Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Complementarity in Employee Participation Systems

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of Labor, Human Resources and Population Economics

Abstract

This chapter describes the nature, scope, and effects of various nonmandated participatory work practices in Japan, the United States, and Europe through the lens of organizational complementarity theory. Specifically, rather than being treated in isolation, each work practice is considered an element of HIWS (High Involvement Work System), an employment system comprised of clusters of complementary work practices. In so doing, the chapter provides a complete picture of nonmandatory participatory work practices. Furthermore, by applying the common framework of viewing participatory work practices as complementary elements of HIWS to seemingly disparate forms of work practices in different parts of the world, the chapter sheds light on how participatory work practices play out in diverse institutional, cultural, and regulatory environments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Acemoglu D, Pischke J-S (1999) The Structure of Wages and Investment in General Training. J Polit Econ 107(3):539–572

    Google Scholar 

  • Aït Razouk A (2011) High-performance work systems and performance of French small- and medium-sized enterprises: examining causal order. Int J Hum Resour Manag 22:311–330

    Google Scholar 

  • Alchian AA, Demsetz H (1972) Production, Information Costs, and Economic Organization. Am Econ Rev 62(5):777–795

    Google Scholar 

  • Aoki M (2000) Information, corporate governance, and institutional diversity: competitiveness in Japan, the USA, and the transitional economies. Oxford University Press, Oxford/New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Appelbaum E, Bailey T, Berg P, Kalleberg AL (2000) Chapter 9 High-performance Work Systems and Worker Outcomes. In: Eileen Appelbaum TB, Peter Berg, and Arne L. Kalleberg (ed) Manufacturing Advantage: Why High-Performance Work Systems Pay Off. ILR Press, Ithaca, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Appelbaum E, Batt R (1994) The new American workplace: transforming work systems in the United States. ILR Press, Ithaca

    Google Scholar 

  • Arando S, Gago M, Jones DC, Kato T (2015) Efficiency in employee-owned enterprises: an econometric case study of Mondragon. Ind Labor Relat Rev 68(2):398–425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bae KS, Chuma H, Kato T, Kim DB, Ohashi I (2011) High performance work practices and employee voice: a comparison of Japanese and Korean workers. Ind Relat 50(1):1–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-232X.2010.00623.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker G, Gibbs M, Holmstrom B (1994) The internal economics of the firm: evidence from personnel data. Q J Econ 109(4):881–919

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandiera O, Rasul I, Barankay I (2013) Team incentives: evidence from a firm level experiment. J Eur Econ Assoc 11(5):1079–1114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartel AP (2004) Human resource management and organizational performance: evidence from retail banking. Ind Labor Relat Rev 57(2):181–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartel AP, Ichniowski C, Shaw K (2004) Using “insider econometrics” to study productivity. Am Econ Rev 94(2):217–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batt R (2004) Who benefits from teams? Comparing workers, supervisors, and managers. Ind Relat 43(1):183–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belloc F, Burdin G, Landini F (2020) Corporate hierarchies under employee representation. IZA discussion paper 13717

    Google Scholar 

  • Berton F, Carreri A, Devicienti F, Ricci A (2019) Workplace unionism, collective bargaining and skill formation: New results from mixed methods. IZA discussion papers 12712

    Google Scholar 

  • Black SE, Lynch LM (2001) How to compete: the impact of workplace practices and information technology on productivity. Rev Econ Stat 83(3):434–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black SE, Lynch LM (2004) What’s driving the new economy? The benefits of workplace innovation. Econ J 114(493):F97–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Black SE, Lynch LM, Krivelyova A (2004) How workers fare when employers innovate. Ind Relat 43(1):44–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blasi J, Freeman R, Kruse D (2004) Monitoring Colleagues at Work: profit-sharing, employee ownership, broad-based stock options and workplace performance in the United States. Centre for Economic Performance, LSE, CEP discussion papers

    Google Scholar 

  • Böckerman P, Bryson A, Ilmakunnas P (2012) Does High Involvement Management Improve Worker Wellbeing? J Econ Behav Organ 84(2):660–680

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Böckerman P, Bryson A, Ilmakunnas P (2013) Does high involvement management Lead to higher pay? J R Stat Soc A Stat Soc 176(4):861–885

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boning B, Ichniowski C, Shaw K (2007) Opportunity counts: teams and the effectiveness of production incentives. J Labor Econ 25(4):613–650

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunello G, Medio A (2001) An explanation of international differences in education and workplace training. Eur Econ Rev 45(2):307–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brynjolfsson E, Milgrom P (2013) Complementarity in organizations. In: Gibbons R, Roberts J (eds) The handbook of organizational economics. Princeton University Press, Princeton/Oxford, pp 11–55

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bryson A, Freeman R, Lucifora C, Pellizzari M, Perotin V (2012) Paying for performance: incentive pay schemes and employees’ financial participation. Centre for Economic Performance, LSE

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryson A, White M (2019) HRM and small-firm employee motivation: before and after the great recession. ILR Rev 72(3):749–773

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campaner A, Heywood JS, Jirjahn U (2021) Flexible work organization and employer provided training: evidence from german linked employer-employee data, Kyklos, Forthcoming

    Google Scholar 

  • Cappelli P, Neumark D (2001) Do “high-performance” work practices improve establishment-level outcomes? Ind Labor Relat Rev 54(4):737–775

    Google Scholar 

  • Carmichael HL, MacLeod WB (1993) Multiskilling, technical change and the Japanese firm. Econ J 103(416):142–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caroli E, Van Reenen J (2001) Skill-biased organizational change? Evidence from a panel of British and French establishments. Q J Econ 116(4):1449–1492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter J, Bowles S, Gintis H, Hwang S-H (2009) Strong reciprocity and team production: theory and evidence. J Econ Behav Organ 71(2):221–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cedefop (2019) Continuing vocational training in EU enterprises: developments and challenges ahead. Cedefop Research Paper no. 73 Publication Office of the European Union, Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole R (1979) Work, Mobility and Participation. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Colombo MG, Delmastro M, Rabbiosi L (2007) ‘High Performance’ work practices, decentralization, and profitability: evidence from panel data. Ind Corp Chang 16(6):1037–1067

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doeringer PB, Lorenz E, Terkla DG (2003) The Adoption and Diffusion of High-Performance Management: Lessons from Japanese Multinationals in the West. Camb J Econ 27(2):265–286

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunlop JT, Weil D (1996) Diffusion and performance of modular production in the U.S. apparel industry. Ind Relat 35(3):334–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eurofound (2017) Sixth European working conditions survey – overview report (2017 update). Publications office of the European Union, Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Eurofound and Cedefop (2020) European Company Survey 2019: Workplace practices unlocking employee potential, European Company Survey 2019 series. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Forth J, Bryson A, George A (2017) Explaining cross-national variation in workplace employee representation. Eur J Ind Relat 23(4):415–433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman RB, Kleiner MM, Ostroff C (2000) The anatomy of employee involvement and its effects on firms and workers. NBER working paper no. 8050

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman RB, Rogers J (1999) What workers want. Cornell University Press, ILR Press, Ithaca/London

    Google Scholar 

  • Godard J (2004) A critical assessment of the high-performance paradigm. Br J Ind Relat 42(2):349–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gold M, Waddington J (2019) Introduction: board-level employee representation in Europe: state of play. Eur J Ind Relat 25(3):205–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gomez R, Barry M, Bryson A, Kaufman BE, Lomas G, Wilkinson A (2019) The ‘good workplace’: the role of joint consultative committees, unions and HR policies in employee ratings of workplaces in Britain. JPEO 2(1):60–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton BH, Nickerson JA, Owan H (2003) Team Incentives and Worker Heterogeneity: An Empirical Analysis of the Impact of Teams on Productivity and Participation. J Polit Econ 111(3):465–498

    Google Scholar 

  • Handel MJ, Levine DI (2004) Editors’ introduction: the effects of new work practices on workers. Ind Relat 43(1):1–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helper S (1998) Complementarity and cost reduction: evidence from the auto supply industry. Working paper no, 6033 (revised) edn. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Heywood JS, Jirjahn U (2004) Teams, teamwork and absence. Scand J Econ 106(4):765–782

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heywood JS, Jirjahn U (2014) Variable pay, industrial relations and foreign ownership: evidence from Germany. Br J Ind Relat 52(3):521–552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heywood JS, Jirjahn U, Pfister A (2020) Product market competition and employer provided training in Germany [technical change, inequality and the labor market]. Ind Corp Chang 29(2):533–556

    Google Scholar 

  • Heywood JS, Jirjahn U, Wei X (2008) Teamwork, monitoring and absence. J Econ Behav Organ 68(3–4):676–690

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter LW, Macduffie JP, Doucet L (2002) What Makes Teams Take? Employee Reactions to Work Reforms. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 55(3):448–472

    Google Scholar 

  • Huselid MA, Becker BE (1996) Methodological issues in cross-sectional and panel estimates of the human resource-firm …. Ind Relat 35(3):400–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ichniowski C, Shaw K (2003) Beyond incentive pay: Insiders’ estimates of the value of complementary human resource management practices. J Econ Perspect 17(1):155–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ichniowski C, Shaw K, Prennushi G (1997) The effects of human resource management practices on productivity: a study of steel finishing lines. Am Econ Rev 87(3):291–313

    Google Scholar 

  • Itoh H (1994) Japanese human resource management from the viewpoint of incentive theory. In: Aoki M, Dore R (eds) The Japanese firm: the sources of competitive strength. Oxford University Press, Oxford/New York, pp 233–264

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jäger S, Noy S, Schoefer B (2021) What does codetermination do?, Ind Labor Relat Rev, Forthcoming

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones DC, Kalmi P, Kauhanen A (2010) Teams, incentive pay, and productive efficiency: evidence from a food-processing plant. Ind Labor Relat Rev 63(4):606–626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones DC, Kato T (1995) The productivity effects of employee stock-ownership plans and bonuses: evidence from Japanese panel data. Am Econ Rev 85(3):391–414

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones DC, Kato T (2011) The impact of teams on output, quality and downtime: an empirical analysis using individual panel data. Ind Labor Relat Rev 64(2):215–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalmi P, Kauhanen A (2008) Workplace innovations and employee outcomes: evidence from Finland. Ind Relat 47(3):430–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kambayashi R, Kato T (2017) Long-term employment and job security over the past 25 years: a comparative study of Japan and the United States. ILR Rev 70(2):359–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kandel E, Lazear EP (1992) Peer pressure and partnerships. J Polit Econ 100(4):801–817

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kato T (1986) Bumping, layoffs, and worksharing. Econ Inq 24(4):657–668

    Google Scholar 

  • Kato T (1995) Cooperate to compete: employee participation and P roductivity: evidence from a new survey of Japanese firms. Public policy briefs. Levy Economic Institute

    Google Scholar 

  • Kato T (2003) The recent transformation of participatory employment practices. In: Ogura S, Tachibanaki T, Wise D (eds) NBER conference report labor markets and firm benefit policies in Japan and the United States. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 39–80

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kato T (2006a) Determinants of the extent of participatory employment practices: evidence from Japan. Ind Relat 45(4):579–605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kato T (2006b) The nature, scope and effects of joint labor-management committees in Japan. In: Kalmi P, Klinedinst M (eds) Advances in the economic analysis of participatory and labor-managed firms series, Participation in the age of globalization and information, vol 9. Elsevier, Amsterdam/San Diego, pp 55–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Kato T (2014) High-involvement work systems in Japan, the United States, and Korea: evidence from field research. In: Ortega J (ed) Advances in the economic analysis of participatory and labor-managed firms, Volume 15 – International perspectives on participation advances in the economic analysis of participatory and labor-managed firms. Emerald, Bingley, pp 95–119

    Google Scholar 

  • Kato T, Miyajima H, Owan H (2019) Does employee stock ownership work? Evidence from publicly-traded firms in Japan. IZA discussion paper no 11671 (revised)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kato T, Morishima M (2002) The productivity effects of participatory employment practices: evidence from new Japanese panel data. Ind Relat 41(4):487–520. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-232x.00262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kato T, Morishima M (2003) The nature, scope and effects of profit sharing in Japan: evidence from new survey data. Int J Hum Resour Manag 14(6):942–955

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kato T, Owan H (2011) Market characteristics, intra-firm coordination, and the choice of human resource management systems: theory and evidence. J Econ Behav Organ 80(3):375–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley MR (1996) Participative bureaucracy and productivity in the machined products sector. Ind Relat 35(3):374–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koch B, Muehlemann S, Pfeifer H (2019) Do works councils improve the quality of apprenticeship training? Evidence from German workplace data. JPEO 2(1):47–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kochan T, Osterman P (1994) Mutual gains Enterprise: forging a winning partnership among labor, management, and government (hardcover). Harvard Business School Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Koike K (1984) Skill formation Systems in the U.S. and Japan: a comparative study. In: Aoki M (ed) The economic analysis of the Japanese firm. North Holland, Amsterdam, pp 47–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Kriechel B, Muehlemann S, Pfeifer H, Schuette M (2014) Works councils, collective bargaining, and apprenticeship training – evidence from german firms. Ind Relat 53(2):199–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazear EP (2000) Performance Pay and Productivity. Am Econ Rev 90(5):1346–1361

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazear EP, Shaw KL (2007) Personnel Economics: The Economist’s View of Human Resources. J Eco Perspectives 21(4):91–114

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine DI (1995) Reinventing the workplace: how business and employees can both win. Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacDuffie JP (1995) Human resource bundles and manufacturing performance: organizational logic and flexible production Systems in the World Auto Industry. Ind Labor Relat Rev 48(2):197–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martins PS (2019) The microeconomic impacts of employee representatives: evidence from membership thresholds. Ind Relat 58(4):591–622

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medoff JL, Abraham KG (1980) Experience, performance, and earnings. Q J Econ 95(4):703–736

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mincer J, Higuchi Y (1988) Wage structures and labor turnover in the United States and Japan. J Jpn Int Econ 2(2):97–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moriguchi C, Ono H (2004) Japanese lifetime employment: A century’s perspective, vol. 63. EIJS working paper series no. 205

    Google Scholar 

  • Morishima M (1991a) Information sharing and firm performance in Japan. Ind Relat 30(1):37–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morishima M (1991b) Information sharing and collective bargaining in Japan: effects on wage negotiation. Ind Labor Relat Rev 44(3):469–485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morita H (2001) Choice of technology and labour market consequences: an explanation of U.S.-Japanese differences. Econ J 111(468):29–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morita H (2005) Multi-skilling, delegation and continuous process improvement: a comparative analysis of US-Japanese work organizations. Economica 72(285):69–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2020) OECD employment outlook 2020: worker security and the COVID-19 crisis. OECD Publishing, Paris

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Osterman P (1994) How common is workplace transformation and who adopts it? Ind Labor Relat Rev 47(2):173–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osterman P (2000) Work reorganization in an era of restructuring: trends in diffusion and effects on employee welfare. Ind Labor Relat Rev 53(2):179–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rebick M (2005) The Japanese Employment System: Adapting to a New Economic Environment. Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Shimada H (1992) Japan’s industrial culture and labor management relations. In: Kumon S, Rosovsky H (eds) The political economy of Japan, Volume 3: Cultural and social dynamics. Stanford University Press, Stanford, pp 267–291

    Google Scholar 

  • Visser J (2009) The quality of industrial relations and the Lisbon strategy. In: Visser J (ed) Industrial relations in Europe 2008. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Visser J (2016) What happened to collective bargaining during the great recession? IZA Journal of Labor Policy 5(1):9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40173-016-0061-1

  • Zwick T (2004) Employee participation and productivity. Labour Econ 11(6):715–740

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Responsible Section Editor: Uwe JirjahnThis chapter has benefitted from valuable comments of the editor.

There is no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

    Gabriel Burdin

  2. Colgate University, Hamilton, NY, USA

    Takao Kato

Authors
  1. Gabriel Burdin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Takao Kato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Takao Kato .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. UNU-MERIT & Princeton University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    Klaus F. Zimmermann

Section Editor information

  1. University of Trier, Trier, Germany

    Uwe Jirjahn

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Burdin, G., Kato, T. (2022). Complementarity in Employee Participation Systems. In: Zimmermann, K.F. (eds) Handbook of Labor, Human Resources and Population Economics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57365-6_208-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57365-6_208-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-57365-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-57365-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Economics and FinanceReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation