Evidence of Workplace Innovation from Organisational and Economic Studies

  • Steven Dhondt
  • Lander Vermeerbergen
  • Geert Van Hootegem
Chapter
Part of the Aligning Perspectives on Health, Safety and Well-Being book series (AHSW)

Abstract

This chapter gives an overview of evidence on the association between Workplace Innovation (WPI), company performance and quality of working life. We identify which research approaches are the most promising for WPI, and aim to understand why not all companies invest in WPI. The analysis consists of a literature review of current research evidence on WPI. There is not one research result that provides a final result for the hypothesised association. However, the large amount of partial results make a positive association between WPI, company performance and quality of working life quite likely. It is concluded that more high-quality research is needed on the realization of workplace innovation. Improved data collection and data analysis methods will provide organisations with a more solid framework for choosing which practices increase organisational performance, and quality of working life. Also the complicated nature of WPI models hinder the diffusion of WPI, organisations cannot just copy each other’s innovations.

Keywords

Workplace innovation Quality of working life Company performance Insider econometrics 

References

  1. Alagaraja, M. (2013). HRD and HRM perspectives on organizational performance: A review of literature. Human Resource Development Review, 12(2), 117–143.Google Scholar
  2. Appelbaum, E., Hoffer Gittell, J., & Leana, C. (2011, March). High-performance work practices and sustainable economic growth. Washington: CEPR (Center for Economic and Policy Research).Google Scholar
  3. Augusto, M. G., Lisboa, J. V., & Yasin, M. M. (2014). Organisational performance and innovation in the context of a total quality management philosophy: An empirical investigation. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 25(9–10), 1141–1155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Awano, G., Franklin, M., Haskel, J., & Kastrinaki, Z. (2010). Measuring investment in intangible assets in the UK: Results from a new survey. Economic & Labour Market Review, 4(7), 66–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baron, J. N., & Kreps, D. M. (2013). Employment as an economic and a social relationship. In R. Gibbons & J. Roberts (Eds.), The handbook of organizational economics (pp. 315–341). Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bloom, N., Eifert, B., Mahajan, A., McKenzie, D., & Roberts, J. (2013). Does management matter? Evidence from India. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 128(1), 1–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bloom, N., & Van Reenen, J. (2010a). Why do management practices differ across firms and countries? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24(1), 203–224.Google Scholar
  8. Bloom, N., & Van Reenen, J. (2010b, May). Human resource management and productivity. London: CEP Discussion Paper, no 982.Google Scholar
  9. Bloom, N., Lemos, R., Sadun, R., Scur, D., & Van Reenen, J. (2014, April). The new empirical economics of management. London: CEP Occasional Paper, no 41.Google Scholar
  10. Brynjolfsson, E., & Milgrom, P. (2013). Complementarity in organizations. In R. Gibbons & J. Roberts (Eds.), The handbook of organizational economics (pp. 11–55). Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Camerer, C. F., & Weber, R. A. (2013). Experimental organizational economics. In R. Gibbons & J. Roberts (Eds.), The handbook of organizational economics (pp. 213–262). Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  12. CEE/GREDEG. (2010). The Meadow guidelines (http://www.meadow-project.eu/). Paris: CEE.
  13. Croucher, R., et al. (2013). The relationship between improved working conditions and firm-level outcomes in SMEs. An international literature review prepared for the ILO. Geneva: ILO.Google Scholar
  14. Delarue, A., Van Hootegem, G., Huys, R., & Gryp, S. (2004). Werkt teamwerk?. Leuven: Acco.Google Scholar
  15. Delarue, A., Van Hootegem, G., Procter, S., & Burridge, M. (2008). Teamworking and organizational performance: A review of survey-based research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10(2), 127–148. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.00227.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Della Torre, E., & Solari, L. (2013). High-performance work systems and the change management process in medium-sized firms. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(13), 2583–2607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dhondt, S. (2014). Synthesis of ILO research on decent work for all (2012-2013). Hoofddorp: TNO. Publ.Nr. R14070/051.02820.Google Scholar
  18. Dhondt, S., Pot, F. D., & Kraan, K. O. (2014a). The importance of organizational level decision latitude for wellbeing and organizational commitment. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 20(7/8), 307–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dhondt, S., Preenen, P., Oeij, P., Corral, A., Isusi, I., Totterdill, P., et al. (2014b). European Company Survey: Construction of the workplace innovation index and selection of companies. Hoofddorp: TNO.Google Scholar
  20. Dhondt, S., & Van Hootegem, G. (2015). Reshaping workplaces: Workplace innovation as designed by scientists and practitioners. European Journal of Workplace Innovation, 1(1), 17–24. http://journal.uia.no/index.php/EJWI/article/view/162/110
  21. Eurofound. (1997). Employee participation and organisational change. EPOC survey of 6000 workplaces in Europe. Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.Google Scholar
  22. Eurofound. (2015). Third European Company Survey—Overview report: Workplace practices—Patterns, performance and well-being (Kankaras, M. & Van Houten, G.). Dublin: Eurofound.Google Scholar
  23. Gibbons, R., & Roberts, J. (Eds.). (2013). The handbook of organizational economics. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Gryp, S. (2011). Flexibiliteit in het bedrijf. Balanceren tussen contractuele en functionele flexibiliteit. Leuven: Acco.Google Scholar
  25. Guest, D. E. (1997). Human resource management and performance: A review and research agenda. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8(3), 263–276. doi: 10.1080/095851997341630 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Høyrup, S., Bonnafous-Boucher, M., Hasse, C., Lotz, M., & Møller, K. (2012). Employee driven innovation: A new approach. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ichniowski, C., & Shaw, K. (2013). Insider econometrics. Empirical studies of how management matters (pp. 263–311). In R. Gibbons & J. Roberts (Eds.), The handbook of organizational economics (pp. 263–313). Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Jongkind, R., Korver, T., Oeij, P., & Vaas, F. (2004). Organisational perspective on market driven efficiency improvement. In A. Reitsma, S. Raes, E. Schmieman, & P. van Winden (Eds.), Market regulation: Lessons from other disciplines (pp. 139–169). The Hague: Ministry of Economic Affairs.Google Scholar
  29. Mohr, B. J., & van Amelsvoort, P. (Eds.). (2016). Cocreating humane and innovative organizations: Evolutions in the practice of sociotechnical system design. Los Angeles: Amazon.Google Scholar
  30. Oeij, P., Žiauberytė-Jakštienė, R., Dhondt, S., Corral, A., Totterdill, P., & Preenen, P. (2015). Workplace innovation in European companies. Study commissioned by Eurofound. Luxemburg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  31. Polder, M., van Leeuwen, G., Mohnen, P., & Raymond, W. (2010). Product, process and organizational innovation: Drivers, complementarity and productivity effects. Working Paper Series #2010-035. Maastricht: UNU-MERIT.Google Scholar
  32. Pot, F. (2011). Workplace innovation for better jobs and performance. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 60(4), 404–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pot, F. (2014). Evidence of workplace innovation for better jobs and performance. International Conference ‘Social Boundaries of Work. Changes in the Sphere of Work in the 21st Century Capitalism’ Wrocław, November 14–15, 2014. Special Session “Workplace Innovation”, Chairs: Steven Dhondt & Vassil Kirov, November 15, 09:00–11:00, Venue: IPS, room 114.Google Scholar
  34. Ramstad, E. (2009). Promoting performance and the quality of working life simultaneously. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 58(5), 423–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schumacher, D., Gerards, R., & de Grip, A. (2015). Sociale Innovatie Monitor Limburg 2014. Maastricht: NSI.Google Scholar
  36. Subramony, M. (2009). A meta-analytic investigation of the relationship between HRM bundles and firm performance. Human Resource Management, 48(5), 745–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Totterdill, P., Dhondt, S., & Boermans, S. (2016). Guide to workplace innovation. Brussels: DG GROWTH.Google Scholar
  38. Totterdill, P., Dhondt, S., & Milsome, S. (2002). Partners at work? A report to Europe’s policy makers and social partners. Nottingham: The Work Institute. Available at http://www.ukwon.net/files/kdb/0415f02fe854733c3d8e650791297cb0.pdf
  39. Van Hootegem, G. (2016). Changing the nature of work: Toward total workplace innovation. In B. J. Mohr & P. Van Amelsvoort (Eds.), Co-creating humane and innovative organizations. Evolutions in the practice of socio-technical system design (pp. 326–343). Portland, ME: Global STS-D Network.Google Scholar
  40. Van Reenen, J. (2011). Does competition raise productivity through improving management quality? International Journal of Industrial Organization, 29, 306–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vermeerbergen, L., Van Hootegem, G., & Benders, J. (2016). Putting a band-aid on a wooden leg: A sociotechnical view on the success of decentralisation attempts to increase job autonomy. Team Performance Management, 22(7/8), 383–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Volberda, H., Jansen, J., Tempelaar, M., & Heij, K. (2010). Sociale innovatie: nu nog beter! Erasmus Concurrentie en Innovatie Monitor 2009–2010. Rotterdam: Erasmus University.Google Scholar
  43. Volberda, H. W., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Jansen, J. J. P. (2006). Slim Managen & Innovatief Organiseren, Eiffel ism Het Financieele Dagblad, AWVN, De Unie & RSM Erasmus University.Google Scholar
  44. Volberda, H. W., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Heij, K. (2011). Monitoren van sociale innovatie: Slimmer werken, dynamisch managen en flexibel organiseren. Tijdschrift voor HRM, 1, 85–110.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven Dhondt
    • 1
    • 2
  • Lander Vermeerbergen
    • 3
  • Geert Van Hootegem
    • 3
  1. 1.TNO, The Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific ResearchLeidenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.KU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  3. 3.Centre for Sociological ResearchKU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations