Arthur 1994
Arthur 1994
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Academy
of Management Journal.
http://www.jstor.org
JEFFREY B. ARTHUR
Purdue University
I would like to thank Steven G. Green, Margaret L. Williams, Michael A. Campion, Chris J.
Berger, Harry C. Katz, and three anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on previous drafts
of this article.
670
1 Minimills are relatively small steel-producing facilities in which metal scrap is melted in
electric furnaces and continuously cast into a variety of shapes and grades of steel. Detailed
discussion of minimills can be found in Barnett and Crandall (1986) and Hogan (1987).
1986; Walton, 1985), I have labeled those systems "control" and "commit-
ment" in this study.
Control and commitment represent two distinct approaches to shaping
employee behaviors and attitudes at work. The goal of control human re-
source systems is to reduce direct labor costs, or improve efficiency, by
enforcing employee compliance with specified rules and procedures and
basing employee rewards on some measurable output criteria (Eisenhardt,
1985; Walton, 1985). In contrast, commitment human resource systems
shape desired employee behaviors and attitudes by forging psychological
links between organizational and employee goals. In other words, the focus
is on developing committed employees who can be trusted to use their
discretion to carry out job tasks in ways that are consistent with organiza-
tional goals (e.g., Organ, 1988).
The control and commitment approaches to human resource manage-
ment are expected to be represented by different sets of programs and prac-
tices. In my previous research (Arthur, 1992) I found that in general, com-
mitment human resource systems were characterized by higher levels of
employee involvement in managerial decisions, formal participation pro-
grams, training in group problem solving, and socializing activities and by
higher percentages of maintenance, or skilled, employees and average wage
rates. The present study's methods section presents further details of these
system patterns.
The existence of the control and commitment variations in organiza-
tions is generally thought to be associated with certain organizational con-
ditions. Most human resource strategy researchers have taken a behavioral
perspective (cf. Snell, 1992). Research using this perspective rests on the
often implicit assumption that the successful implementation of a business
strategy requires a unique set of employee behaviors and attitudes and that
a unique set of human resource policies and practices will elicit those be-
haviors and attitudes (Cappelli & Singh, 1992). Alternatively, control theory
researchers (e.g., Eisenhardt, 1985; Ouchi, 1979; Snell, 1992) have noted that
the use of a control system depends on managers having a relatively com-
plete knowledge of the transformation process (inputs to outputs) and a high
ability to effectively set performance standards and measure employee out-
puts. These conditions enable employers to directly monitor and reward
employee behavior or the specific outcomes of that behavior. In the absence
of these conditions, an input, or clan, system is predicted, in which selec-
tion, training, and socialization policies that try to align employee interests
with those of the firm are emphasized (Eisenhardt, 1985).
Hypotheses
Human resource systems and manufacturing performance. Although
the above theoretical approaches suggest a contingency view of human re-
source system effectiveness, there are a number of reasons to believe that a
smoothly functioning commitment human resource system will be associ-
ated with higher organizational performance than will a control system, the
source policies and practices. As noted above, the driving force behind a
control system is to reduce direct labor costs. This goal is expected to be
manifested in the use of relatively simple, well-defined job tasks. Because
employees with a minimum amount of training and experience can perform
such tasks, wages and the costs of employee search, selection, and training
can also be minimized. Under these conditions, the costs of employee turn-
over to a firm are expected to be relatively low, so employers have very little
incentive to try to minimize turnover through human resource policies and
policies designed to increase employee commitment or attachment. In fact,
employee commitment might be considered dysfunctional since compensa-
tion is generally higher for senior employees than for similarly qualified new
employees.
Hypothesis 2: Turnover will be higher in control human
resource systems than in commitment human resource
systems.
Turnover and manufacturing performance. Since the late 1970s, re-
search on the consequences of employee turnover has generally compared
the cost and performance of individuals who leave an organization with
those of (1) their replacements, (2) those who stay with the organization, or
(3) both (e.g., Boudreau & Berger, 1985; Hollenbeck & Williams, 1986). A
potential limitation of this approach is that the effect of organizational con-
text is largely ignored. In other words, the departure of an individual with a
given level of assessed performance is assumed to have the same effect on
organizational performance across organizations.
In contrast, the human resource strategy perspective suggests that the
effect of turnover level on organizational performance depends critically on
the nature of the context or system in which the turnover occurs (cf. Miller
& Friesen, 1984). System characteristics can be seen as affecting the perfor-
mance impact of a number of the predicted consequences of turnover, such
as disruption of social and communication structures, training and assimi-
lation costs, and decreased cohesion and commitment of members who stay
(Dalton & Todor, 1979; Mobley, 1982; Staw, 1980). For example, the fact that
the jobs in organizations with commitment systems often require high train-
ing and skill levels suggests a stronger relationship between organizational
tenure and performance than exists in control systems. Individuals in such
jobs will take longer to reach top performance than individuals in the sim-
pler jobs of control systems (Campion, 1989).
In addition, because production employees in commitment systems take
on more managerial-level decision-making tasks, their organizational cen-
trality, and hence the potential for their departure to disrupt organizational
functioning, is expected to be greater than the disruptive potential of the
typical employee in a control human resource system who does not have
these vertical task responsibilities.
Hypothesis 3: There will be a stronger negative relation-
ship between turnover level and manufacturing perfor-
METHODS
The data used for this study come primarily from questionnaire re-
sponses by human resource managers at 30 of the 54 existing U.S. steel
minimills. Data were gathered between November 1988 and March 1989.
The average age, size, geographic region represented, and union status of the
mills surveyed are not statistically different from those of the total minimill
population (Arthur, 1992).
The modal minimill firm is an independent, privately held U.S. firm
that owns one minimill. There are, however, a growing number of larger
domestic (and some foreign) companies that own multiple plants (Hogan,
1987). Because of the possibility that a manager's scope of responsibility
might span several mill locations, managers were specifically instructed to
direct their comments only to the mill location to which the questionnaire
was addressed. In addition, a different set of managers provided data for
each mill so that in no case were data from more than one mill collected from
a single manager.2
Measures
Minimill human resource systems. In Arthur (1992), I used the minimill
questionnaire data to construct ten variables measuring various aspects of
mills' workplace human resource systems. Table 1 defines these variables,
which I standardized and submitted to a cluster analysis using Ward's
method in order to empirically identify the minimill human resource sys-
tems. This procedure yielded a six-cluster solution based in part on an
analysis of the change in the fusion coefficient, defined as the error sums of
square for this procedure (Arthur, 1992: 504).
Theoretical considerations, such as a desire to test for differences be-
tween two dominant human resource systems, and sample size limitations
(degrees of freedom were not available to include all six clusters in the
analysis) required some additional data aggregation. I accomplished this by
categorizing the patterns of cluster scores into control and commitment sys-
tems. As reported in my previous study, this judgment was informed by
descriptions of alternate forms of control and commitment human resource
systems found in the relevant literature as well as by detailed primary and
secondary case descriptions of the mills.
Conceptually, this method of data aggregation is consistent with the
2
Some recent studies have found that different human resource practices may be applied
to different occupational and functional groups within firms (ackson et al., 1989; Snell & Dean,
1992). Because this study only focused on the maintenance and production workers in min-
imills, I could not assess the possibility that different sets of human resource activities were
applied to other functional and occupational groups in the organizations.
TABLE 1
Description of Human Resource Variables and Comparison of Means for Control a
-_ . r ..u . . .. -. ...t
w ',,I -:,' -:- . ...I. qi ......-......-. . . ... .-.- .. I X,:,
A . . I..-..-
Variables Contr
Name Description Means
Decentralization Degree to which nonsupervisory employees monitor data on quality, costs, 2.42
productivity, and scrap; determine work flow or order of tasks; invest in
new equipment and technology; develop new products (1 = very little, 6
= very much)
Participation Percentage of mill employees who received training in group problem 36.57
solving, meet on a regular basis in small groups to discuss production or
quality problems, or are involved in joint union-management or
employee-management committees
General training Part of general training and development activities for production and 1.92
maintenance employees accounted for by seminars, classes, training not
directly related to employees' immediate work area; general skills training not
directly related to the employee's current job; or people skills training such
as communication or group problem solving (1 = no part, 6 = large part)
Skill Number of maintenance and craft workers as a percentage of all mill employees 0.14
Supervisor Number of production workers per supervisor 7.05
Social Number of times per year management organizes social gatherings for 3.94
employees, such as company picnics and bowling
Due process Percentage of total employee complaints or grievances that are handled 20.56
through formal grievance procedures involving several steps, up to and
including binding third-party arbitration
Wages Average total employment cost per production and maintenance worker, 18.07
including wage rate, benefits, bonus or incentive payments, and taxes
Benefits Percentage of total average employment cost accounted for by employee 27.31
benefits
Bonus Percentage of total average employment cost accounted for by bonus or 29.96
incentive payments
Percentage unionized 38
a N = 16, control; N = 14, commitment.
b One-tailed
tests; approximation t-test for unequal sample variances were used when indicated by a sig
* p < .05
**p < .01
3 Two studies, however, have reported performance levels for minimills measured at the
industry level very similar to those found in this study and thus provide some support for the
validity and reliability of the performance measures. The average productivity rate of 2.35 labor
hours per ton in this study compares favorably with the average of approximately 2.00 labor
hours per ton found in Hogan's (1987) survey of U.S. minimill firms. A U.S. Department of
Commerce study also supports the validity of the average scrap rate of 18 percent found in this
study, reporting an 80 percent "yield of raw steel to finished product" (a 20 percent scrap rate)
in U.S. minimills (International Trade Administration, 1986: 12). However, given the lack of
independently reported plant-level performance data with which to assess the reliability and
validity of the performance measures over a specified period of time, readers may want to
exercise some caution in interpreting these results.
and classifications are presented in Table 2. The strategy and union variables
were coded as dichotomous variables, with 1 equaling the presence of a
union and a differentiation business strategy, respectively.
Table 3 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations for all
the dependent and independent variables in the study.
RESULTS
Missing data reduced the number of usable observations by three in the labor hours
4
equationand by six in the scraprateequation.The mills with missing datawere not statistically
different from the rest of those studied in age, size, or union status.
TABLE 4
Results of Regression Analysis, Systems on Performance
Labor Hours Scrap Rate
Variables b s.e. b s.e.
Constant 1.46*** 0.28 0.12* 0.05
Age 2.23** 0.67 -0.24* 0.11
Size 0.08 0.06 0.02 0.01
Unionization 0.27 0.32 0.08 0.05
Business strategy 0.17 0.33 0.03 0.05
Human resource system -0.79* 0.36 -0.14* 0.06
R2 0.65 0.42
df 5,21 5,18
F 6.25** 1.85
p < .05
**p < .01
***p< .001
DISCUSSION
The regression results in this study indicate that the human resource
system taxonomy developed in my previous research (Arthur, 1992) was
significantly associated with variation in steel minimills' performance. More
specifically, these results support observations made by Walton (1985) and
TABLE 5
Results of Regression Analysis, Turnover and Human Resource Systems
on Performance
Labor Hours Scrap Rate
Restricted Model Full Model Restricted Model Full Model
Variables b s.e. b s.e. b s.e. b s.e.
Constant 2.34*** 0.36 2.56*** 0.31 1.13*** 0.05 1.16*** 0.05
Unionization 0.95* 0.36 0.74* 0.33 0.08 0.05 0.06 0.05
Turnover 1.74 3.06 -0.90 2.90 0.24 0.43 -0.08 0.41
Human resource
system -0.28 0.38 -1.18* 0.48 -0.01 0.06 -0.14t 0.07
Turnover x system 25.22* 9.43 2.99* 1.30
R2 0.25 0.43 0.12 0.30
df 3,23 4,22 3,21 4,20
F 2.51t 4.17* 0.92 2.16
AR2 0.18 0.18
F 6.92*** 5.14**
tp < .10
*p < .05
** p < .01
***p < .001
TABLE 6
Comparisons of Partial Correlations
Control Commitment
Variables r N r N za
Laborhours -.046 16 .830** 11 1.95*
Scrap rate -.057 15 .900*** 10 2.01*
a One-tailed tests.
p < .05
** p < .01
**p < .001
nal evaluation of the evidence for the human resource strategy perspective
will need to await the accumulation of results from studies conducted in
multiple industry contexts.
In addition, although the findings of this study are consistent with a
conceptual model in which the choice of human resource system leads to
changes in manufacturing performance, the cross-sectional data used here
did not permit any tests of the causal ordering between effects of system and
performance. It is possible that better performing mills also have additional
resources that facilitate management's choosing commitment systems.
Further, research progress on the human resource strategy perspective
depends critically on the development of conceptually and methodologi-
cally sound measures of the human resource system construct. Although the
taxonomy used in this study shows some conceptual and predictive prom-
ise, much more work needs to be done concerning definition and measure-
ment of the dimensions of human resource systems. A key related issue is
the performance implications of mixed systems. A premise of this work is
that control and commitment represent conceptually distinct ideal systems
and that any deviation from the ideal types will weaken performance. Al-
ternatively, control and commitment can be conceptualized as the opposite
ends of a continuum of possible human resource systems and the most
effective system seen as existing somewhere between the two extremes.5
Empirical tests are needed to determine which conceptualization more ac-
curately describes the construct.
Other parts of the human resource strategy model are also in need of
empirical investigation. For example, because of sample size limitations, I
was unable in this study to test for the performance effects of the fit between
business strategy and human resource strategy. Finally, there is a need to
demonstrate that certain combinations of human resource programs, poli-
cies, and practices lead to specific employee attitudes, such as trust in man-
agement or organizational commitment, that in turn lead to specific em-
ployee behaviors beneficial to effectively implementing a given business
strategy. Exploring these intermediate links explicitly will undoubtedly lead
to further refinements and insights into the process by which combinations
of human resource activities can lead to competitive advantages for firms
(e.g., Cappelli & Singh, 1992).
Conclusions
In spite of its limitations, this research shows that a number of insights
can be gained through the use of a human resource strategy perspective and
methodology. By empirically testing whether certain combinations of activ-
ities are associated with higher manufacturing performance, this study pro-
vides one of the first pieces of empirical evidence with which to evaluate the
prescriptions in the human resource strategy literature. Many authors have
5 I would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for drawing my attention to this point.
called for such evidence (Dobbins et al., 1991; Fisher, 1989; Jackson et al.,
1989; Lengnick-Hall & Lengnick-Hall, 1988; Snell & Dean, 1992; Wright &
McMahan, 1992). In addition, the study has shown that identification of
human resource systems promises to add significantly to understanding the
relationship between turnover and organizational performance. Although
these results should be seen as preliminary because of data limitations, this
study provides future researchers with some empirical evidence supporting
a promising new perspective with which to study important human resource
and organizational outcomes.
REFERENCES
Aldenderfer, M. W., & Blashfield, R. K. 1984. Cluster analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Arnold, H. J. 1982. Moderator variables: A clarification of conceptual, analytical, and psycho-
metric issues. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 29: 143-174.
Arthur, J. B. 1992. The link between business strategy and industrial relations systems in Amer-
ican steel minimills. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 45: 488-506.
Barnett, D. F., & Crandall, R. W. 1986. Up from the ashes: The rise of the steel minimill in the
United States. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Boudreau, J. W., & Berger, C. J. 1985. Decision-theoretic utility analysis applied to employee
separations and acquisitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70: 581-612.
Butler, J. E., Ferris, G. R., & Napier, N. K. 1991. Strategy and human resources management.
Cincinnati: South-Western.
Campion, M. A. 1989. Ability requirement implications of job design: An interdisciplinary
perspective. Personnel Psychology, 42: 1-24.
Cappelli, P., & Singh, H. 1992. Integrating strategic human resources and strategic management.
In D. Lewin, O. S. Mitchell, & P. D. Sherer (Eds.), Research frontiers in industrial relations
and human resources: 165-192. Madison, WI: Industrial Relations Research Association.
Cooke, W. N. 1992. Product quality improvement through employee participation: The effects
of unionization and joint union-management administration. Industrial and Labor Rela-
tions Review, 46: 119-134.
Cotton, J. L., & Tuttle, J. M. 1986. Employee turnover: A meta-analysis and review with impli-
cations for research. Academy of Management Review, 11: 55-70.
Dalton, D. R., & Todor, W. D. 1979. Turnover turned over: An expanded and positive perspec-
tive. Academy of Management Review, 4: 225-235.
Dean, J. W., & Snell, S. A. 1991. Integrated manufacturing and job design: Moderating effects of
organizational inertia. Academy of Management Journal, 34: 776-804.
Dess, G. G., & Davis, P. S. 1984. Porter's (1980) generic strategies as determinants of strategic
group membership and organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal,
27: 467-488.
Dobbins, G. H., Cardy, R. L., & Carson, K. P. 1991. Examining fundamental assumptions: A
contrast of person and system approaches to human resource management. In K. Roland &
G. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management, vol. 9: 1-38.
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Dyer, L., & Holder, G. W. 1988. Toward a strategic perspective of human resource management.
In L. Dyer (Ed.), Human resource management: Evolving roles and responsibilities:
1-46. Washington, DC: Bureau of National Affairs.