPWPs, and Psycho-strengthening HPWPs. In these five factors for three factors as factor-1, factor-7, factor-9 service organisations employees have higher awareness than employees of manufacturing organisations employees. But employees of manufacturing organisations have higher awareness for two factors as Employee engagement HPWPs and Team oriented HPWPs. It clearly reflects the need of specific requirement of awareness enhancement program in manufacturing and service organisations. Another four factors that includes Traditional HRM practices, Value creating HPWPs, Social and safety need driven HPWPs and Psycho-strengthening HPWPs although showed difference in awareness level but clearly this difference is not significant. And consequently awareness level of employees of two organisations is considered almost equal.

Table-6: Organisation based Perception Regarding Availability

Factor	Factor Name	Manufacturing	Service
F-1	Reward Oriented HPWPs	2.70	3.01
F-2	Traditional HRM Practices	2.87	3.13
F-3	Value Creating HPWPs	2.32	2.32
F-4	Employee Engagement HPWPs	2.27	2.86
F-5	Team Oriented HPWPs	2.52	2.93
F-6	Social and Safety Need driven HPWPs	3.02	3.06
F-7	Employee Empowerment HPWPs	2.66	2.88
F-8	Procedural Improvement HPWPs	2.78	3.13
F-9	Psycho-Strengthening HPWPs	2.46	2.63

The table-6 discusses perception of employees of manufacturing and service organisation regarding availability of HPWPs in their respective organisations. Employees of service organisations consider factor-3 i.e. value creating HPWPs as least available and correspondingly employees of manufacturing organisations perceive factor-4 i.e. Employee engagement HPWPs as least available. As far as employees of manufacturing organisations are concerned, they regard Social and safety need driven HPWPs (mean=3.02) as most available. And employees of service organisations have rated two factors as most available. The factors are Traditional HRM practices and Procedural improvement HPWPs with a mean value of 3.13 for both the factors. Further it was observed that for all nine mean values is greater for employees of service organisations. It signifies that employee’s perception regarding availability of these factors is more favourable in service organisations than in manufacturing organisations. Further overall mean of manufacturing organisations employees is 2.65 and here five factors have mean greater than overall mean. The factors include factor-1 (mean=2.70), factor-2 (mean=2.87), factor-6 (mean=3.02), factor-7 (mean=2.66) and factor-8 (mean=2.78). On the same ground overall mean of employees of service organisations is 2.87. In service organisations five factors are rated higher than the overall mean and rest of three factors are rated lower. The factors having lower mean than 2.87 for service organisations employees are Value creating HPWPs, Employee engagement HPWPs and Psycho-strengthening HPWPs.

Table-7: Organisational Variations in Perception Regarding Availability

FACTORS	Manufacturing v/s Service
FACTORS	t-Value	d.f	Degree of Sig.
Reward Oriented HPWPs	2.348	348	0.442
Traditional HRM Practices	0.606	348	0.036
Value Creating HPWPs	1.374	348	0.130
Employee Engagement HPWPs	4.962	348	0.000
Team Oriented HPWPs	3.722	348	0.294
Social and Safety Need driven HPWPs	2.288	348	0.222
Employee Empowerment HPWPs	1.979	348	0.522
Procedural Improvement HPWPs	0.468	348	0.010
Psycho-Strengthening HPWPs	3.258	348	0.120

The above table highlights the significance of difference in the perception regarding availability of HPWPs for the employees of manufacturing and service organisations for all nine factors. T-test is applied on all nine factors and difference in the perception is found significant for only three factors. These factors are Employee engagement Practices, Traditional HRM practices and Procedural improvement related HPWPs.. In all these three factors service organisations employees have more positive perception than employees of manufacturing organisations employees, as mean of employees perception for service organisations is higher than that of manufacturing organisations employees.

Table-8: Organisation based Perception Regarding Effectiveness

Factor	Factor Name	Manufacturing	Service
F-1	Reward Oriented HPWPs	3.41	3.62
F-2	Traditional HRM Practices	3.48	3.60
F-3	Value Creating HPWPs	3.14	3.18
F-4	Employee Engagement HPWPs	3.24	3.46
F-5	Team Oriented HPWPs	3.30	3.48
F-6	Social and Safety Need driven HPWPs	3.56	3.86
F-7	Employee Empowerment HPWPs	3.36	3.92
F-8	Procedural Improvement HPWPs	3.42	3.38
F-9	Psycho-Strengthening HPWPs	3.20	3.32

And for rest of six factors difference in perception of employees is insignificant. Another six factors that includes Reward oriented HPWPs, Value creating HPWPs, Social and safety need driven HPWPs, Employee empowerment HPWPs, Team oriented HPWPs, Employee engagement HPWPs and Psycho-strengthening HPWPs although showed difference in employees’ perception but clearly this difference is not significant. And consequently perception of employees of two organisations is considered almost same with no significant difference among them.

How does employee perceive effectiveness of High Performance Work Practices is discussed through table-8? It was observed that for as many as eight mean value is greater for employees of service organisations than employees of manufacturing organisations. Only for Procedural improvement HPWPs perception of manufacturing organisations employees is more favourable than employees of service organisations. It signifies that employee’s perception regarding effectiveness is more favourable in service organisations than in manufacturing organisations. Further overall mean of manufacturing organisations employees is 3.20 and here only two factors have mean less or equal than overall mean. The factors include Value creating HPWPs (mean=3.14) and Psycho-strengthening HPWPs (mean=3.20). On the same ground overall mean of employees of service organisations is 3.50. In service organisations five factors are rated higher than the overall mean and rest of three factors are rated lower. The factors having average higher than 3.50 for service organisations employees are Reward oriented HPWPs, Traditional HRM Practices, Team oriented HPWPs, Social and safety need driven HPWPs and Employee empowerment HPWPs.

Table-9: Organisation based Variations in Perception for Effectiveness

FACTORS	Manufacturing v/s Service
FACTORS	t-Value	d.f	Degree of Sig.
Reward Oriented HPWPs	2.257	348	0.025
Traditional HRM Practices	1.136	348	0.257
Value Creating HPWPs	0.395	348	0.693
Employee Engagement HPWPs	2.456	348	0.015
Team Oriented HPWPs	1.579	348	0.115
Social and Safety Need driven HPWPs	3.343	348	0.001
Employee Empowerment HPWPs	1.599	348	0.111
Procedural Improvement HPWPs	0.420	348	0.669
Psycho-Strengthening HPWPs	1.268	348	0.206

The above table highlights the significance of difference in the perception regarding effectiveness of HPWPs for the employees of manufacturing and service organisations for all nine factors extracted from factor analysis. When t-test is applied on all nine factors, three factors showed significant difference in the perception of manufacturing and service organisations employees regarding effectiveness of HPWPs. These factors are Employee engagement Practices, Traditional HRM practices and Procedural improvement related HPWPs. In all these three factors service organisations employees have more positive perception than employees of manufacturing organisations employees, as mean of employees perception for service organisations is higher than that of manufacturing organisations employees. It clearly reflects the need of specific requirement of effectiveness enhancement program in both manufacturing and service organisations. Another six factors that includes Reward oriented HPWPs, Value creating HPWPs, Social and safety need driven HPWPs, Employee empowerment HPWPs, Team oriented HPWPs, Employee engagement HPWPs and Psycho-strengthening HPWPs although showed difference in employees’ perception but clearly this difference is not significant. And consequently perception of employees of two organisations is considered almost same with no significant difference among them.

CONCLUSION:

In this age of persistent and throat cut competition, HPWPs have established themselves as distinct and important paradigm of performance excellence. High performance organization looks for certain innovative and unconventional practices to achieve desired goal. In this background the present paper has successfully highlighted the employees’ awareness, availability and effectiveness level for HPWPs for manufacturing and service organizations. The categorization of HPWPs through factor analysis brought broader dimensions of HPWPs into light and a total of 35 HPWPs were reduced in nine factors. This segregation will help future researchers to explore their study as further researchers can use broader dimensions extracted here instead of dealing with a large number of dimensions with HPWPs. Further differences in employees’ perception described in the paper could be used by HPWPs practitioners to explore different mechanism for adoption of high performance practices differently in two distinct organisations. Further researches could explore the various reasons for perceptual differences in organisations.

REFERENCES:

1. Abraham, J.Y. and Knight, D.J. (2001), “Strategies Innovation: Leveraging Creative Action for More Profitable Growth”, Strategy and Leadership, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 21-27.

2. Appelbaum, E., Bailey T., Berg P., and Kalleberg A. (2000), “Manufacturing Advantage. Why high performance work systems pay off”. Itacha, Cornell University Press

3. Baird, C.L. and Reynold, J. R. (2004), “Employee Awareness of Family Leave Benefit: The Effects of Family, Work, and Gender”, The Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 45, No. 2, pp. 325-353.

4. Baker, K., Olson, J., and Morisseau, D. (1994), “Work Practices, Fatigue and Nuclear Power Plant Safety Performance”, Human Factors, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 244-257.

5. Becker, B. and Gerhart, B. (1996), “The Impact of Human Resource Management on Performance: Progress and Prospects”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38, No. 4, pp. 779-801.

6. Boxall, P. and Macky, K. (2009), “Research and Theory on High-Performance Work Systems: Progressing the High-Involvement Stream”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 3-23.

7. Brown, C. and Reich, M. (1997), “Micro-Macro Linkages in High Performance Employment Systems”, Organizational Studies, Vol. 18, No. 5, pp. 765-781.

8. Cappelli, P. and Rogovsky, N. (1994), “New Work Systems and Skill Requirements”, International Labour Review, Vol. 133, No. 2, pp. 205-220.

9. 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, Vol. 59, No. 3, pp. 501-528.

10. David, R. (1998), “Exploding the Myth of High Performance Teams”, Team Performance Management, Vol. 4, No. 7, pp. 306-311.

11. Delaney, J. T. and Godard, J. (2001), “An Industrial Relations Perspective on the High Performance Paradigm”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 395-429.

12. Godard, J. (1999), “Do Implementation Processes and Rationales Matter? The Case of Workplace Reforms”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 36, No. 5, pp. 679-704.

13. Godard, J. (2004), “Critical Assessment of High Performance Paradigm”, British Journal of Industrial Relation, Vol. 42, No. 2, pp. 349-378.

14. Guest, D. (2002), “Human Resource Management, Corporate Performance and Employee Well-Being: Building the Worker into HRM”, The Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 44, No. 3, pp. 335-358.

15. Hirsh, E. and Kmec, J.A. (2009), “HR Structures: Reducing Discrimination or Raising Right Awareness”, Industrial Relation: A Journal of Economy and Society, Vol. 48, No. 3, pp. 512-523.

16. Lepak, D. P., and Snell, S. A. (1999), “The Human Resource Architecture, Toward a Theory of Human Capital Allocation and Development”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 31-48.

17. Lepak, D. P., and Snell, S. A. (2002), “Examining the Human Resources Architecture, The Relationships among Human Capital, Employment and Resource Configurations”, Journal of Management, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 517-543.

18. Levine, D. I., and Tyson, L. D. (1990), “Participation, Productivity, and the Firm’s Environment”. In A. S. Blinder (Ed.), Paying for productivity: A look at the evidence (pp. 183–244). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution

19. MacDuffie, J. P. (1995), “Human Resource Bundles and Manufacturing Performance- Organizational Logic and Flexible Productions Systems in the World Auto Industry”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48, No. 2, pp. 197-221.

20. Macky K. and Boxall P. (2007), “Research and Theory on High-Performance Work Systems: Progressing the High-Involvement Stream”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 3-23.

21. McCartney, J. and Teague, P. (2004), “The Diffusion of High Performance Employment Practices in Republic of Ireland”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 25, No. 7, pp. 598-617.

22. Osterman, P. (1994), “How Common is Workplace Transformation and Who Adopts It?”, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 47, No. 2, pp. 173-188.

23. Thompson, P., (2001) “Systems of Production: Markets, Organizations and Performance”, Employee Relation, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 627-629.

24. Van Buren, M . E. and Werner, J. M. (1996), “High Performance Work Systems”, Business and Economic Review, Vol. 43, No. 1, pp. 15-35.

25. Van Buren, M . E. and Werner, J. M. (1996), “High Performance Work Systems”, Business and Economic Review. Vol. 43, No. 1, pp. 15-35.

26. Wood, S. (1999), “Human Resource Management and Performance”, International Journal for Management Review, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 367-413.

27. Youndt, M.A., Snell, S.A., Dean, J.W. and Lepak, D. P. (1996), “Human Resource Management, Manufacturing Strategy, and Firm Performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 836–866.

Received on 09.03.2014 Modified on 15.04.2014

Asian J. Management 5(3): July-September, 2014 page 318-324