Organisational Change in Europe: National Models or the Diffusion of a New "One Best Way"?

Drawing on the results of the third European Survey on Working Conditions undertaken in the 15 member nations of the European Union in 2000, this paper offers one of the first systematic comparisons of the adoption of new organisation forms across Europe. The paper is divided into five sections. The first describe the variables used to characterise work organisation in the 15 countries of the European Union and presents the results of the factor analysis and hierarchical clustering used to construct a 4-way typology of organisational forms, labelled the 'learning , 'lean , 'taylorist and 'traditional forms. The second section examines how the relative importance of the different organisational forms varies according to sector, firm size, occupational category, and certain demographic characteristics of the survey population. The third section makes use of multinomial logit analysis to assess the importance of national effects in the adoption of the different organisational forms. The results demonstrate significant international differences in the adoption of organisational forms characterised by strong learning dynamics and high problem-solving activity. The fourth section takes up the issue of HRM complementarities by examining the relation between organisation forms and the use of particular pay and training policies. The concluding section explores the relation between national differences in the use of the four organisational forms and differences in the way labour markets are regulated and in such research and technology measures as patenting and R&D expenditures. The results show that the relative importance of the learning form of organisation is both positively correlated with the extent of labour market regulation, as measured by the OECD's overall employment protection legislation index, and with innovative performance, as measured by the number of EPO patent application per million inhabitants.

[1]  Casey Ichniowski,et al.  The Effects of Human Resource Management Practices on Productivity , 1995 .

[2]  E. Lorenz Policies for Participation: Lessons from France and Germany , 1995 .

[3]  T. Coutrot L'entreprise néo-libérale, nouvelle utopie capitaliste? : enquête sur les modes d'organisation du travail , 1998 .

[4]  Peter B. Doeringer,et al.  National Hybrids: How Japanese multinationals transfer workplace practices to other countries , 2003 .

[5]  Jean-Pierre Durand,et al.  L'après-fordisme , 1993 .

[6]  John Zechariah,et al.  COMPARATIVE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS IN JAPAN AND INDIA , 1991 .

[7]  Eileen Appelbaum,et al.  The New American Workplace , 1993 .

[8]  P. Hall,et al.  Varieties of Capitalism , 2001 .

[9]  P. Osterman How Common is Workplace Transformation and Who Adopts it? , 1994 .

[10]  M. Freyssenet La «production réflexive» : une alternative à la «production de masse» et à la «production au plus juste» ? , 1995 .

[11]  R. Boyer,et al.  Les systèmes d'innovation : à l'ère de la globalisation , 1997 .

[12]  E. Lazear,et al.  An Economic Analysis of Works Councils , 1994 .

[13]  D. Levine Participation, Productivity, and the Firm's Environment , 1990 .

[14]  M. Greenacre Correspondence analysis in practice , 1993 .

[15]  William N. Cooke Employee Participation Programs, Group-Based Incentives, and Company Performance: A Union-Nonunion Comparison , 1994 .

[16]  K. Thelen Varieties of Labor Politics in the Developed Democracies , 2001 .

[17]  Computer Staff,et al.  The Machine That Changed the World , 1992 .

[18]  John Paul Macduffie,et al.  Integrating Technology and Human Resources for High Performance Manufacturing: Evidence from the International Auto Industry , 1992 .