Motivation is a substantial factor in many organizations - there are many approaches to provide that motivation such as better pay, incentives and good working conditions, etc. If an employee is properly motivated, it leads to high levels of job performance, job satisfaction, reduced turnover and greater productivity. Those organizations that recognize their employees and motivate them properly are bound to have a satisfied and productive staff. One way in which many organizations are choosing to create greater productivity is high-performance work systems (HPWS), which consist of a combination of HR practices that are meant to make employees more effective. These include extra training, compensation, selection and performance reviews, among other practices, all of which are intended to increase motivation and provide more chances to succeed. However, despite the benefits to the organization, HPWS tends to have somewhat detrimental effects on employees that mitigate the perception of success the practice should have. The following describes the importance of motivation in worker satisfaction and productivity, the principles of HPWS to attain that motivation, and its potential advantages and disadvantages for both workers and employers. It is found that HPWS largely works in a positive light for organizations, but is less advantageous for the worker if practices are started in isolation rather than as a complementary system of work practices.
According to Maslow, people are an organization’s most valued assets, meaning management should put more effort in coming up with motivation tips. He organized the needs of employees in a hierarchy, and added that if all these needs were met, then organizations would be more productive, and both personal and organizational goals would be met (Maslow, 1998). Organizations should additionally come up with ways of addressing employee’s needs, as well as mechanisms of enhancing achievements of these needs. High-performance work systems (HPWS) are one way in which to do that.
High-performance work systems work directly on employee attitudes to attempt to fashion more motivated and driven workers who can work productively in groups to increase the efficiency of their efforts. HPWS works by radically changing the employer/employee relationship to facilitate these goals. Instead of the normal, hierarchical method of organizational leadership which is the hallmark of normal mass production or scientific management, HPWS seeks to foster initiatives within organizations that increase employees’ involvement within the company. By involving everyone in the business more intimately with its inner workings, and demonstrating increased trust and reliance on these workers, the idea is that workers would then become more committed to the goals and success of the organization. Providing the workers with training also allows them to become more competent and able to provide a greater skill set to the organization (Huselid & Becker, 1997).
The intended effects of HPWS is to foster a positive workplace environment and to improve departmental performance. The principle behind HPWS is that worker satisfaction is directly related to workplace performance; those who do not like their work environments are not motivated to do better and to place maximum effort into their work. Satisfaction breeds commitment, and so effective HR practices are necessary to maintain that workplace satisfaction; HPWS is thought to be one of those practices. HPWS is an involvement-oriented practice, instead of the normal control-oriented practices of traditional organizations. While control-oriented practices encourage employees to be limited in their understanding of the organization and their workload, involvement-oriented practices allow workers not just to do their work, but to constantly work towards improving their work practices. Self-control and self-management are the keys to HPWS practices, as workers are somewhat more autonomous (thus lessening the feeling that they are being evaluated and judged from above) (Zacharatos, Barling & Iverson, 2005).
Many of these HPWS practices have specific aims and means toward improving worker performance. Employment security is one set of practices, in which “an organization provides stable employment for employees” (Zacharatos, Barling & Iverson, 2005). This fosters trust in the organization, as employees feel comfortable with their continued employment and not in danger that they will be fired. This is accomplished in part through selective hiring, in which employers work hard to find employees that will fit their desired work environment; this establishes a firm connection between the worker and their workplace (Zacharatos, Barling & Iverson, 2005). Extensive training is used to improve their competencies and control their work, while decision making is decentralized to prevent hierarchical resentment and foster collaboration. Reduced status distinctions also eliminate the normal barriers between employer and employee, providing a more welcoming and egalitarian environment (Zacharatos, Barling & Iverson, 2005).
According to research, the effectiveness of HPWS practices in increasing productivity is clear. Despite the wildly varying results of many studies on the subject, meta-analysis has made it clear that there is a correlative relationship between the increase in HPWS practices and performance (Combs, Hall & Ketchen, 2006). One of the most effective HPWS practices that generates greater productivity is concern for employees climate; in essence, when managers take care to consult employees and foster a positive working environment, that has a dramatic and positive effect on workers’ productivity (Takeuchi, Chen & Lepah, 2009).
Despite these lofty goals, however, HPWS is proving less than successful in creating positive outcomes for employees, instead merely increasingly the productivity of their respective organizations. A lot of times, the ability for workers to benefit from HPWS practices varies greatly depending on their trust in management, and their perceived safety in the workplace (Zacharatos, Barling & Iverson, 2005). The majority of the poor outcomes for workers seems to stem from the inconsistent or flawed application of HPWS – many times, these practices achieve better results when they are implemented all at the same time as a consistent organizational change, instead of one at a time (Kling, 1995). In other words, workers seem to suffer most when HPWS practices are implemented individually one at a time; starting with one practice, then starting another after that first has been fully implemented, etc. Alternatively, the same results happen when only certain HPWS practices are implemented at all.
The ways in which this inconsistent rollout of HPWS practice negatively affect workers are many; for example, the creation of problem-solving committees may only be effective if workers are active in their participation. If job security guarantees are not provided to employees, they are less motivated to share ideas that might jeopardize their jobs. If training or flexible job assignments or other HPWS practices are implemented one without the other, this can result in limited improvement in job satisfaction (Kling, 1995). Many HPWS practices complement each other; to that end, they should be implemented as a system of work practices, rather than individual component practices. Furthermore, if HPWS practices are poorly implemented, it can lead to added job stress, turnover intentions, and role anxiety for workers (Jensen, Patel & Messersmith, 2011). In short, HPWS as a fully implemented practice seems to work when it is accurately applied; specific shortcomings in HR practices seem to coincide with negative outcomes for workers in organizations implementing HPWS practices.
Because of this, it is necessary to reevaluate the merits of HPWS from a pro-worker standpoint. Not only that, but some research suggests that, in some cases, employees benefit much more than employers do when HPWS is implemented; worker satisfaction is increased, but that may lead to complacency and a lack of feeling that one must work for their benefits (Cappelli & Neumark, 1999). Despite this, the best solution for implementing HPWS practices seems to be rolling out all of its component features in a comprehensive whole, rather than isolating certain strategies and working that way.
In conclusion, HPWS has the overall goal of improving productivity, motivation and job satisfaction, but some problems prevent it from being effectively implemented, such as rolling out changes in isolation. However, HPWS as a whole has had consistently positive outcomes for organizations that have implemented them, increasing the value of their employees. In order for organizations and employees to reap the full benefits of HPWS practices, they must all be implemented as a cohesive whole, to allow all practices to coalesce into a system that increases worker morale and motivation. Motivation and commitment to an organization offers a strong, flexible and dedicated workforce, which is one of the sole remaining components of competitive advantage in the modern economy (Huselid & Becker, 1997). To that end, determining the best way to implement high-performance work systems that foster these traits in employees is necessary.
References
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.
Evans WR & Davis WD, 2005. High-performance work systems and organizational
performance: The mediating role of internal social structure.Journal of Management, 31(5), 758-775.
Hartog DN & Verburg RM, 2004. High performance work systems, organisational culture
and firm effectiveness. Human Resource Management Journal, 14(1), 55-78.
Huselid MA & Becker BE, 1997, August, THE IMPACT HIGH PERFORMANCE
WORK SYSTEMS, IMPLEMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS, AND ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGY ON SHAREHOLDER WEALTH. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 1997, No. 1, pp. 144-148). Academy of Management.
Jensen JM, Patel PC, & Messersmith JG, 2011, High-performance work systems and job control:
consequences for anxiety, role overload, and turnover intentions. Journal of Management.
Kling J, 1995. High performance work systems and firm performance. Monthly Lab. Rev., 118,
29.
Maslow AH, 1998). Toward a Psychology of Being. 3rd Edition, Wiley Publishers.
Neumark D & Cappelli P, 1999. Do" High Performance" work practices improve
establishment-level outcomes? (No. w7374). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Takeuchi R, ChenG, & Lepak DP, 2009. THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS OF A
SOCIAL SYSTEM: CROSS‐LEVEL EFFECTS OF HIGH‐PERFORMANCE WORK SYSTEMS ON EMPLOYEES’ATTITUDES. Personnel Psychology, 62(1), 1-29.
White M, Hill S, McGovern P, Mills C & Smeaton D, 2003, ‘High‐performance’
Management Practices, Working Hours and Work–Life Balance. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 41(2), 175-195.
Zacharatos A, Barling J & Iverson RD, 2005. High-performance work systems and
occupational safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 77.
