The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Reflections on the “High Performance” Paradigm's Implications for Industrial Relations as a Field
Abstract
Over the past decade, several leading U.S. scholars have advanced a new industrial relations paradigm, according to which “high performance” work and human resource management (HRM) practices have replaced unions and collective bargaining as the innovative force in industrial relations. Although this model fundamentally challenges the traditional focus of the field of industrial relations in the United States, research on it has centered on the diffusion and performance effects of HRM innovations, with surprisingly little systematic reflection on either the underlying tenets of the new paradigm or its implications for the future of the field. Drawing on work of British and U.S. scholars, the authors identify critical aspects of the literature on this subject that deserve careful scrutiny, and suggest several criteria (such as industrial democracy) that need to be used in addition to measures of firm performance in evaluating the new paradigm.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
HUSELID, M. A. (1995) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256741 · Cited by 9,342
Tightening the Iron Cage: Concertive Control in Self-Managing Teams
Barker, J. R. (1993) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393374 · Cited by 2,305
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS[1]
Guest, D. E. (1987) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.1987.tb00460.x · Cited by 1,353
Cited by
Kaufman, B. E. (2010) · ILR Review · doi:10.1177/001979391006400104 · Cited by 122
Metadata
- Authors
- Godard, J., & Delaney, J. T.
- Venue
- ILR Review
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2000-04
- Volume
- 53
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 482-502
- ISSN
- 0019-7939 (ISSN-L)
- 2162-271X
- OpenAlex
- W2120407982
- Cited by
- 294
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 55.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.