HRM is a continuously changing practice – not only in the firm, but also in inter-organisational relations between firms or between firms and (self-employed) individuals. As a consequence, we experience a massive change in practices of HRM, in the respective constellations of actors in HRM and employment relations. A growing digitalisation of (multinational) firms as well as their business relationships, new business models based on digital technologies (e.g., crowdwork) leading to a “Gig economy” and the use of artificial intelligence impacts on the quality of work, HRM practices and employment relations.
Ivana Pais, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Milan
One consequence of the platform economy is the spread of ‘slash’ workers (someone who is an X/Y/Z), who often lack an adequate level of social protection. In this paper, we present first results from the SWIRL project (Slash Workers and Industrial ReLations), which investigates existing regulatory models and aims to develop new prototypes of industrial relations.
Deliveroo riders in Belgium and the SMart arrangement
Jan Drahokoupil, European Trade Union Institute (ETUI)
This paper presents a case study of the food delivery platform, Deliveroo, in Belgium. Workers were employed by Deliveroo through an intermediary, SMart – an arrangement which terminated during the research. The case offers insights on the nature of platform work and platform workers, worker preferences, platform strategies, and the role of local regulations.
Ways into and ways out of platform work
Simon Joyce, University of Leeds
Mark Stuart, University of Leeds
Chris Forde, University of Leeds
This paper contributes towards understanding platform work in the wider context of working lives. We present first findings from ongoing research based on employment-biographical interviews with present and former platform workers, examining in particular circumstances and motivations for entering and for leaving platform work.
The effects of relevance of previous work and multiple memberships on advice network centrality and the moderating role of TMS
Sunwoo Lee, Korea University
» Full paper: ilera-2019-paper-280-Lee.pdf
As increasing the importance of knowledge and information as the resources of organizations, managing and controlling specific knowledge of the organization is one of the key factors to maintain competitive advantage. In particular, due to the increased complexity and specialization of tasks, the need of systems and management to utilize their knowledge effectively has been extensively emphasized. In the organization, the utilizing expertise within team projects through organizational learning, communication systems, and knowledge management encourages knowledge sharing, cooperation, and mutual learning among employees that stimulates the creation of novel ideas and knowledge. In addition, it contributes to organizational performances and innovation success. Therefore, organizations need to concentrate on understanding how their knowledge is shared and what the process is to make knowledge flow more effectively, particularly in the team, which is formed to conduct their strategy in the short run and long run (Alavi & Leidner, 2001; Okhuysen & Eisenhardt, 2002).
Utilizing expertise and knowledge has been explained by network perspective among individuals, business units and organizations because a wide variety of individuals’ networks lead to knowledge transfer and provide opportunities for all members to learn and collaborate with other colleagues (Tsai & Ghoshal, 1998). For instances, the knowledge networks of individuals as the sources of social capital have positive effects on individual promotion and organizational innovation and effectiveness (e.g., Brass, Galaskiewicz, Greve, & Tsai, 2004; Burt, 1997; Coleman, 1988; Dess & Shaw, 2001; Seibert, Kraimer, & Liden, 2001). Therefore, to integrate and utilize members’ expertise through the process of asking for advice, the team members have to know who has the valuable knowledge and information. However, in the prior studies with the team network, it has been focused on the effects of a structural feature of the given network on performance and the relationship between the position within this network and performance such as the closure network and structural holes (Coleman, 1988; Burt, 1997; Leana & Van Buren, 1999). Although the forming individual’s network is the behavior and intention of an actor to share knowledge and ask for information from a specific alters in a workplace, there is a lack of studies on how the network is built by actors and which predictors influence the forming ties of actors (Mehra, Kilduff, & Brass, 2001). Some researchers also proposed the limitation that it has a tendency to more concentrate on studying a network’s structural characteristics to predict performance rather than asking how individuals generate networks in organizations (Monge and Contractor, 2001).
In this paper, we describe the utilizing knowledge and information in project team with the view of the advice network and focus on the advice network centrality by examining when and why a member turns to others for seeking advice. The advice network define as the relationship with team members or organization members which is determined by the flow of expertise, knowledge, and information, in addition, the centrality of advice network is the degree of helping other team members and taking part in sharing knowledge (Sparrowe, Liden, Wayne, & Kraimer, 2001). Individuals who lie in this centrality tend to more share their knowledge than the other. In other words, the higher degree of his/her centrality signifies that other team members ask much more sharing his/her information and know-how in project teams.
First, a member’s relevance of previous work is related with advice network centrality. A member may consider quality of expertise that they receive when they seek advice from others (Nebus, 2006), and thus, the member will approach to other members who are perceived as experts. In addition, high status members (e.g., multiple memberships) are more likely to be in central positions in advice network. Expectation states theory suggest that people tend to infer ability of others from social characteristics, such that they expect high performance from high status members and defer their view to the high status members (Bunderson, 2003). Further, we present a contingency model in which the effects of expertise level and social status depend on the team context (e.g., transactive memory system; TMS). Transactive memory system is defined as shared mental model of knowing who knows what among team members (Wegner, 1987). Under the high level of TMS, expertise will become a more salient and accessible cue to team members, and as a result, they will be more attentive to the expert members. Yet, the low level of TMS may cause disagreement about who knows what and suffer identifying expert members in teams. This leads non expertise related cues to be more noticeable factor for members seeking advice. Therefore we propose the following hypotheses with the theoretical model.
Using multi-wave survey data from 26 project teams with 95 members, we analyze our theoretical model with hierarchical linear modeling (random intercept and random slop). The results show that a member’s relevance of previous work (Hypothesis 1) and the multiple memberships (Hypothesis 2) are positively associated with advice network centrality. Therefore, hypothesis 1 and 2 are supported. For testing for the moderator hypotheses, however, the hypothesis 3 and 4 are not supported. We could not found that the relationship the multiple membership and advice network centrality is weakened when TMS is high. Finally, in this paper, we discuss implications of these finding for research and practice.
A strategy-as-practise-perspective
This presentation has been cancelled.
Andrea Signoretti, University of Trento
Silvia Sacchetti, University of Trento
Lean production is seen to improve company’s competitiveness, while the managerial view over people’s deployment can differ. The strategic goals underlying lean application lead managers to emphasize two potential contrasting approaches in the management of the workforce: one centered on work intensity (cost reduction), the other on employee skills and involvement (quality goals). In the latter situation, further to lean technical sub-systems (just-in-time, quality management and total preventive maintenance), workers play a new role compared to taylor-fordist firms through the adoption of a bundle of integrated and complementary organizational and human resource management (HRM) practices (Kochan et al., 1997). Despite evidence indicates that inclusive organizational and HRM practices lead to mutual and collective benefits, their application is often partial. Several authors have highlighted that the limited or missing implementation of the soft practices of lean production is linked to profit pressures, and therefore to the focus on cost reduction as a strategic goal for lean implementation. When such pressures become high, managers and firms tend to privilege the coercive aspects of lean production by applying its technical sub-systems limiting or neglecting employee skill development and participation (Adler, 2012).
Lean production – as a concept and as a practice – has arisen in the context of conventional for-profit firms, being often affected by profit pressures as the main organisational objective. We argue that in Work Integration Social Enterprises (WISE) lean production can strategically privilege quality goals while continuing to pay attention to costs and efficiency. We focus on commercial WISE, in particular, where production organisation assumes central stage whereby representing an appropriate context for the application of lean production. These organizations, differently from conventional companies, are as a norm managed by workers and expected to design production around the special needs of weak categories and to be governed in participatory way (in the European context) because of their social mission. At the same time, efficiency has always been important in WISE. Differently from charities and foundations, they are run with entrepreneurial spirit, meaning that they value innovation, bear the economic risk of the activity, and strive for autonomy from public funding (Sacchetti and Borzaga, 2017). Given these WISE characteristics, lean production sub-systems and particularly the one related to human capital development can be appropriate for these organizations. On the one hand, lean production principles and practices can increase WISE efficiency assuring them higher competitiveness for their market-oriented production. On the other hand, the main goal of WISE remains related to the social dimension consisting of rehabilitating people with difficulties through participatory governance systems. The first research question thus consists of exploring if these theoretical reflections over quality-based lean production applications and WISE finds confirmation in the reality of these organizations.
Second, if lean production seems to fit WISE multiple goals from the conceptual viewpoint, it has to be seen how the sub-systems and practices shaping the model are possibly applied particularly in the organizational and HRM field. It is needed to understand what content the organizational and HRM practices characterizing lean production assume especially in the case of worker cooperatives that have the explicit social goal to include vulnerable people. What are the characteristics and functions these practices assume in WISE? This is the second research question that our study intends to explore.
The two research questions are inquired using an exploratory approach constituted by case-studies enriched by interviews with experts/practitioners. The methodology is suitable to our analysis where the aim is not to generalise conclusions, but to identify a new area of research and open questions supported by initial field-based exploratory research (Eishenhardt, 1989). The research design was conducted between 2015 and 2018. Three WISE have been purposively selected, following a logic of literal replication, as satisfying the concepts and dimensions under inquiry. This means that they had to apply lean production. We interviewed managers involved in lean production implementation at different levels for a total of around 20 interviews. Then, we interviewed two experts/practitioners.
Our initial exploratory findings suggest that lean production is increasingly drawing attention among commercial WISE to reinforce their efficiency, which represents the pre-condition to achieve their main goal of enhancing worker welfare and integrating people with difficulties into work (Battilana et al,. 2015). At the same time, the necessary social goals (i.e. the work-integration of disadvantaged people), may work as a barrier against making efficiency the absolute goal, and so it prevents isomorphism risks. Lean production allows to improve parameters of productivity, but first serves to settle work integration needs manifested by workers with difficulties, assuring their training (supplied by connected training WISE), involvement and motivation. Thus, the theoretical reflections over the possibility that quality-based lean production applications would result particularly suitable for WISE are proved valid by this exploratory research.
Second, the analysed technical, organizational and HRM systems implemented with particular reference to disadvantaged workers are reflected in these characteristics. Thereon, they assume peculiar characteristics and functions compared to for-profit firms. We can denote some ‘plasticity’ in some of these practices (an expression coined by Baccaro and Howell, 2017, for institutions), which means that they can be used by firms in the same form but with different characteristics to pursue rather different functions leading to different outcomes. However, areas of improvement are also found particularly in terms of disadvantaged people’s direct participation.
David Öborn Regin, Karlstad University
In this paper, I want to discuss how an increased use of digital systems and management tools could be seen as changing social relations and loyalty bonds within organizations. The starting point is the changed role and function of administration within public organizations. The paper is based on a theoretical framework of loyalty and social interaction, and empirical material from an ongoing research project partially focusing on the role of administration in public organizations.
One could argue that the social interactions and relations in organizations are undergoing a major change as more of the governing and communication goes via digital systems as tools for planning, evaluation and control. It has placed the person exercising the managerial power further away from the subject of that power, and in doing so, hiding it. Administrative system has ”been developed, managed and implemented by designers, technicians and public administrators, who are invisible in the moment of interacting with the system” (Haraldsson & Lilja, 2017, p. 167). An intermediary of anonymity and distance through the digital systems has replaced the direct interpersonal social relationship.
Use of digital systems have also in other ways changed the social dynamic within organizations as information gathered in administrative systems replaces individual contacts and local knowledge (Bruhn 2015). That reduces the need for social interaction and the importance of silent skills and bonding. The social bonds in organizations could perhaps be seen as partially replaced by digital connections and interfaces. A pre-study indicates that the specialization in administration, and the increased amount on “every-day administration” places on the professions has increased a fragmentation of work and reduced the experience of a common task and social environment.
One can argue that loyalty, and the idea of common interests is a crucial part of building collective agency. In theories of loyalty the aspect of closeness, in task and geography, and the time spent together on a common task are central to create and uphold bonds of loyalty. The increased use of digital administrative and managerial systems could in one way be seen as reducing the ground for local loyalties based on physical closeness. On the other hand, it could be seen as opening up new avenues to loyal relations between different parts and agents within organizations.
In a study of public administration in Sweden, Forssell & Westerberg (2014) outlines the development of changes in that sector and describes a process of both amateurisation and professionalization. The everyday administration are placed on the “professions” and a new kind of specialized administrative units grows larger, closed connected to the organizational management. The new administrators do not have their loyalty towards core business but against the administrative objectives and control systems " (Forssell & Westerberg, 2014, p. 238). These changes affect power relations between groups within (and between) organizations. There has been an overall change in, for example, Human service organizations, from nursing logic to market logic that effects the social positions within the hierarchy, and what is perceived as the core functions - old professions are challenged by new (Hasenfeld, 2009).
I have two starting points – (1) the change of social interaction as an effect of digital administrative systems and (2) the changes in the division of labour, and perhaps status, related to administration in organizations. I am interested in see how that changes the informal relations and expectations in the work place, and the possibility to formulate common stands. In my paper, I would like to explore the idea that a concept of loyalty as a guide for social action could be a possible way to explore changes in the social dynamics within organizations by looking at organizations (and its surroundings) as a field of competing loyalty claims.
What I am interested in is whether it would be useful to see behaviors in organizational changes, changing professional roles, formal tasks and informal expectations of roles and people based on a weave of loyalty relationships and loyalty requirements, and how those are affected by new digital bindings.
Anna Conrad, Ruhr University Bochum
Manfred Wannöffel, Ruhr University Bochum
Digitalisation, Industry 4.0, The Internet of Things, artificial intelligence, new technologies – even though these buzzwords already define parts of the working world, they will gain even more importance in the future. They offer new chances for lifelong learning, work-life balance, handling the demographic change, ergonomic design, or the development of new professions. However, they also constitute challenges in terms of job security, replacement of human actors or the role of workers’ representatives such as trade unions and works councils. They affect Human Resource Management in general because these changes of technologies are likely to result in changed employment and business models. All in all, new methods of qualification are required to fill the gaps in knowledge and competencies that inevitably open up when new technologies are introduced at such a fast rate as we experience it today.
Traditional concepts of vocational and further educations profit from adding modular trainings which provide practical experience as well as theoretical knowledge about different, urgent matters appearing in the context of changing working worlds. Learning factories are relatively new learning environments that can offer this mixture of practical and theoretical examination. Learning factories have been built in industry and academia and were set up in many variations aiming to improve the learning experience in several areas of applications. They figure a model of a real factory and include education, research and innovation.
Even though they originally centre on more technological topics such as production, lean management or robotics, some learning factories with a different focus have been established. One unique example is the LPS Learning Factory of the Ruhr-University Bochum (RUB). It uses a socio-technical approach (technology – organisation – personnel), placing the human actor and workers´ participation in the centre of considerations. In an interdisciplinary cooperation between two institutions of the Ruhr-University Bochum different fields such as participation, co-determination, assistance systems, quality of work, or human-robot-collaboration can be addressed from different perspectives. More specifically, the Office of Cooperation Ruhr-University Bochum/IG Metall contributes topics of Industrial Relations and the Chair of Production Systems (Faculty of Mechanical Engineering) covers the more technological questions. Via problem based and action orientated learning approaches participants are confronted with complex professional situations and can gain experience in a shielded area about the possible consequences their actions and reactions can have.
This paper will explain what defines learning factories in general, but it will also present the huge variety of learning factories and the benefits of the particular RUB learning factory. It will deal with the different target groups that can be trained in this special learning environment, such as works councils, bachelor, master or PhD students, managers, trade unionists, teachers or high school students. Two examples of interdisciplinary teaching programmes will be presented; one is addressed at master students of social sciences and mechanical engineering, the other at works councils and trade unionists coming from the IG Metall project “Work and Innovation”, which took place at the RUB-learning factory between 2016 and 2019.
The paper will try to answer the question what learning factories can contribute to the ever-changing practice of Human Resource Management, especially in this complex and rapidly developing world of technologies, in a way that the human actors, workers´ participation and co-determination remain at the centre of action.
Keywords: learning factories, qualification, further education, co-determination, human resource management
References:
A literature review from a personnel economics and psychology perspective
Paul Hemsen, Paderborn University
Julian Schulte, Bielefeld University
Katharina Schlicher, Bielefeld University
Crowdsourcing describes a type of participative online activity in which an organization proposes a task to a group of individuals via a flexible open call (Estellés-Arolas & González-Ladrón-de-Guevara, 2012).
This study focuses on a literature review of crowdsourcing platforms especially for paid work on so-called “crowdworking platforms”. The main contributions are the overview of empirical studies on the subject from a personnel economics and psychological perspective and the development of a comprehensive Input-Process-Output Model (IPO-Model) from the workers’ perspective. In the remainder of this abstract, we will discuss the focus, theoretical background and design of our systematic review.
Research on crowd work is heterogeneous in nature and driven by multiple disciplines. Not surprisingly, researchers have already conducted literature reviews (e.g. Chittilappilly, Chen, & Amer-Yahia, 2016; Ghezzi, Gabelloni, Martini, & Natalicchio, 2017; Kittur et al., 2013; Zhao & Zhu, 2014). However, these focus broadly of the crowdsourcing concept, thereby not differentiating whether it is a digital gainful work or an unpaid voluntary participation. Such reviews usually study what crowdsourcing is, how it is different from similar or related concepts, and how crowdsourcing works (conceptualization focus) (Zhao & Zhu, 2014). They also discuss how crowdsourcing is applied in different situations and for different purposes.
This review contributes to the previous literature by evaluating existing research systematically and describing empirical connections between constructs by grouping similar research into clusters. In contrast to past research which approaches crowdsourcing holistically, we focus specifically on crowd work, i.e. crowd sourcing in which contributors are paid and enter a particular employment relationship with the platform. We are particularly interested in outcomes of this relationship for the individual crowd worker.
Since crowdworking has important similarities to other types of work both typical (e.g. permanent and temporary employment) and atypical (e.g. teleworking, freelancing, self-employment), extant research in personnel economics and personnel psychology can be used to shed light on the factors that might influence crowdworking initiatives.
We reviewed 91 empirical articles, systematically codified these studies and developed an IPO-Model from a personnel economics and psychological perspective. IPO-Models are widely used in sciences for describing processes in system analysis and mechanisms of action in research.
Studies were identified by applying a number of search terms: crowd work*, crowdwork*, crowd sourc*, crowdsource*, platform economy, gig economy or crowd employment. The most important databases for both psychology and economics were searched, namely PsycINFO, EconLit and Business Source Complete. Due to a high number of hits, the search was narrowed down to empirical studies. Additionally, we applied a backward and forward search strategy on the references of key articles. This search resulted in 1173 primary studies overall. We selected relevant primary studies by applying three selection criteria. The studies had to (1) report research on the construct of crowdworking, (2) show an emphasis on personnel economic and psychological research questions, (3) and collect empirical data.
As a result, 91 studies remained and were systematically codified by publication data; information about sample, crowdworking platform, research design, methodology and findings. An iterative bottom-up approach then aggregated these codified variables into clusters based on similarity and content-related proximity. The clusters are divided into the three stages of the IPO-model, namely input, process and output.
The input variables were grouped into seven clusters: monetary incentives; nonmonetary incentives; task design; market-related variables; workers’ qualification/profile; workers’ traits/characteristics; individual working history on the platform. The input variables were modeled in primary studies to explain the variations of specific process- or output variables.
The output variables were grouped into six clusters: job satisfaction, worker commitment towards the platform, participation in crowd work, qualitative performance, quantitative performance and employability of the crowd worker.
Involved process variables which potentially moderate or mediate the relationship between input and output variables were grouped into six clusters: workers’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivation; workers’ affect; workers' perceived competence; invested effort for task completion; workers’ trust towards the platform and workers’ perceived fairness of the processes on crowdworking platforms.
Further analyses of the literature expand the IPO-Model by information about statistically significant and non-significant relations. Hence, our review shows how often a research question has been addressed and which statistical effects evolved in the studies.
Overall, our review provides a roadmap for future research on the topic of crowd work as digital gainful work. We identify and quantify the state of the art in current research of personal economics and psychology on the topic of crowd work. Our review has important implications on how to enhance factors that are critical to worker and platforms alike, such as attraction, motivation and commitment of self-employed workers on crowdworking platforms.
Myriam Baum, Federal Institute for Vocational Education and Training (BIBB)
