User:705349MGMT/sandbox

'''This sandbox is being edited as part of a class assignment of the course Managerial Psychology of unimelb !!!  

High Performance Work Systems
High Performance Work System (HPWS), also known as High-Performance HR System, High-Performance HR Practices, or High-Involvement Work System, is an organizational architecture that collaborates work, people, technology and information in a manner that optimizes the congruence of fit among them in order to ensure high performance in terms of the effective response to various environmental demands and opportunities. It is a combined systems of human resource practices that are designed to improve employees' skills, commitment, productivity and flexibility in a way that employees become a source of organisation’s competitive advantage.

High performance work systems (HPWS), have come into being for years as an auxiliary to help the research on Human Resource Management (HRM). It has been described and defined by several researchers, scholars, and authors. According to Huselid (1995), HPWS is an umbrella term which involves a range of innovative human resource management practices, organizational structure and work processes which when used in certain combinations, are mutually reinforcing and produce synergistic benefits. McNab and Whitfield (2001) described HPWS as an approach for 'organizing employment, including high commitment workplaces, flexible specialization and high involvement organizations'(p.294). Although, it can be recognised that there is no general consensus regarding a single definition of the HPWS, but the central idea of a HPWS is to create an organizational environment that is based on employee participation, dedication, and empowerment. Lawler (1992) added that by drifting away from the control-oriented approach of standardisation, simplification and specialisation, HPWS relies on the ideology where employees are responsible for improving the processes and the procedures, solving problems that lead to effective coordination of their work with others in the organisation without any supervisory support.

History
The notion of HPWSs arose largely as a response to the impact of work practices in manufacturing plants in the West which were highly criticised in the 1970s for deskilling production workers. These practices were based on the principles of management which were widely popular nearly a century ago: Taylor’s (1911) model of "Scientific Management" based on the ideology of division and specialization of labor to ensure organizational efficiency and Max Weber’s (1947) management model called "Bureaucracy", an extension of Taylor's ideology, proposed a need for strong hierarchy and close supervision of every functional group in an organization based on certain set of rules. With an assumption that the workforce was uneducated and had a little mobility in changing jobs, the jobs in these models were based on narrow objectives and repetitive tasks. But, in the 1940’s management theorist and practitioners began to uncover several weaknesses in these rigid and mechanistic styles of management. The failure of these models to capture the creative abilities of the employees and their motivational aspect, driven by the availability of the opportunities for making contributions in the organisational improvement, gave rise to a shift towards the 'social aspect' of management. Hence, during 1960s and 1970s the Quality of Working Life (QWL) began to become a dominant technique in the organisation. QWL is a type of personnel administration technique which aims to reduce the cost and the labor turnover rate as well as to increase the productivity, quality and employee satisfaction. But, QWL was recognised to be a superficial approach to management, which involved limited allowance to the employees control and hence, it failed to suffice the rapid changes in the organisational and economic environment. Therefore, this lead to the emergence of a 'high road' approach to management in the early 1980s, in which organizations choose to compete primarily on quality, and rely especially on human resource development and employee contributions to succeed in the competitive environment. This approach of developing a skilled, motivated and flexible workforce to develop company’s sustainable core competencies was later termed as HPWS by Nadler in 1992.

Components
The difficulty in defining and measuring HPWS has lead to the inconsistency in identifying its key components. Different authors have determined different elements of HPWS based on different criteria. Huselid (1995), based on factor analysis determine two key component: skills and organizational structures; and employee motivation. Brown et al (1993), by creating a contrast in the ineffectiveness of the JAM model (Job classification, Adversarial Relations, Minimal Training) proposed the key components of HPWS using a model called the SET model (Security, Employee Involvement and Training). Whereas, Ashton and Sung (2002) defined these components as a series of dimensions, which are: employee autonomy, support for employee performance, rewards for performance, sharing information and knowledge. Further, Appelbaum et al. (2000), based on thirteen High Performance Workplace Practices (HPWP), defined the components of HPWS as “bundles”: team work, incentives, development and communication. Nevertheless, based on the recurring themes in the literature, the three basic components of HPWS can be recognised as: High Labor Flexibility, High Commitment, High Involvement. . The figure summarised the various components of HPWS.

High-Labor Flexibility
Lawler (1992: 30) recognized that the labor in HPWS are structured in a way “that individuals at the lowest level in the organization not only perform work but also are responsible for improving work methods and procedures, solving problems on the job, and coordinating their work with that of others”. Such effectiveness in labor flexibility is ensured by flexible organizational structure that can be obtained by “delayering the corporate pyramid” and by systematically eliminating the layers in the hierarchical structures. In HPWS, the labour-flexibility in the organisational structure is established through organising people by implementing a team based approach.

Team based organisational structure
Organising people into self-managed teams is a critical component of virtually all HPWS. Appelbaum et al (2000) recognized that a teamwork should contain individuals from all levels which enables them to empower the employees and allow them make autonomous decisions in effective problem solving. This increased sense of responsibility and accountability, thus, encourages the teams and the team members to put in greater efforts and suggest novel and creative solutions. Gephart and Buren (1996) supported by stating that in the company’s first experiment with the HPWS, the key to the success of Colgate-Palmolice plant in Ohio was a lean production system and its highly skilled teams. Teams made such products as AJAX, Fab, Dynamo and Palmolive from start to finish. Although, various researchers have recognized that at times teamwork, instead of enhancing employee personal autonomy, tend to undermine their decision making ability which results in lacking sense of trust and commitment towards the organisation. Therefore, the role of the supervisor becomes crucial who helps his employees in developing the ability to manage themselves. Thus, the leader of the team is often referred as the “team adviser” or “team consultant” who, instead of directing the workforce, is responsible for being a facilitator to his team.

Skill development
Flexible production systems demands a multi skilling orientation as HPWS involves greater use of team suggestions, job rotation and performance of quality tasks. Instead of the functional structures where the business units are based on the “similarity of functions”, HPWS rely on product structures, where division is based on the formation of self-contained units with decentralized decision making. Therefore, the employees, rather than being specialists, are expected to be generalists with varied skills. MacDuffie’s (1995) based on the study in the automobile industry recognized that a highly skilled labor force is a prerequisite to ensure flexibility in the work systems which enables the team members to generate solutions to any form of problem that the team experiences. Therefore, Cochrane et al (2006) recognized that rather than emphasizing on the vocational skills, HPWS focuses on widening workers’ technical and business skills to carry out larger jobs by developing social and psychological skills relevant to tasks such as problem solving and team. In fact, Gale Jr. et al. (2002) recognized six sets of skills that the employees are expected to have while working with HPWS. Although, these skill sets broadly included all the possible skills recognised in the literature of vocational education.Therefore, the success of the training in HPWS largely depends on the learning potential of the employees rather than the current level of skills they have. But, Whitfield’s (2000), based on the British work environment, concluded that in HPWS the intensity of training is more crucial than the breadth of the training provided to the employees. Nevertheless, such investment in training allows the firm to develop set of firm-specific technical skills and softer competencies which enables the employees to efficiently contribute in team engagements and decision making processes.

High-Commitment
Edwards and Wright (2001) suggest that systems which relies on team based organisational structures, tend to influence workplace practice, which alters the employees’s attitude and leads to greater employee satisfaction and commitment. Thus, HPWS involves greater reliance on high-commitment work processes. Walton (1985) recognized that such commitment-based approach to the work-force involves high performance expectation based on ‘stretched objectives’, rather than merely stating the minimum standards. Therefore, HPWS tend to ensure employee-commitment through the lateral coordination that depends on the organization wide shared goals and objectives.

Identification
Denton (2006) recognised that a system which allows the employees to know about “who we are” and “where we are headed”, is the most important resource in maximising organisational competitiveness. Therefore, in HPWS, translating the vision of the organisation among all the employees in the firm and imparting a clear statement of organisational goals is considered to be crucial among the employees. These shared goals and objectives enables them to develop a sense of identification towards their organization where such sense of identification and employees’ attachment leads to strong affective commitment towards the organization. Researchers have recognised that such affective commitment ensures a favourable approach to work which leads to the improvement in employee performance by promoting organisational citizenship behaviour among employees. In addition, it has been recognised that the leaders of the organisation have the most crucial role in generating a shared sense of purpose and a vision to succeed. Therefore, this suggests that the commitment component of HPWS is influenced by the enduring relationship among the employee and the leader/employer.

Working Relationship
HPWS radically relies on the quality of relationship that the employees shares with their team advisors. Oliveira et al (2015), based on the study in a Brazilian non-profit organization, evaluated the effect HPWS on Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) quality  and recognized that quality of relationship between the leader and his/her subordinates influences the commitment employee have towards their organisation, job satisfaction and employees’ intention of leaving the organisation. In addition, Tomar (2001) recognised two types of motivation based on the quality of employee-subordinate relationship: agent motivation and deep-ownership motivation. Agent motivation is based on the ideology that the employees work as agents as per the needs and the demands of the employer who is the principal. Unlike the agent motivation, HPWS, with a reduced need of the supervisor to control and monitor the subordinates' decisions, relies on the deep-owner motivation. The deep ownership motivation, which is the outcome of a more collaborative and cohesive relationship between the employer and the employee, emerges when the employees feel deeply connected to the organisation in a meaningful manner. This connection is outcome of the shared sense of mission, and common values. Therefore, such employees experiences a greater sense of commitment towards their organisation with a genuine enthusiasm, empowerment, and inspiration.

High-Involvement
In HPWS, the commitment work-processes inevitably implicate the presence of various approaches to ensure greater employee involvement. Greater discretion, proactivity, and cohesiveness in such work-systems that promotes employee involvement, concentrate on providing optimum opportunities to the employees to initiate their power to make productive decisions. This ‘responsible autonomy’ and empowerment in decision-making thereby enables the employees in attaining higher needs and experience a sense of self-actualization. Therefore, such high motivation tends to enhance the employee involvement in problem solving and decision-making.

Economic involvement
Elements that are typically associated with the motivational aspect of the HPWS includes economic involvement. Economic Involvement essentially involves the workplace processes associated with of payment, promotion, and financial benefits. The employees in HPWS experiences a sense of economic involvement because of the nature of incentives they receive. Successful organisations such as Wal-Mart, AES Corporation, Whole Foods Markets, Microsoft, encourage share ownership, whereas, as per a study conducted by King (1995) in 841 manufacturing organizations in Michigan, even profit sharing was linked to greater employee involvement and increased productivity.

Information Sharing
Information sharing in HPWS is crucial for two reasons. First, the sharing of information regarding the organisational financial performance and operational strategies with the employees, conveys a sense of trust the organisation have towards its employees. For instance: Springfield Re-manufacturing Corporation (SRC), an organization based on the HPWS teaches imparts organisational financial information even to the employees working at the lower strata of the organisation. Jack Stack, the CEO, recognizing the importance of sharing information to create trust and unity among management and employees, stated that, “There’s not a financial number we don’t share with our people”. Secondly, Pfeffer (1998) recognized that irrespective of nature of training and the quality of experience the employees have, the information pertaining to the crucial aspect of organisational key performance criteria is essentially crucial. Therefore, Ichniowski and Shaw (2003) recognised that in HPWS relies greatly on information sharing that is recognised as a “connective capital” for the workers which allows the employees can effectively utilise the knowledge and skills of their colleges for attaining of the most suitable solution to the problem in hand

Workers’ Voice
Farris and Toyama (2002 ) recognised that the voice of the workers and their perspective about the organisational systems is crucial to HPWS. Considering that the employees in the HPWS are constantly faced with the barriers, Gilley et al. (2002) contend that HPWS strongly relies on Human Performance Technology (HPT). Fuller and Farrington (1999) stated that HPT are used for identifying barriers that the employees experiences and effectively eradicating them to ensure that the employees' potential is efficiently utilised for organisational success. Therefore, employee involvement in HPWS is intertwined with trustworthy expression of such 'voices'. It therefore follows that in HPWS, the workers tend to ensure greater organisational participation through unions which enable them to put forward their perspective and to be hard. This furthers their sense of autonomy and empowerment. Although, Harley (1995) recognised that in HPWS, the job discretion although ensures a greater consensus in employees and managerial objectives but even leads to work intensification, insecurity and stress the employees experience. This could be attributed to the superficiality in the adoption of high involvement practices where the attempts at employee involvement are fake that result in an increased demands and expectations from the workers without actually delegating the power to make decisions. Therefore, Boxall and Macky (2009) stated that the effectiveness of the high involvement approach is not based on the set of practices adopted but instead is based on the way the employees experiences that sense of responsibility and the extent to which they can actually exercise their power to make efficient decisions.

Recognizing that HPWS creates a synergy to give competitive advantage, this synergy comes from more than just putting all the components in place. Denton (2006) recognized that rather than adopting ‘piecemeal approach’, research clearly shows that the success of the HPWS counts upon the extent to which these elements are aligned and fit together. This can be ensured creating a coherent system where the practices pertaining to the development of HPWS are well aligned with the components of that work system and the operational and strategic approach of the organisation.

HR Practices
HPWS are based on a series of HR practise (also known as High Performance Work Practices, HPWP), such as elective staffing, self-managed teams, decentralized decision making, extensive training, flexible job assignment, open communication and performance-contingent compensation  in order to ensure that the employees are committed, involved and empowered in the organisation. King (1995) and Shih et al (2006) stated that the work practices in HPWS includes skill training, compensation policies, and workplace participation. Whereas others recognised decentralized decision-making, comprehensive training, and employee participation as the key practices. Therefore, it can be established that the adoption of HPWS in varied industrial and contextual settings has led to the recognition of a large number of HPWP in the management literature. Therefore, Ramsay, Scholarios, and Harley (2000, p.508), contested that HPWS are based on the “bundle of practices” to ensure greater employee empowerment, well-being and skill development. These set of HPWP mutually supportive and tend to compliment each other to creates an organisation-wide influence. The different application of HR practice in companies adopting HPWS can be found classified into the following categories. Figure#2 provides an overview of the bread classification of HR practices that are implemented by organisations which have adopted HPWS.



Attracting and Recruiting Staff
HPWS tends to put emphasis on the importance of recruitment processes so that the employees can feel being valued by the company. Also, one of the most important strategies of high performance work systems is generating a high level of collective human capital and encouraging a high degree of social exchange within an organization and those are found positively related to the organization's overall performance. Therefore, recruiting is an important factor which has been greatly emphasized in HPWS. With the characteristic of HPWS which values individualism, in order to generate the expected employee group, different methods of recruiting can be applied to different companies. Among which, one of the most important factor which matters is culture. Apart from culture, the recruiting method can be differentiated by internal and external factors. Various ways such as the use of consultants and assessment centers are used for recruiting employees for organisations with such systems. In addition, HPWS in itself is regarded as an crucial factor in attracting skillful employees.

Employee Training and Career Development
High performance work system involves great vertical communication between employees and managers so that the system gives an opportunity to the employees to get involved in the business affairs. Therefore, such work system requires a workforce with employees not only have necessary skills to perform their jobs, but also be able to participate and feel responsible for the organisation. In other words, various ways of the employee training as part of Human Resource Management is crucial for companies adopting HPWS. Various studies show that employee career training and development are positively correlated with high performance work system which supports the importance for employee career development. Therefore, employee training and career development as an existed important factor in Human Resource practice is emphasized overtime. Even though different methodology has been used for different companies, all organizations value the importance of such strategies. Basically, the employee career development includes need analysis, training design, development, implementation and development. However, to distinguish from the traditional management model, employees in HPWS gets an opportunity to manage their own career development.

Performance Management
Performance management is a common HR practice which measures the performance of employees and targets to have a better performance from both individual employees and the whole workforce group. Different companies take different performance management systems according to individual differences. Among which, Bell-Curve model which ranks employee performance by monetary figures and the balanced scorecard model which including more non-financial aspects are two methods which are widely used. High performance work system adopts performance based pay model to measure the performance of employees. Applebaum et al (2000) recognised the three predominant practices for employees perfomance appraisal: Appraisal for pay, appraisal for promotion and appraisal for training. In addition, various research shows that such method always leads to an overall employee development and ensures an innovation culture.

Compensation and Reward Management
High performance organizations focus on maximizing the potential of their workforce and utilizing this potential for mutual benefit and competitive advantage. Thus, one of the major goals of high performance work system is to increase the percentage of engaged employees. Among all the human resources practices, reward can be regarded as one of the most important factors for organization’s performance which motivate people and enhance engagement. In addition, reward can become a major contributor of creating and maintaining a high performance culture. Basically, higher wages were associated with High Performance Work Organization systems. Apart from increasing the reward of general staffs, high performance work system emphasis the increase of managers' wages as well by using various ways of compensation. In addition, HPWS adopt performance related reward and recognition system. Lastly, employees are more involved in their own reward management and also the organization's performance. Apart from the normal reward such as wage or bonuses, high performance work system is likely to use work/family programs to increase the degree of employees commitment. Therefore, by providing flexible working conditions, greater employee engagement is ensured which further contributes to the organization's overall performance.

Employee Relations
HPWS are considered to be the method which generates superior organizational performance with practices such as flexible working mode, work-related reward and complete communication system. Practices such as briefing groups and two-way meeting to ensure openness of communication are highly valued and implemented in HPWS. These strategies enhance employee discretion which improves the attitudes to work and results in a better performance of the company. In order to gain more committed employees who work harder in the organization, the strategies are set to empower the employees. Therefore, by influencing and aligning employees’ attitudes and behaviors with the strategic goals of the organization, the level of employee commitment is increased and subsequently organizational performance Also, high performance work systems reduces the conflict between a company and labor union because of the high percentage of committed employees in the workforce and the high degree of communication between employees and organization.

Even though great indicators illustrate the advantage of high performance work systems, it is applied to a limited scope of organization. In order to reach the expected goal, a deep understanding of the high performance work system is needed as the system of practices can be very complex to apply.

Implementation in Different Industries
Numerous industries utilize HPWS to improve the organisational performance and effectiveness as HPWS represent an important concept in the workplace. According to the studies by Huselid (1995) and Delaney & Huselid (1996), successful implementation of HPWS may include employee motivation and employee skills. Implementation of HPWS differs from industry to industry.

Healthcare Industry
The healthcare industry operates for diagnosing and treating diseases, preventing illness, and promoting healthy life styles. The leaders of health-care industry try to provide quality care, ensure safety, reduce medical costs, advanced equipment, qualified medical skills and motivations should be given to the employees to improve organisational performance. Harmon et al. and Scotti et al verified that there is a positive relationship between HPWS and customer satisfaction in the health-care industry which means HPWS affect employees view of service quality for improving customer satisfaction. Employee reactions and service quality are two aspects which HPWS effect most in the health-care industry. Health-care center is a place provides high-contact between doctors and patients, customers want to have a close relationship with doctors during a short period of time. Thus,organisational performance is linked closely to the customer satisfaction, and the customer satisfaction is mainly decided by the performance and attitude of the medical staff. By using HPWS organisations need to give some support to make their staff react more actively. Employee reactions include attitudes and their degree of engagement determined by how employees feel about the organisational support, policies, compensation systems, structure, work activities, and goal. To employees, besides the care from the organisation, proper compensation and support for employee will motivate them to be more positive and they may make better contribution to the organisational performance. To increase the service quality, the health-care industry needs to focus more on the quality of the medical treatment, reduction of the medical error and the prevention of diseases. As improving the quality of patients' care is of first priority of hosptials ,they should attach importance to the customer satisfaction. Customer satisfaction is linked to employee satisfaction, since doctors are the people provide medical care to patients and contact with patient most frequently, also satisfied employees will be more involved in providing quality services to clients. Service quality can be judged by doctors who actually provide health care to the patients, so feedback from employees can act as a measurement tool for service quality. Doctors as internal customers can assess the quality of the service by using their professional knowledge, in that case, doctors can be motivated to give suggestions and their feedbacks can be helpful to increase the service quality. The effects of HPWS on employee attitude and service quality will do good to the customer satisfaction in health-care industry.

Finance Industry
Finance industry, as one of the knowledge-intensive service industries, needs to recruit plenty of high-quality talents to guarantee a competitive advantage and the industry is therefore willing to pay more money on recruiting and selecting talents, which requires the HPWS to direct the industry’s operation. Among all the HR practices, HPWS have the most beneficial impact on the diversity training program and incentive-based pay system, since via professional training and financial incentive, employees of the industry will show better attitudes and behaviours towards their work. As a result, good employee performance will lead to outstanding organisation performance and high productivity.

Computer Manufacturing Industry
The computer manufacturing industry produces a range of computer systems and peripherals and offers customers with standard or customized products. HPWS helps the industry to improve the selection, training process and reward system. New employees may be unfamiliar with the HPWS, so when hiring people, organisations should try hard to select appropriate person to each position. When comes to the training process, organisations should cover the needed job skills as well as the attitudes and values to adapt HPWS. Companies in the industry change the conventional payment system which is inadaptable to the flexible working environment to a new one bases on a “skill matrix”. This may avoid paying employees according to the title and marks, instead the system encourages staff to learn more skills as their salaries are linked to their skills. HPWS acts as a contributor in the computer manufacturing industry to assist those companies to set the right goals, to hire right employees and to execute the right operational process.

Consequences
Previous research on HPWS has often bundled HRM practices and labelled them HPWS practices or High Performance Practices (HPP). To discuss the impact of HPWS one must keep in mind that some studies emphasize different HRM practices when analysing their impact. Generally, the impact of HPWS is dependant on the response of the employees. Only a positive response of employees can trigger a positive outcome of HPWS practices. Common in the literature is that HPWS practices are always a bundle of coherent and integrated HRM practices. Studies mainly focus on bundles of HRM practices, without determining which practice has the most influence on superior performance. Research even suggests that the effect of implementing bundles of HRM practices is greater than implementing single HRM practices. Following impacts describe bundles of HRM practices and their outcomes.

Turnover
Huselid found by examining a national sample of nearly 1000 firms in the U.S. that systems of High Performance Work Practices had an signifcant effect on employee turnover. High Performance Work Practices that were examined included 13 items of extensive recruitment, selection, training procedures, formal information sharing, attitude assessment, job design, grievance procedures, labour-management participation programs, performance appraisal, promotion, incentive compensation system, selection ratio, hours of training per employee per year, and promotion criteria. Results show that by including these High Performance Work Practices turnover was negatively impacted by 20%. A study by Guthrie has also found that turnover is decreased by incorporating High Performance Work Practices into an organisation. Guthrie collected data of 164 multi-industry firms in New Zealand who used the following 13 High Performance Work Practices: internal promotions, performance- (versus seniority-)based promotions, skill-based pay, group-based (gainsharing, profit-sharing) pay, employee stock ownership, employee participatory programs,information sharing, attitude surveys, teams, cross-training or cross-utilization, training focused on future skill requirements and estimates of averge hours of annual training for employees.

Labour Productivity
A study by John Paul Mcduffie has found that labour productivity and quality can be increased by using HPWS practices. Labour productivity was hereby defined as "the hours of actual working effort required to build a vehicle at a given assembly plant". The study focused on 62 automotive assembly plants, all of which made use of practices that affected the organizational work systems (Work teams, Problem-Solving Groups, Employee Suggestions Made and Implemented, Job Rotation, Decentralization of Quality-Related Tasks) and HRM policies (Recruitment and Hiring, Contingent Compensation, Status Differentiation, Training of New Employees, Training of Experienced Employees). The study emphasized that only interrelated HRM practices, rather than individual ones, especially if they are combined with organizational logic have a positive effect on productivity and quality.

Guthrie uses sales per employee as a measure of labour productivity and finds that by using the HPWS practices of internal promotions, performance- (versus seniority-)based promotions, skill-based pay, group-based (gainsharing, profit-sharing) pay, employee stock ownership, employee participatory programs,information sharing, attitude surveys, teams, cross-training or cross-utilization, training focused on future skill requirements and estimates of averge hours of annual training for employees, are positively associated with labour productivity. This study was conducted with 164 multi-industry firms in New Zealand.

Firm Financial Performance
Huselid has found evidence for the hypothesis that HPWS influences corporate financial performance. It is in part explained due to their impact on employee turnover and productivity. However, there is still a part remaining wich is unaccounted for.

Criticism
Godard has found that several studies which explain superior performance due to HPWS are unwarranted. Godard believes effects of HPWS on employees and unions are "at best uncertain". His research critizes limitations of studies that support the HPWS thesis. Limitations involve the use of single items to measure teamwork, the over-representation of traditional practices not unique to the high-performance paradigm and the under-representation of work practice imtems in measures of HPWS practice adoption, inconsistencies of how HPWS practices are measured and operationalised as well as replication problems.

Ramsay et al. (2000) found that there is a link between HPWS practices to employee outcomes and organizational performance by utilizing data from workes in the UK and looking at 24 different HPWS practices. The study calls into question whether "positive performance outcomes from HPWS flow via positive employee outcomes". They also found that HPWS practices are associtated with higher reports in job strain.

Other studies have found a positive relationship between burnout and HPWS. A dutch study found a slight positive relationship of burnout and HPWS, which is mediated by job demands. The study analysed 86 dutch organisations in regards of job demands, fairness and burnout. A study conducted by Ostermann in 2000 shows findings of a positive relation between HPWS practices and layoffs as HPWS practices require less managers and less contingent workers. Capelli and Neumark found that the implementation of HPWS practices are associated with raised labor costs per employee. They also found no positive relationship between the implementation of HPWS practices and labor productivity, measured in sales per employee. Another study focuses on the subjective well-being (SWB) and workplace burnout of 1488 physicians and nurses in 25 Chinese hospitals. The study points out that research on the effects of HPWS on employees has been marginalised in the past. Especially research of HPWS in emerging economies is limited, which calls for more HPWS studies in non-Western contexts to generalize empirical evidence. According to the study conducted by Gulzar et. al (2014), aiming to understand the employees’ perspective on HPWS and the psychological impact of the implementation of HPWP on the employees, concluded that the employees of the organization believed that HPWS lead to increased possibility of imposing greater anxiety and frustration among employees which is an outcome of the high expectations and intensive stress created by the work systems, and thus resulted in the employee resistance for implementation of such practices. Another study recognises that HPWS can intrude the work-life balance of the employees.