The Effects of Human Resource Management Systems on Economic Performance: An International Comparison of U.S. and Japanese Plants

This study uses personally collected data from 41 steel production lines to assess the effects of Japanese and U.S. human resource management (HRM) practices on worker productivity. The Japanese production lines employ a common system of HRM practices including: problem-solving teams, extensive orientation, training throughout employees' careers, extensive information sharing, rotation across jobs, employment security, and profit sharing. A majority of U.S. plants now have one or two features of this system of HRM practices, but only a minority have a comprehensive system of innovative work practices that parallels the full system of practices found among the Japanese manufacturers. We find that the Japanese lines are significantly more productive than the U.S. lines. However, U.S. manufacturers that have adopted a full system of innovative HRM practices patterned after the Japanese system achieve levels of productivity and quality equal to the performance of the Japanese manufacturers. This study's evidence helps reconcile conflicting views about the effectiveness of adopting Japanese-style worker involvement schemes in the United States. United States manufacturers that have adopted a definition of employee participation that extends only to problem-solving teams or information sharing do not see large improvements in productivity. However, U.S. manufacturers that adopt a broader definition of participation that mimics the full Japanese HRM system see substantial performance gains.

[1]  Stephen Wood,et al.  Human resource management and performance , 1999 .

[2]  Thomas A. Kochan,et al.  What works at work : overview and assessment , 1996 .

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

[4]  John Paul Macduffie Human Resource Bundles and Manufacturing Performance: Organizational Logic and Flexible Production Systems in the World Auto Industry , 1995 .

[5]  Masahiko Aoki,et al.  The Japanese Firm , 1994 .

[6]  Masahiko Aoki,et al.  The Japanese Firm as a System of Attributes: A Survey and Research Agenda , 1994 .

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

[8]  George P. Baker,et al.  Subjective Performance Measures in Optimal Incentive Contracts , 1993 .

[9]  E. Lazear,et al.  Peer Pressure and Partnerships , 1992, Journal of Political Economy.

[10]  Hideshi Itoh Japanese human resource management from the viewpoint of incentive theory , 1991 .

[11]  R. Florida,et al.  Transplanted Organizations: The Transfer of Japanese Industrial Organization to the U.S. , 1991 .

[12]  Arne L. Kalleberg,et al.  Work Organization and Workforce Commitment: A Study of Plants and Employees in the U.S. and Japan , 1985 .

[13]  R. Dore,et al.  British Factory-Japanese Factory. The Origins of National Diversity in Industrial Relations. , 1974 .

[14]  Ronald Dore,et al.  The Japanese firm : the sources of competitive strength , 1997 .

[15]  Paul Milgrom,et al.  The Firm as an Incentive System , 1994 .

[16]  Helga Drummond,et al.  The Quality Movement , 1992 .

[17]  Paul R. Milgrom,et al.  The Economics of Modern Manufacturing: Technology, Strategy, and Organization , 1990 .