HOW MUCH DO HIGH‐PERFORMANCE WORK PRACTICES MATTER? A META‐ANALYSIS OF THEIR EFFECTS ON ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE

verifiedrich profile · Personnel Psychology · 2006

COMBS, JAMES; LIU, YONGMEI; HALL, ANGELA; KETCHEN, DAVID

10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00045.x · CrossRef: verified · attribution required

How this was studied

paradigm: positivistpurpose: explanatory causaldesign: meta analytic synthesisidentification: nonetime: cross sectionaldata: quantitative survey

A meta-analytic synthesis — it pools many primary studies rather than running a single design, so there is no single-study diagram.

analysis: meta analysis · validity (validity): internal unclear · external addressed · construct addressed · statistical addressed · classifier confidence 0.85

What this article reports

The findings we extracted from this work, normalized into Principia’s relationship form (X → Y). Each feeds the synthesized models below.

high performance work systemsorganizational performance

r = 0.2 · k=92 · grade A · unverified

high performance work systemslabor productivity

r = 0.18 · k=43 · grade A · unverified

high involvement work practices hiwpsorganizational performance

r = 0.2 · k=92 · grade A · unverified

high performance work systemsbusiness unit performance

r = 0.28 · k=92 · grade A · unverified

high performance work practicesorganizational performance

r = 0.2 · k=92 · grade A · unverified

high performance work practicesorganizational performance

r = 0.2 · k=92 · grade A · unverified

Models this article informs

The meta-analytic priors this article contributes evidence to — its place in the broader synthesis.

In the authors’ words

The article’s own abstract.

Although there is growing evidence that high performance work practices (HPWPs) affect organizational performance, varying sample characteristics, research designs, practices examined, and organizational performance measures used has led extant findings to vary dramatically, making the size of the overall effect difficult to estimate. We use meta‐analysis to estimate the effect size and test whether effects are larger for (a) HPWP systems versus individual practices, (b) operational versus financial performance measures, and (c) manufacturing versus service organizations. Statistical aggregation of 92 studies reveals an overall correlation that we estimate at .20. Also, the relationship is stronger when researchers examine systems of HPWPs and among manufacturers, but it appears invariant across performance measures. We use our findings as a basis to offer 4 suggestions intended to shape research practices such that future meta‐analyses might answer today's emerging questions.

What the literature says about it

Attributed, open-access quotes from other works that cite this article, plus the citation-graph verdict tally. Corroborations and disputes, in one place — the honest-broker view.

13 supporting1 disputing

Ancillary research

Neighbouring works in the citation graph around this article.

Assembled from Principia’s registry — bibliographic record, extracted effect sizes, the models they inform, and open-access citing literature.