organization contribute to superior organizational performance in terms of meas-
ures such as labor productivity and turnover (Huselid 1995 ). Thus, if we wish to
assess the strength of LPT as a means to interrogate key claims of HRM, we should
look to existing empirical studies and ask what they tell us about these claims.
Most labor process literature in this area has sought to assess the impact of work
organization, and particularly work teams, on employees utilizing qualitative data
(see for example: Danford 1998 ; Parker and Slaughter 1995 ; Sewell 1998 ). Detailed
case studies that access employee voice have tended to emphasize the ‘dark side of
Xexibility’ and added ‘mean’ to lean production. In particular, this research
indicates that new forms of work organization not only fail to enhance employee
discretion, but lead to enhanced, though modiWed managerial control through
peer- and self-monitoring, thereby contributing to work intensiWcation (e.g.
Findlay et al. 2000 ). As we have discussed this body of research in the previous
section, albeit brieXy, we will not dwell on it here (see also Thompson and News-
ome 2004 for more detail). However, implicitly or explicitly, most of these studies
assume that new forms of work organization do indeed lead to performance gains,
albeit through negative impacts on employees.
If LPT has questioned the assumptions of a new ‘high road’ in the workplace
through qualitative studies, there is broader support for a skeptical view. The
evidence concerning the diVusion of participative work practices is limited and
fragmentary, but it is possible to piece together evidence and assess their preva-
lence. In the United States, a number of nationally based studies have reported
substantial take-up of such practices (Appelbaum et al. 2000 : 11 ; Osterman 2000 ).
Analysis of data from the British 1998 Workplace Employee Relations Survey
(WERS 98 ) shows that use of individual practices is widespread, but varies consid-
erably across industry (Harley et al. 1999 ). Geary’s ( 1999 ) research in Ireland shows
a high take-up of teamwork. Edwards et al. review the evidence in France, Italy,
Germany, and Sweden and report that the level of participative work practices is
signiWcant, limitations of the data notwithstanding ( 2002 : 88 – 92 ). Evidence from
the 1995 Australian Workplace Industrial Relations Survey suggests that participa-
tive practices tend to be taken up unevenly across workplaces, industries, and
sectors (Harley et al. 1999 ). It is clear that Taylorist or neo-Taylorist approaches
to work remain widespread and that new forms of work organization have not
necessarily displaced traditional approaches. Just as there has been hybridization of
control strategies, there may well have been hybridization in work organization.
Given the volume of evidence it seems diYcult to dispute the proposition that
new forms of work organization are associated with superior performance (see for
example Appelbaum et al. 2000 ). Indeed, one of the few British studies which
explicitly adopts a LPT perspective found such positive associations (Ramsay et al.
2000 ). As we indicated above, the central concern of LPT is notwhethersuch
associations exist. Rather, the concern of LPT is primarily withwhy, and it is here
that LPT and HRM part company in theoretical terms.
hrm: labor process perspectives 155