The Effects of Union and Nonunion Forms of Employee Representation on High‐Performance Work Systems: New Evidence from French Microdata

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21784
• Published date: 01 January 2017
• Author: Marc Salesina,Patrice Laroche
• Date: 01 January 2017

Human Resource Management, January–February 2017, Vol. 56, No. 1. Pp. 173–189

© 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).

DOI:10.1002/hrm.21784

Correspondence to: Patrice Laroche, ESCP Europe, 79 avenue de la République, 75543 PARIS Cedex 11, France,

Phone: (+33) 1 49 23 21 68, E-mail: plaroche@escpeurope.eu.

results of HPWSs for both workers and compa-

nies partly depend on “positive responses from

employees” to their implementation (Boxall &

Macky, 2009, p. 6). Although the empirical evi-

dence is not clear-cut, some have suggested that

ER could favor such positive responses (e.g., Eaton

& Voos, 1992). Thus, understanding whether and

to what extent ER may contribute to orienting

a firm’s choice of human resource management

(HRM) practices toward an HPWS is critical.

Freeman and Medoff’s (1984) exit/voice

model predicts that union presence and activi-

ties at the workplace level can lead management

While the influence of high-perfor-

mance work systems (HPWSs) on

employee representation (ER) is a

widespread research topic in both

strategic human resource man-

agement (SHRM) and industrial relations fields,

empirical investigations of the reverse causal

chain—whether and to what extent ER influences

HPWSs—are scarce (e.g., Addison, 2005; Bryson,

Forth, & Kirby, 2005; Eaton & Voos, 1992; Liu,

Guthrie, Flood, & MacCurtain, 2009; Osterman,

1995; Verma, 2005). However, this question is

of importance if we consider that the beneficial

THE EFFECTS OF UNION AND

NONUNION FORMS OF EMPLOYEE

REPRESENTATION ON HIGH-

PERFORMANCE WORK SYSTEMS:

NEW EVIDENCE FROM FRENCH

MICRODATA

PATRICE LAROCHE AND MARC SALESINA

This article investigates the effects of union and nonunion employee representa-

tion (ER) on the use of high-performance work systems (HPWSs) in the French

context. We use microdata from a nationally representative survey (REPONSE

2010–11) and estimate models dealing with the potential endogeneity of ER. After

controlling for endogeneity and for a range of workplace characteristics, regres-

sion analyses suggest that neither union nor nonunion representatives are inher-

ently against the use of HPWSs. Moreover, these forms of ER cannot be regarded

as substitutes for one another. Results vary, depending on what type of bundle

of practices is considered. ©2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Keywords: employee representation, high-performance work system, REPONSE

survey, strategic HR, unions

174 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2017

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

Important interactions

have often been

ignored in the existing

literature, especially

those between

ER and situational

variables such as

local arrangements.

This research tries

to disentangle the

effects of different

contextual factors.

available theoretical backgrounds and the speci-

ficities of the French system. We then present the

results of the multivariate analysis, discuss the

results, and conclude.

The Infl uence of Employee Representation

on the Use of High-Performance Work

Systems at the Workplace Level

Main Characteristics of High-Performance

Management and High-Performance Work

Systems and Implications for the Analysis

Although no universally accepted definition of

HPWSs can be found in the literature, they com-

monly designate sets of HRM and organizational

practices, targeting blue-collar employees, and

translating into alternative job design as well as

formal participatory and high-commitment prac-

tices (Godard, 2004, p. 351).

One of the fundamental premises of the high-

performance approach is that workers possess

exclusive knowledge about how to enhance their

individual productivity, which they may choose

to implement under certain circumstances. This

process has been referred to as the achievement

of “effective discretionary effort” (Bailey, 1993).

According to the abilities-motivation-opportuni-

ties (AMO) framework, HRM practices can trigger

this discretionary effort: HPWSs provide workers

with “appropriate motivation” and the “opportu-

nity to participate in substantive shop-floor deci-

sions,” and ensure that workers also “have the

necessary skills to make their effort meaningful”

(Appelbaum, Bailey, Berg, & Kalleberg, 2000, pp.

26–27). This generally (although not exclusively)

translates into practices that provide workers with

individual voice, participation in decision mak-

ing, empowerment, work enrichment, broader

job definition, and extended autonomy. The AMO

perspective further posits a positive relationship

between the use of HRM practices and a firm’s

performance: a firm’s performance is a positive

function of employees’ abilities, motivation, and

opportunities to participate, which HRM practices

can enable.

Theoretical Contributions About Employee

Representation’s Infl uence on High-

Performance Work Systems

In general terms, the use of HPWSs requires three

types of barrier to be overcome (Gill, 2009, pp.

40–41): (1) a resistance barrier (management may

be reluctant to cede some power to blue-collar

workers); (2) a cost barrier related to implementa-

tion and support; (3) an engagement and commit-

ment barrier on the part of workers. The literature

about the influence of ER on HPWSs provides

to modify HRM practices because of the effects

of unionization on the provision of information

about workers’ preferences. This modification can

lead to the adoption of HPWSs because they rely

on practices associated with higher levels of indi-

vidual satisfaction, and employees’ preferences

are likely to be oriented toward them. We pro-

pose an extension of the scope of this model to

other forms of collective voice in the workplace

to assess whether ER institutions’ presence and

activities can be regarded as antecedents of the use

of HPWSs. A comparative approach supports this

extension, in that we address how institutional—

ER institutions—and cultural factors may contrib-

ute to alter a firm’s choice of HRM practices (e.g.,

Gooderham, Nordhaug, & Ringdal, 1999).

This research aims to complement the exist-

ing literature from various angles. First, only a

limited range of countries has been

investigated (mainly the United

States and United Kingdom).

Studying the French context allows

for comparisons of ER effects on

HPWSs across cultural values and

industrial relations systems. Second,

important interactions have often

been ignored in the existing litera-

ture, especially those between ER

and situational variables such as

local arrangements. This research

tries to disentangle the effects of

different contextual factors. Third,

many studies fail to account for

the endogeneity of ER. Most exist-

ing studies have highlighted how

the investigation of the relationship

between HRM practices and ER can

be made difficult by the presence of

unobservable factors that influence

both HPWS and ER (see, e.g., Fiorito,

2001; Machin & Wood, 2005). We

use an instrumental variable approach to shed

light on findings often reported in the literature.

Using a nationally representative survey

(REPONSE 2010–11), we ran probit regression

analyses addressing the influence of union as well

as nonunion representatives on the use of HPWSs

at the workplace level through various sets of

independent variables representing the presence

and activities of employee representatives.

This article develops as follows. First, we

review the theoretical and empirical literatures

that address the influence of ER on HRM practices

in general and HPWSs in particular. Subsequently,

we present our data and methodological pro-

cedures. We show how our coding methodol-

ogy is designed to offset identified gaps between