The Good,the Bad and the Ugly: Employment Relations In New Non-Union Workplaces1

David Guest, who is Professor of Occupational Psychology at Birkbeck College, and Kim Hoque, who is Research Officer in the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics and Political Science, draw on a postal survey of nearly 350 new establishments to consider their propensity to unionise, to adopt practices associated with HRM, and to deliver a number of performance outcomes. Key findings are that not only were there examples of the ‘good’, the ‘bad’ and the ‘ugly’ so far as practice generally was concerned, but also that those establishments which used HRM practices extensively tended to report better results in terms of a number of both employee relations and performance outcomes.     

Does partnership at work increase trust? An analysis based on the 2004 Workplace Employment Relations Survey

In the late 1990s, partnership at work was embraced with some enthusiasm by a number of stakeholders in employment relations and incorporated in the 1999 Employment Relations Act. The implementation of the Information and Consultation Regulations has also been extensively signalled. We might therefore expect to see some evidence of partnership‐related practices in Britain. The 2004 Workplace Employment Relations Survey (WERS 2004) provides an opportunity to explore the extent of partnership practice, and also, for the first time, to explore its link to trust relations. This article reports evidence from WERS 2004 suggesting that partnership practice remains relatively undeveloped and that it is only weakly related to trust between management and employee representatives and to employees’ trust in management. Direct forms of participation generally have a more positive association with trust than representative forms. There is also modest evidence that trust may be associated with certain workplace outcomes. The case for partnership and more particularly representative partnership as a basis for mutuality and trust is not supported by this evidence.     

Global GDP shares in the 21st century — An equilibrium approach

Using a 9-region model of the world economy, we investigate the implications of the diffusion of total factor productivity (TFP) for global GDP shares during the 21st century. The nine regions are: Africa, Asia (excluding China, India and Japan), China, Europe, India, Japan, Latin America, North America and Oceania. According to our projections, TFP catch-up at a plausible rate implies that the share of the high-income regions will more than halve by 2050 and almost halve again in the subsequent 50 years. These projected shares are little affected by variations in demographic outcomes, saving behaviour and international capital flows, but are reduced substantially should TFP catch-up be slower.     

Fostering mutual gains: Explaining the influence of high‐performance work systems and leadership on psychological health and service performance

Despite the growing importance of sustainable management of human resources, human resource management and leadership research on mutuality in the employment relationship has proceeded in a parallel fashion. Drawing on self‐determination theory, this study proposes an integrative model of human growth by addressing two interrelated questions: (a) how and why experienced service‐oriented high‐performance work systems (HPWS) and unit service leadership relate to psychological health and service performance and (b) whether thriving at work and psychological health serially mediate the relationships between the two contextual antecedents and service performance. Our findings revealed that experienced service‐oriented HPWS and unit service leadership related to service performance but indirectly through thriving at work. However, experienced service‐oriented HPWS but not unit service leadership related to psychological health through thriving at work. Furthermore, thriving at work and psychological health serially mediated the relationship between experienced service‐oriented HPWS (but not unit service leadership) and service performance.