High‐involvement work practices and employee bargaining power
| Pages | 455-471 |
| Published date | 01 October 2003 |
| Date | 01 October 2003 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/01425450310490165 |
| Author | Frederick Guy |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour |
High-involvement work
practices and employee
bargaining power
Frederick Guy
School of Management and Organisational Psychology, Birkbeck College,
University of London, London, UK
Keywords Empowerment, Negotiating, Working practices, Retailing,
Customer service management
Abstract High involvement work practices (HIWPs) may empower employees to do their jobs
better, and also empower them at the bargaining table. This paper considers whether
non-universal adoption of productivity-enhancing work practices may, at least in part, be explained
by this dual nature of empowerment. It examines the case of a customer service programme in the
Northern California division of Safeway stores, its affect on the outcome of a strike against
Safeway, and the subsequent pattern of adoption (and non-adoption) of similar programmes
among Safeway’s competitors. It concludes that the dual nature of empowerment can help explain
the apparent paradox posed by empirical studies; that although HIWPs improve the performance
of all sorts of organisations, most organisations do not adopt HIWPs.
Introduction
A range of work practices, which have been labelled both “high-involvement
work practices” (HIWPs) and high-performance work practices (HPWPs), are
seen by many as ways in which the active involvement of ordinary employees
can improve the performance of firms (hence the labels; I will use the HIWP
label below). Two controversies surround HIWPs. One controversy is whether
such practices will improve the performance of organisations as a general rule,
or only that of organisations with certain strategic needs; the former position
has been called “universalist”, the latter “strategic contingency”. Empirical
studies mostly find that HIWPs improve performance for organisations
regardless of strategic need, which lends support to the universalist position.
On the other hand, these and other studies find that HIWPs are nowhere near
universally adopted; if the universalist theory is correct, we are left with the
need to explain why these universal benefits are so often left on the table.
The second controversy concerns whether, and in what respect, HIWPs
empower employees. The view of HIWP advocates is that the practices in
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0142-5455.htm
The author wishes to thank: Carolina Otero for research assistance; Richard Benson, Jim Liggins
and Gary Smith of UFCW Local 870, Safeway employees Jay Klein, Brenda Grissom and
Diane Poe, and Karl Kruger, for their time and cooperation; Jonathan Michie, Elaine Marriole and
two referees for comments on an earlier draft; and the School of Management and Organisational
Psychology, Birkbeck College, for financial support.
HIWPs and
bargaining
power
453
Received December 2002
Revised December 2002
Accepted January 2003
Employee Relations
Vol. 25 No. 5, 2003
pp. 453-469
qMCB UP Limited
0142-5455
DOI 10.1108/01425450310490165
question work because they allow employees to make decisions that make a
difference. Decision making by lower-level employees may improve
performance for various reasons: for instance, because it allows employees to
use tacit knowledge which is not available to higher level managers, or because
the freedom to make decisions (alone or associated with performance pay)
provides motivation for greater effort. On the other hand, the enthusiasm for
HIWPs coincides with a tremendous improvement in monitoring and control,
through the application of new information and communications technologies
(ICTs). Some observers reckon the restrictions imposed by the latter more than
outweigh the freedoms granted in name of the former, with HIWPs acted out in
an electronic panopticon.
Considering the empowerment controversy side by side with the
universalist/contingency controversy raises the problem of defining
“performance”. Most of the universalist/contingency literature ignores the
possibility that employers and employees may have conflicting objectives, and
measures organisational performance from the perspective of a
profit-maximising employer. If there is no conflict between employees and
employer, this choice of performance measure does not matter; if there is no
conflict, then profit maximisation will occur when productivity and value
added are maximised, which is to say when the pie to be divided among
employer and employees is as large as it can be. The empowerment question,
however, raises the issue of conflicting interests. If employees are empowered
or disempowered, which is to say if changes occur in the extent to which they
can make decisions about their jobs, this may be reflected in changes in the
relative bargaining power of employees and employers. This can drive a wedge
between productivity and profitability.
A wedge between profitability and productivity in turn re-casts the
universalism/contingency question. It is possible, for instance, that HIWPs
improve productivity as a general rule, but improve profitability only for firms
with particular strategic needs. Moreover if, following the adoption of a HIWP
programme, changes in bargaining power are slower to take effect than
changes in productivity, then the HIWPs may have a positive effect on profits
in the short run but a negative effect in the long run; the reverse may be true if
the changes in bargaining power take place more quickly than those in
productivity.
In this paper, I examine the case of a particular HIWP in one division of one
company: a customer service programme adopted by Safeway Stores in its
Northern California division. The programme aimed at empowering employees
to meet customer needs and at establishing a closer relationship between
customers and employees. The programme was judged a success by Safeway
management. However, by strengthening the relationships between employees
and customers, the programme also appears to have empowered employees in a
way not intended by management, strengthening the hand of the employees’
ER
25,5
454
To continue reading
Request your trial