Post on 14-Mar-2022
The impact of workplace practices on business profitability in New Zealand
Ray Markey*
Business School, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand
rmarkey@aut.ac.nz
and
Boaz Shulruf*
University of Auckland and Department of Labour, New Zealand
Boaz.Shulruf@dol.govt.nz
The impact of workplace practices on business profitability in New Zealand
ABSTRACT
This study identifies the effects of a bundle of workplace practices on business profitability in New Zealand, analysing data from the Business Operations Survey 2006. Results suggest that workplace practices explain 4.8%-24.4% of variance in business profitability. Employer-employee collaborative workplace practices increase business profitability. Flexible job arrangements based on employer-employee collaboration have positive effect on business profitability but the effect is negative when decisions regarding work arrangements are made unilaterally. Workplace training has positive effect on business profitability in some industries, but this decreases when more than 50% of employees participate. Non-performance based pay is the preferreable pay arrangement to increase business profitability. Union and collective bargaining coverage do not affect business profitability. Implications for policy makers are discussed.
Keywords: human resource management and organisational performance, employee relations, performance management, human resource development, employee involvement, voice
Implementing workplace policies that promote an employee friendly environment is commonly
assumed to increase business profitability (Faleye & Trahan 2006; Lau 2000; Patterson, West,
Lawthom & Nickell 1997). A comprehensive meta-analysis by Harter, Schmidt and Keyes (2002) on
the effect of workplace well-being on profitability suggested that business units at the top quartile on
employee engagement were 1%-4% more profitable than businesses at the bottom quartile. Lau’s
(2000) model suggests that high quality services within organisations increase employees’
satisfaction, which then increases employee retention and productivity leading to greater external
service value. Greater external value increases customer satisfaction and loyalty and this creates more
revenue and higher profitability. Although Lau’s model mostly relates to service industries it could be
generalised since all businesses have customers who wish to receive quality products and services.
However, research in this area is scarce, particularly in New Zealand (NZ). Hence, it was important to
undertake the current study to attempt to identify and quantify the effects of some major workplace
practices on business profitability in NZ.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Pay arrangement and performance
Growing market competition and demand for skilled labour have motivated a variety of alternative
pay arrangements to fixed salary or wage, the most common being performance based pay, including
2
share options (Cowling 2001; Gross & Bacher 1993; Oyer 2004). Performance pay is most common
in small and new businesses (Lazear 2003). A distinction can be drawn between skill-based and
group-based performance pay arrangements, with a sample of 153 NZ firms revealing that skill-based
pay systems improved employee retention, whereas group incentive plans were associated with
greater turnover, which increased with organisation size (Guthrie 2000). Drawing on incentive theory,
Gross and Bacher (1993) suggested that to be successful, performance pay arrangements should be
based on collaboration and broad based agreement in the workplace. However, Lazear (2003) argued
that output-based pay is more for sorting purposes (i.e. retaining the most productive employees) than
incentives, which may partially explain why major economic reform in the 1980s in NZ did not meet
expectations regardless of the shift to an individualised labour market (Hazledine 2002; Sautet 2006).
Flexible (family friendly) job arrangement and performance
Family friendly workplaces or flexible work arrangements are generally perceived as beneficial for
both employees and employers. They include childcare (provision or subsidy), flexible work time,
leave arrangements for caring for others (young, sick, old), work from home, and job share (Lewison
2006; Strachan & Burgess 1998). Arguments supporting family friendly arrangements mostly focus
on relationship improvement between employers and employees, enhancement of mutual trust,
increasing job satisfaction and eventually business productivity (Akerlof & Yellen 1986). However,
this literature provides more evidence of benefit for employees than for employers (Amin 1989;
Heiland & Macpherson 2004; Lewison 2006). NZ research suggests that the most important family
friendly policy for employees is childcare provision (Pringle & Tudhope 1996), as well as flexible
leave arrangements and flexible working hours (Liddicoat 2003). A recent Department of Labour NZ
study (Yasbek 2004) suggests that by providing family friendly job arrangements in a competitive
labour market, employers can attract better recruits and reduce cost by improving staff retention, but
these conclusions are context specific with no evidence for generalisability. Hence, the importance of
the current study is in its broad coverage across most industries and regions in NZ.
3
Training and performance
Skilled personnel at all levels within the organisation (management, professionals and other staff)
appear to enhance business productivity and profitability (Bassi & McMurrer 2005; Black & Lynch
2001; Van Buren 2002; Faleye & Trahan 2006). Many businesses enhance their human capital
through workplace training (Durbin 2004), which has been found to increase employees’ performance
directly associated with business productivity (Levenson 2003; O'Connell 2001). Bartel’s (2000)
review of the literature, suggested that the return on investment in workplace training/education is
estimated to be 7%-50%, though it may reach 200%. Within the OECD NZ is ranked high on both
employees’ rate of participation in workplace training and hours per employee (Brunello, Bassanini,
Booth, De Paola & Leuven 2005), but NZ’s GDP per capita is below most OECD countries. This
raises an important question about the effectiveness of employee training on productivity and
profitability.
Health promotion programmes
Health promotion programmes at any of primary (preventive), secondary (when event occurs), or
tertiary (remedial) levels are perceived as important tools to improve employee physical and mental
health as well as workplace productivity (Grawitch, Trares & Kohler 2007; Tetrick & Quick 2001).
There is mounting evidence of huge cost relating to occupational health risks (Dorman 2000; Pearce,
Dryson, Feyer, Gander & McCracken 2004; Tooney, Borthwick & Archer 2005; Burton, Conti, Chen,
Schultz & Edington 1999). Furthermore, a recent study reports that satisfaction with healthy
workplace practices can predict employee outcomes, suggesting that it is not only what practices are
actually put in place, but also employees’ perceptions about these practices that matter (Grawitch et
al. 2007). Therefore, health promotion programmes in workplaces are likely to improve businesses
performance (Aldana 2001; Grawitch, Gottschalk & Munz 2006). Chapman's (2005) meta-evaluation
estimated that workplace health promotion programmes decreased about 25% of employers’ cost for
sick leave, workers’ compensation and disability However, no empirical analysis of the effect of
health promotion programmes on business profitability/productivity was found for NZ.
Employee voice and performance
4
The concept of employee voice encompasses direct task-oriented practices (problem solving groups or
quality circles, semi autonomous teams) as well as representative structures (trade unions, joint
consultative committees, works councils). An extensive literature argues that employee participation
in decision-making improves motivation, communications and cooperation in the workplace, and
hence, productivity. Employee participation has been recognised as a key ingredient in high
performing work systems, potentially increasing output by 15-20% (Arthur 1994; Delaney & Huselid
1996; Doucouliagos 1995; Meyer & Topolnytsky 2000). No studies directly addressing these
connections have been undertaken in NZ, however.
Employment relations grievances and performance
Employment relations grievances are perceived as destructive workplace processes, yet inevitable
(Ryan 1998). Recent NZ Department of Labour studies suggest that the median cost of individual
grievances is about NZ$5,000 (Department of Labour 2007; Woodhams, McDermott Miller, Howard,
Johri, Shulruf & Yee 2007). Employers, however argue that the cost could be twice that (Miller
2006). Hence, it is apparent that there is negative association between occurrence of grievances and
business performance i.e. profitability. How these grievances are resolved also significantly effects
business financial outcomes. Grievances resolved internally are least expensive for employers,
whereas litigations are most expensive for employers as well as employees (Rowe 1997; Woodhams
et al. 2007). The frequency and severity of grievance disputes also may affect business productivity
and profitability (Budd & Colvin 2005). Since no robust NZ evidence could be found to either support
or reject that assumption, the current study may provide important insight into the issue.
Collective employment agreements
Neo-classical economics perceives unions as ‘imperfections’ in an otherwise free competitive market
(Aidt & Tzannatos 2002). Unions are seen to negatively affect labour market outcomes through
collective bargaining over wages, which otherwise would be left to real market value. Hence
traditionally, unionisation and collective agreements are associated with low business profitability
(Aidt & Tzannatos 2002; Hirsch 1997; Layard & Nickell 1985). Other scholars present data
suggesting that unionisation has a positive or no effect on productivity (Cavalluzzo & Baldwin 1993;
5
Haskel 2005; Milner & Nombela 1995; Clark 1984). Doucouliagos and Laroche (2000) undertook
meta-regression analysis to resolve the theoretical debate, but could identify no association between
unions and productivity. Nonetheless, a recent macroeconomic analysis of 18 OECD economies
suggests positive association between trade union density and per worker output (Asteriou &
Monastiriotis 2004). Hence, the inconclusiveness of the literature emphasises the importance of
further research in this area.
This brief review of the literature indicates major gaps of knowledge regarding the effects of
workplace practices on business performance, particularly in NZ. The Business Operations Survey
2006 (BOS) provides a unique opportunity to examine these issues comprehensively.
METHODS
The data for this study were taken from the BOS 2006 undertaken by Statistics NZ. It includes three
major modules: A- Business Operations; B- Information and Communication Technology (ICT); and
C- Employment Practices. The current study used data from Modules A and C, which were
confidentialised by Statistics NZ. The estimated population for BOS was 35,436 enterprises, which
includes businesses with six or more employees, annual GST turnover greater than NZ$30,000, that
have been operating at least one year and were not classified as Government Administration and
Defence; Libraries, Museums and the Arts; Personal and Other Services; Central Bank; Private Non-
Profit Organisations Serving Households; Households; and Rest of World. The sample data included
6066 enterprises, 81.7 per cent of the total enterprises sampled for BOS 2006. For the purpose of this
survey, the Australian and NZ Standard Industrial Classification (ANZSIC) of businesses was slightly
changed by merging some small industry groups to allow reasonable statistical analysis.
The dependent variable is business profitability. However, the BOS dataset does not provide
actual data on profitability, but only respondents’ estimate whether their business profitability
increased, stayed the same or decreased over the past financial year. Since 2876 (47.4 per cent) of
businesses reported a decrease, 2021 (33.3%) reported an increase and only 185 (3.0%) reported no
change in business profitability (984 or 16.2% were missing data), it was decided to compare the
successful (profitability increased) businesses with the unsuccessful (profitability decreased)
6
businesses. It is noteworthy that business profitability is a tangible outcome, since normally every
business has the bottom line of its financial performance. This was evident in the BOS data where
compared with 83.7% of businesses reporting on profitability, only 43.2% could provide information
regarding whether their productivity increased or decreased in the past year. Hence with the lack of
actual financial data within the BOS data, using employers’ reports on their change in profitability
was deemed to be the best proxy for business performance. Finally, since the infrastructure group,
comprising mining and electricity, gas and water industries, included only 73 enterprises, which was
insufficient to allow robust statistical analysis comparable to other groups, it was excluded from the
analysis. The actual analysis included 4662 businesses (77.8%) (see Table 2) once all records with
missing data were excluded throughout the regression analysis.
Logistic regression models were used to identify the effect of a range of workplace variables
on the likelihood of businesses having their profitability increase (in comparison to decrease) over the
past year. The generic logistic models comprised two blocks of independent variables. The first block
includes variables relating to business demography and workplace practices since all relate to the
normal business operating characteristics. The second block includes independent variables relating to
changes in the workplace over the past year. This approach was taken to allow clear identification of
the effect that changes in workplace practices can have on profitability. Since the literature on effects
of workplace practices on business profitability in NZ is limited and indecisive, it was important to
adopt an exploratory methodology, namely taking a broader view at the starting point and narrowing
the analysis through stepwise method. Thus, the regression models used backward method for each
block dropping off any variable that did not meet the inclusion criteria (SPSS Inc. 2002).
To overcome the wide spread of missing data, variables with more than 15% of missing data
within each industry group were excluded from analysis. Then, for each regression model (devised for
each industry group) the set of relevant variables was tested for combined data availability. Variables
were removed (from high to low percentage of missing data) gradually until the combined dataset
yielded at least 70% of non-missing data.
Once these initial datasets were established, each regression model was tested using backward
stepwise method. For increasing the data inclusion the regression models were repeatedly tested but
7
without variables that did not survive the stepwise process and were removed from the regression
model. That process was repeated by removing one variable at a time until the stepwise model did not
remove any further variables. By following that method it was possible to maintain the largest
possible number of business in the analysis and minimise the effects of the missing data. The results
reported in Table 2 below include the final regression models for each industry group.
RESULTS
Most of the businesses reported a decrease in profitability over the past year with the exception of the
Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing industries (henceforth: Agriculture industry) (Table 1).
The nine final regression models (see Table 2) indicate that workplace practices affect
business profitability differently across industries. The variance explained by the workplace practices
ranges from 4.8% (Wholesale & Retail Trade ) to 24.4% (Construction), which indicates that
workplace practices are important determinants for business profitability and in some industries
(Construction, Health & Education and Finance & Insurance) they could be crucial. Business size
affected profitability only within the Wholesale & Retail Trade where businesses with more than 50
employees were less likely (OR= .56), and middle size businesses were slightly more likely (OR=1.13
- 1.14 n.s.) to be profitable than small businesses (6-19.9 employees). The proportion of managers and
professionals amongst the employees had a very small but statistically significant positive effect on
profitability within three industry groups only: Transport & Communication (OR 1.01), Property &
Business Services (OR=1.01) and Health & Education (OR=1.01). For Transport & Communication
the trend reversed with regard to the proportion of technicians and associate professionals (OR=.99),
which indicated that in these particular industries a high level of professionalism had the greatest
positive affect on profitability. In Health & Education, increasing the number of technicians and
associate professionals positively affected profitability (OR=1.01), which indicates that skilled staff at
both middle and high levels would positively affect business profitability.
Pay arrangements had different effects on business profitability across industries. Associating
pay with performance had a negative effect on profitability within Manufacturing, Construction and
Wholesale & Retail Trade (See Table 2). Negative associations were found between performance
8
based pay and profitability for managers and professionals in Manufacturing (OR=.58). Profit sharing
also had a negative effect on profitability when received by managers and professionals and
technicians and associate professionals in Construction (OR=.29), by tradespersons and related
workers in Manufacturing (OR=.76), and by all other occupations in Wholesale & Retail Trade
(OR=.58). However, receiving benefits unrelated to employees’ performance had positive effects on
business profitability. Superannuation arrangements for managers had a strong positive effect on
business profitability in Construction (OR=12.42) and Agriculture (OR=3.33). Fringe benefits for
managers and professionals had a strong positive effect on business profitability in Agriculture
(OR=3.21) and Hospitality (OR=2.79). In Finance & Insurance health benefits for other occupations
and fringe benefits for technicians and associate professionals were positively associated with
business profitability (OR=5.68 and 6.18 respectively). In Health & Education superannuation
arrangement for technicians and associate professionals (44% of employees in the industry) had a
positive effect on profitability (OR=1.75).
Flexible working hour arrangements also had a positive effect on business profitability across
most of the industries. Positive effects were associated with ability to contract hours (not working on
school holidays etc.) in Agriculture (OR=1.69); flexible job design in Manufacturing (OR=1.43);
work from home in Construction (OR=2.10); and ability to buy extra annual leave in Health &
Education (OR=4.19). Provision of childcare facilities or allowance, which assists employees in
managing their time and duties, also had a positive effect on profitability in Transport &
Communication (OR=1.89) and Finance & Insurance (OR=2.79).
The proportion of employees participating in professional/technical skills training
programmes positively affected business profitability across two industries only: Finance & Insurance
and Property & Business Services. However, in both the greatest impact occurred for a limited
percentage of employees receiving training: 1%-25% in Property & Business Services (OR=2.22),
with increased participation decreasing the impact of training on profitability; and 26%-50% for
Finance & Insurance, where the impact decreased at either higher or lower participation rates.
Employee participation had mixed effects on profitability. Problem solving teams had strong
positive impact in Construction (OR=2.553), but negative impact in Transport & Communication
9
(OR=0.311). In Health & Education information sharing also had a positive effect (OR=1.859).
However, employee participation in health and safety had no significant impact in any industries.
Employment relations impacted on profitability in some industries. Grievance disputes only
had an effect in Property & Business Services, where increasing the number of grievances per
employee also increased the likelihood for the business to be more profitable (OR=1.60). Signing a
new employment agreement was identified as the most important change in the last two years by three
industries, and for two of them the effect on profitability was statistically significant: a positive effect
in Wholesale & Retail Trade (OR=1.43), but a negative effect in Health & Education (OR=.53).
Undertaking health measures did not have a major impact, since only two had a statistically
significant effect on business profitability. Measuring air quality positively affected profitability in
Manufacturing (OR=1.40), as did stress management programmes in Finance & Insurance (OR=2.56).
Notwithstanding the positive impact of various work practices on profitability, increasing
their coverage of the workforce did not necessarily improve profitability further. The exception was
Manufacturing (see Table 2) where increasing the number of employees participating in any of
flexible work arrangements, engagement in decision making, or health and safety programmes had a
strong positive effect on profitability (OR=8.64). The percentage of employees who are covered by
collective agreements did not survive any of the regressions stepwise, which suggests that collective
agreement coverage has neither positive nor negative effect on business profitability.
DISCUSSION
The most important finding was that workplace practices could explain up to 25% (in Construction)
of the variance in the likelihood to increase profitability. This finding is significant, particularly in
relation to previous studies which could provide only limited information on effects of workplace
practices on profitability (Doucouliagos & Laroche 2000; Harter et al. 2002; Orlitzky, Schmidt &
Ryan 2003). Since employers can affect workplace practices more than external factors (e.g. interest
and exchange rates), this suggests that investment in workplace practices might provide opportunities
for higher return in profit, particularly in the Construction, Finance & Insurance, and Health &
Education industries where workplace practices have the greatest effect on profitability.
10
One of the most interesting findings in this study was that performance based pay had a
negative effect on profitability across Manufacturing, Construction and Wholesale & Retail Trade
industries, but not in Transport & Communication. This suggests that performance based pay is
probably overused in some industries. Based on incentive theory, it is probable that performance
based pay was used for sorting purposes rather than building collaborative relationships within the
workplace (Gross & Bacher 1993; Lazear 2000a, 2000b), except in Transport & Communication
where there was a positive effect of performance based pay among technicians.
In most industries a positive association was found between non-performance pay
arrangements and profitability. No previous studies on this could be found within NZ. It is possible
that more profitable businesses are more generous and can afford non-performance pay arrangements.
However, non-performance pay arrangements also may reflect good human resources practices,
which lead to profitability improvement, as suggested by Wright, Gardner, Moynihan and Allen
(2005) and Guthrie (2001).
Generally, flexible work arrangements have a positive effect on business profitability, as does
childcare support. Successful arrangements are those in which flexibility is achieved by mutual
agreement or discussion between employees and employers (work from home, contracted hours,
possibility for part time work etc). On the other hand, flexible work arrangements that could be
decided by employees only (e.g. selection of own roster and leave to care for others) had negative
effects on business profitability. The literature already suggests that when either employers or
employees lack sufficient influence on employment conditions this may act as a barrier to good
employment relations and business performance (Kerr 2005; Lazear & Oyer 2004; Spoonley &
McLaren 2003). The current study confirms that best practice is instigation of flexible work
arrangements mutually agreed by employers and employees. This supports Gross and Bacher’s (1993)
agument that more effective pay arrangements can be achieved through employee-employer
collaboration, rather than by unilateral decision.
Another important component of workplace quality is the extent to which occupational
hazards are dealt with. In the current study measuring air quality was positively associated with high
profitability in Manufacturing and measuring stress was positively associated with high profitability
11
in Finance & Insurance. These findings, in line with previous studies (Aldana 2001; Grawitch et al.
2006), suggest that when businesses address relevant health issues it may affect their profitability.
It was not surprising to find positive effects of workplace training on business profitability,
given the wide perception of this as an important investment. Nonetheless, the findings here suggest
that workplace training, measured by the percentage of employees’ participation, positively affected
profitability in only two industries (Finance & Insurance and Property & Business Services). Most
importantly, the association between training and profitability had an inverted U shape, suggesting
that it is possible to have too many employees in training for optimal impact, though a positive effect
was found across all levels of employee participation in training (compared to none). Given the
already high NZ participation rate in workplace training (Brunello et al. 2005), it is therefore
suggested that the most effective approach is to target those whose performance will benefit most
from appropriate training. Since previous studies reviewed for this research project used linear
models, none could identify any non-linear association (Bassi & McMurrer 2005; Black & Lynch
2001; Durbin 2004; Faleye & Trahan 2006; Leckie, Leonard, Turcotte & Wallace 2001; O'Connell
2001; Van Buren 2002).
It has been suggested that employment relations affect business performance (Guthrie 2001;
Harter et al. 2002). Patterson et al. (1997) argued that up to 29% of the variance in business
productivity could be explained by human resources management. This was confirmed in some
industries in this study by the positive impact of providing opportunities for employee voice. Good
human resource practices might also be expected to lower the rate (and cost) of employee grievance
disputes. Nonetheless, this study found that the proportion of employment grievances per full time
employee was not related to business profitability except in Property & Business Services, where
unexpectedly it was found that the higher the ratio of grievances per full time employee the more
likely the businesses were to be profitable. This might be explained by the low cost of employment
dispute resolutions to businesses in NZ, which would not affect business profitability (Martin &
Woodhams 2007; Woodhams et al. 2007).
Unionisation and collective agreement coverage did not affect business profitability. This
confirms Doucouliagos and Laroche’s (2002) meta-analysis. However, the impact of signing a new
12
collective agreement was positive in some industries and negative in others. In Health & Education
the signing of a new collective agreement was related to a decrease in profitability, whereas in
Wholesale & Retail it was associated with an increase in profitability. The positive impact might be
because of increased workforce morale sometimes associated with new agreements, or with improved
work practices resulting from a new agreement (Grint 2005; Hyman 1977), whereas the negative
impact is probably associated with increased costs to the employer. The different impact between
industries may only be explainable by the detail of different agreements, but these data were not
available in this dataset. Hence, further investigation is needed in this particular issue.
The greatest effect (OR= 8.64) on business profitability was increasing the number of
employees participating in workplace practices such as flexible work arrangements and collaboration
(e.g. ‘problem-solving teams’) in Manufacturing. Although this finding was found only in this
particular industry it provides more support to the need to enhance employer-employee collaboration.
In general the evidence suggests that the major factor underlying workplace practices with the
greatest effect on business profitability is collaborative employee-employer relations. This however,
does not relate to the proportion of employees working under collective agreements. In line with
Harter et al. (2002) it is suggested that employers who encourage employee engagement in workplace
practices perform better. It is not enough to put in place flexible work arrangements to make the
workplace friendlier to employees if business needs are not addressed. Linking performance to pay
would not work if the employee turnover increases so that recruitment cost would outweigh the
difference in productivity. It is also not optimal practice to provide training to as many employees as
possible without identifying actual needs. To appropriately address these issues, employers and
employees need to work together to mutual advantage, and the evidence presented here suggests that
where they do, profitability is enhanced.
The results of this study should be regarded as indicative only and the need for further
research in specific areas is obvious. This should be addressed within the context of specific labour
environments where relationships within workplaces appeared to be an important determinant
affecting business outcomes.
13
REFERENCES
Aidt T and Tzannatos Z (2002) Unions and Collective Bargaining Economic Effects in a Global
Environment, The World Bank, Washington DC. Akerlof GA and Yellen JL (Eds) (1986) Efficiency Wage Models of the Labor Market, Cambridge
University Press, New York. Aldana SG. (2001) Financial impact of health promotion programs: A comprehensive review of the
literature, American Journal of Health Promotion 15(5): 296-320. Amin ASH (1989) Flexible Specialisation and Small Firms in Italy: Myths and Realities, Antipode
21(1): 13-34. Arthur JB (1994) Effects of Human Resource Systems on Manufacturing Performance and Turnover,
Academy of Management Journal 37(3): 670-687. Asteriou D and Monastiriotis V (2004) What do unions do at the large scale? Macro-economic
evidence from a panel of OECD countries, Journal of Applied Economics 7(1): 27-46. Bartel AP (2000) Measuring the Employer's Return on Investments in Training: Evidence from the
Literature, Industrial Relations 39(3): 502-524. Bassi L and McMurrer D (2005) The business benefit of skills, McBassi & Company, Golden, USA. Black S and Lynch L (2001) How to compete: The impact of workplace practices and information
technology on productivity, The Review of Economics and Statistics 83(3): 434-445. Brunello G, Bassanini A, Booth AL, De Paola M and Leuven E (2005) Workplace Training in
Europe. Paper presented at the 7th conferenceof the Fondazion Rodolfo De Benedetti, Venice.
Budd JW and Colvin A (2005) Balancing efficiency, equity and voice in workplace dispute resolution
procedures, University of Minnesota, Minnesota. Burton WN, Conti DJ, Chen C-YP, Schultz AB and Edington DW (1999) The Role of Health Risk
Factors and Disease on Worker Productivity, Journal of Occupational & Environmental
Medicine October 41(10): 863-877. Cavalluzzo L and Baldwin D (1993) Unionization and productive efficiency, in Fried H, Schmidt S
and Lovell CK (Eds) The Measurement of Productive Efficiency, Techniques and
Applications:210-220, Oxford University Press, New York. Chapman L (2005) Meta-Evaluation of Worksite Health Promotion Economic Return Studies: 2005
Update, American Journal of Health Promotion 19(16): 1-11. Clark K (1984) Unionization and Firm Performance: The Impact on Profits, Growth, and
Productivity, The American Economic Review 74(2): 893-919. Cowling M (2001) Fixed Wages or Productivity Pay: Evidence from 15 EU Countries, Small Business
Economics 16: 191-204. Delaney JT and Huselid MA (1996) The Impact of Human Resource Management Systems on
Perceptions of Organisational Performance, Academy of Management Journal 39(4): 949-969.
Department of Labour (2007) Personal Grievance Determinations in the Employment Relations
Authority, Department of Labour, Wellington. Dorman P (2000) The Economics of Safety, Health and Well-being at Work: An Overview,
International Labour Organisation, Geneva. Doucouliagos C (1995) Worker Participation and Productivity in Labor-Managed and Participatory
Capitalist Firms: A Meta-Analysis, Industrial and Labor Relations Review 49(1): 58-77. Doucouliagos C and Laroche P (2000) What do unions do to productivity ? A meta-analysis,
Université Nancy, Nancy. Doucouliagos C and Laroche P (2002) Unions And Productivity Growth : A Meta-Analytic Review,
Deakin University, Melbourne. Durbin S (2004) Workplace Skills, Technology Adoption and Firm Productivity: A Review, New
Zealand Treasury, Wellington. Faleye O and Trahan E (2006) Is What’s Best for Employees Best for Shareholders?, Northeastern
University, Boston.
14
Grawitch MJ, Gottschalk M and Munz DC (2006) The Path to a Healthy Workplace: A Critical Review Linking Healthy Workplace Practices, Employee Well-being, and Organizational Improvements, Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research Summer 58(3): 129-147.
Grawitch MJ, Trares S and Kohler JM (2007) Healthy Workplace Practices and Employee Outcomes, International Journal of Stress Management 14(3): 275-293.
Grint K (2005) The Sociology of Work, 3rd edn., Polity: Cambridge. Gross S and Bacher J (1993) The New Variable Pay Programs: How Some Succeed, Why Some
Don’t, Compensation Benefits Review 1993 25: 51-56. Guthrie J (2000) Alternative Pay Practices and Employee Turnover: An organization economics
perspective, Group and Organization Management 25(4): 419-439. Guthrie J (2001) High-Involvement Work Practices, Turnover, and Productivity: Evidence from New
Zealand, The Academy of Management Journal 44(1): 180-190. Harter J, Schmidt FL and Keyes C (2002) Well-being in the workplace and its relationship to business
outcomes a review of the Gallup studies, in Keyes C and Haidt J (Eds), Flourishing: The
Positive Person and the Good Life: 205-224, American Psychological Association, Washington D.C.
Haskel J (2005) Unions and Productivity Again: New Evidence from Matched WERS and Business
Census Data, Queen Mary, University of London, London. Hazledine T (2002) Agency Theory meets Social Capital: The Failure of the 1984-91 New Zealand
Economic Revolution, The University of Auckland, Auckland. Heiland F and Macpherson D (2004) Do Family-Friendly Firms Perform Better?, Florida State
University, Tallahassee. Hirsch B (1997) Unionization and Economic Performance: Evidence on Productivity, Profits,
Investment, and Growth, in Mihlar F (Ed.), Unions and Right-to-Work Laws: 35-70, The Fraser Institute, Vancouver, B.C.
Hyman, R. (1977) Strikes. 2nd edn. Glasgow: Fontana Collins. Kerr R (2005) Lessons from Labour Market Reform in New Zealand, New Zealand Business
Roundtable, Auckland. Lau R (2000) Quality of work life and performance An ad hoc investigation of two key elements in
the service profit chain model, International Journal of Service 11(5): 422-437. Layard R and Nickell S (1985) The Causes of British Unemployment National Institute Economic
Review 111: 62-85. Lazear E (2000a) Performance Pay and Productivity, The American Economic Review 90(5): 1346-
1361. Lazear E (2000b) Personnel Economics and Economic Approaches to Incentives, HKCER Letters 61. Lazear E (2003) Output-Based Pay: Incentives, Retention or Sorting?, Institute for the Study of
Labor, Bonn. Lazear E and Oyer P (2004) New Data and New Questions in Personnel Economics The Structure of
Wages and Internal Mobility, The American Economic Review 94(2): 212-216. Leckie N, Léonard A, Turcotte J and Wallace D (2001) Employer and Employee Perspectives on
Human Resources Practices, Statistics Canada, Ottawa. Levenson A (2003) Why Do Companies Provide Workplace Education Programs? Review of Adult
Learning and Literacy 4: 71-108. Lewison J (2006) The Work/Life Balance Sheet So Far, Journal of Accountancy 202(2): 45-49. Liddicoat L (2003) Stakeholder Perceptions of Family-Friendly Workplaces: An Examination of Six
New Zealand Organisations, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 41(3): 354-370. Martin M and Woodhams B (2007) Personal Grievance Mediations Conducted at the Department of
Labour: A Snapshot, Department of Labour, Wellington. Meyer J and Topolnytsky L (2000) Building and maintaining employee commitment: implications for
HRM policy and practice, in Travaglione A and Marshall V (Eds) Human Resource
Strategies: An Applied Approach, McGraw-Hill, Sydney. Miller D (2006) The true cost of personal grievance?. Retrieved 27 July 2007, from
http://www.cma.org.nz/index.cfm/media_releases/061221_personal_grievance.html
15
Milner S and Nombela G (1995) Trade union strength, organization and impact in Spain, London School of Economics and Political Science, London.
O'Connell ABPJ (2001) Does Training Generally Work? The Returns to In-Company Training, Industrial and Labor Relations Review 54(3): 647-662.
Orlitzky M, Schmidt F and Ryan S (2003) Corporate Social and Financial Performance: A Meta-analysis, Organization Studies 24(3): 403-441.
Oyer P (2004) Salary or Benefits? Stanford University, Graduate School of Business, San Francisco. Patterson M, West M, Lawthom R and Nickell S (1997) Impact of People Management Practices on
Business Performance, University of Sheffield, Sheffield. Pearce N, Dryson E, Feyer AM, Gander P and McCracken S (2004) The Burden of Occupational
Disease and Injury in New Zealand: Report to the Minister of Labour, National Occupatonal Health and Safety Advisory Committee, Wellington.
Pringle J and Tudhope J (1996) Family Friendly Policies: The Experiences of Three New Zealand Companies, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 34(3): 77-89.
Rowe M (1997) Dispute Resolution in the Non-Union Environment: An Evolution Toward Integrated Systems for Conflict Management? in Gleason SE (Ed.), Workplace Dispute Resolution:
Directions for the Twenty-First Century: 79-106, State University Press, East Lansing, Mich. Ryan C. (1998) Internal Dispute Resolution, IRC Press, Industrial Relations Centre, Queen’s
University, Ontario. Sautet F (2006) Why Have Kiwis Not Become Tigers? Reforms, Entrepreneurship, and Economic
Performance in New Zealand, The Independent Review 10(4): 573-597. Spoonley P and McLaren E (2003) Employment Futures: Non-Standard Work and the Adequacy of
Labour Market Policies in New Zealand. Paper presented at the Connecting Policy, Research and Practice, Wellington.
SPSS Inc. (2002). SPSS for Windows (Version 11.5). SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL. Strachan G and Burgess J (1998) The “family friendly” workplace Origins, meaning and application
at Australian workplaces International Journal of Manpower 19(4): 250-265. Tetrick L E and Quick JC (2001) Prevention at work: Public Health in occupational settings, in Quick
JC and Tetrick LE (Eds), Handbook of occupational health psychology: 3-17, American Psychological Association, Washington DC.
Tooney J, Borthwick K and Archer R (2005) Occupational Health and Safety in Australia: A
Management Guide, Thomson, Melbourne. Van Buren M (2002) From Cost to Investment: Workplace Learning Has New Significance,
Employment Relations Today 29(1): 63-72 Woodhams B, McDermott Miller Ltd, Howard C, Johri R, Shulruf B and Yee B (2007) Economic and
Social Costs and Benefits of Employment Relationship Problems and How They Vary
According to Mechanisms Used for Resolution, Department of Labour, Wellington. Wright P, Gardner T, Moynihan L and Allen M (2005) The Relationship between HR Practices and
Firm Performance: Examining Causal Order Personnel Psychology 58(2): 409-446. Yasbek P (2004) The business case for firm-level work-life balance policies: a review of the
literature, Department of Labour, Wellington.
16
Table 1 Distribution of businesses by change in profitability
Industry Classification Decreased Stay the
same Increased Total
N % N % N % N % Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 183 41.9 22 5.0 232 53.1 437 100.0 Infrastructure (mining and electricity, gas & water) 38 62.3 5 8.2 18 29.5 61 100.0 Manufacturing 527 49.6 13 1.2 522 49.2 1062 100.0 Construction 166 65.6 10 4.0 77 30.4 253 100.0 Wholesale &Retail Trade 424 51.3 15 1.8 387 46.9 826 100.0 Hospitality & Culture (accommodation, cafes and restaurants; cultural and recreational services) 164 53.9 12 3.9 128 42.1 304 100.0 Transport & Communication (transport and storage, communication services 171 55.0 9 2.9 131 42.1 311 100.0 Finance and Insurance 231 71.5 13 4.0 79 24.5 323 100.0 Property and Business Services 715 64.1 55 4.9 345 30.9 1115 100.0 Health & Education (Education, Health and Community Services) 257 65.9 31 7.9 102 26.2 390 100.0 Total 2876 56.6 185 3.6 2021 39.8 5082 100.0
* These figures include all businesses that reported on profitability in all industries including infrastructure.
Page 17
Table 2 Summary of the logistic regression models
Industry Ag
ricu
ltu
re,
Fo
restr
y
an
d F
ish
ing
Man
ufa
ct-
uri
ng
Co
nstr
uct-
ion
Wh
ole
sale
&
Reta
il
Tra
de
Ho
sp
itality
&
Cu
ltu
re
Tra
nsp
ort
&
Co
mm
un
ic-
ati
on
Fin
an
ce &
In
su
ran
ce
Pro
pert
y &
B
usin
ess
Serv
ices
Healt
h &
E
du
cati
on
1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Variable Categorie
s Ref Exp(B) Exp(B) Exp(B
) Exp(B
) Exp(B
) Exp(B
) Exp(B
) Exp(B
) Exp(B
)
Business Size(1) 20-29.9 RME*
6-19.9 RME 1.131
Business Size(2) 30-49.9
RME 6-19.9 RME 1.149
Business Size(3)
50 or more RME
6-19.9 RME 0.556
Operating expenditure per RME 1 Percent Managers per RME 1.014 1.006 1.056 Percent Technicians per RME 0.989 1.043 Percent Trade persons per RME 0.98 Managers receive performance based pay(1) Yes No 0.583 Managers receive profit sharing(1) Yes No 0.289 Technicians receive profit sharing(1) Yes No 0.293 2.557 Tradespersons receive profit sharing(1) Yes No 0.76 1.441
Page 18
All other occupations receive profit sharing(1) Yes No 0.586 6.004 Managers receive superannuation(1) Yes No 3.333 12 42 1.901 Managers receive other fringe benefit(1) Yes No 3.206 0.296 2.786 0.644 All other occupations receive health benefit(1) Yes No 2.818 5.676 Tradespersons receive superannuation(1) Yes No 1.39 2.302 Technicians receive other fringe benefit(1) Yes No 6.179 Technicians receive superannuation(1) Yes No 1.747 Work contracted hours(1) Yes No 1.585 1.396 Flexible job design(1) Yes No 1.434 Job sharing(1) Yes No 0.522 Work from home(1) Yes No 2.097 1.633 Leave to care others(1) Yes No 0.422 Problem solving team(1) Yes No 2.553 0.561 0.311 Employee participate in health and safety(1) Yes No 1.679 Childcare(1) Yes No 1.885 2.788 Buy extra annual leave(1) Yes No 0.38 4.191 Information sharing(1) Yes No 1.859 Part time work(1) Yes No 1.653 Selection of own roster(1) Yes No 0.354 Noise measurement(1) Yes No 0.734 Measure indoor air quality(1) Yes No 1.399 2.097 Measure stress programme(1) Yes No 2.555 Training needs identified(1) Yes No 2.544 0.69 Percent Customer skills Participate in training(1)
50% or less
25% or less 0.394
Page 19
Percent Customer skills Participate in training(2)
75% or less
25% or less 0.566
Percent Customer skills Participate in training(3) 76-100%
25% or less 6.252
Percent Professionals Participate in Training(1)
25% or less 0% 3.818 2.217
Percent Professionals Participate in Training(2)
50% or less 0% 7.696 1.582
Percent Professionals Participate in Training(3)
75% or less 0% 1.353 1.525
Percent Professionals Participate in Training(4) 76-100% 0% 1.442 1.085 Calculated grievance per RME 1.602 Percent grievance resolved internally 0.43 Most Important Change Employment Agreement(1) Yes No 1.434 0.639 0.527 Result of EDR improve relation with union(1) Yes No 3.67 Result of EDR introduce new employment agreement(1) Yes No 0.561 Change in business practices Q 19(1)
Stayed the same
Decreased 0.964
Change in business practices Q 19(2) Increased
Decreased 8 642
N 552 1,291 309 957 356 363 378 1,322 465 Inclusion 415 897 220 811 292 301 310 1,057 359 Inclusion % 0.75 0.69 0.71 0.85 0.82 0.83 0.82 0.80 0.77 Nagelkerke R Square Block1: Practices 0.062 0.049 0.244 0.048 0.124 0.115 0.199 0.052 0.189 Nagelkerke R Square Block2: changes 0.058 0.056 0.127 0.218 0.052 0.221
Bold p< 05 RME= Rolling Mean Employment