IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eme/ijppmp/v58y2009i8p727-747.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The UK productivity gap in the service sector: do management practices matter?

Author

Listed:
  • Giuliana Battisti
  • Alfonsina Iona

Abstract

Purpose - This paper aims to contribute to the debate on the drivers of the productivity gap that exists between the UK and its major international competitors. Design/methodology/approach - From the macro perspective the paper explores the quantitative evidence on the productivity differentials and how they are measured. From the micro perspective, the article explores the quantitative evidence on the role of management practices claimed to be a key determinant in promoting firm competitiveness and in bridging the UK gap. Findings - This study suggests that management practices are an ambiguous driver of firm productivity and higher firm performance. On the methodological side, qualitative and subjective measures of either management practices or firm performance are often used. This makes the results not comparable across studies, across firms or even within firms over time. Productivity and profitability are often and erroneously interchangeably used while productivity is only one element of firm performance. On the other hand, management practices are multi‐dimensional constructs that generally do not demonstrate a straightforward relationship with productivity variables. To assume that they are the only driver of higher productivity may be misleading. Moreover, there is evidence of an inverse causal relationship between management practices and firm performance. This calls into question most empirical results of the extant literature based on the unidirectional assumption of direct causality between management practices and firm performance. Research limitations/implications - These and other issues suggest that more research is needed to deepen the understanding of the UK productivity gap and more quantitative evidence should be provided on the way in which management practices contribute to the UK competitiveness. Their impact is not easily measurable due to their complexity and their complementary nature and this is a fertile ground for further research. Originality/value - This paper brings together the evidence on the UK productivity gap and its main drivers, provided by the economics, management and performance measurement literature. This issue scores very highly in the agenda of policy makers and academics and has important implications for practitioners interested in evaluating the impact of managerial best practices.

Suggested Citation

  • Giuliana Battisti & Alfonsina Iona, 2009. "The UK productivity gap in the service sector: do management practices matter?," International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 58(8), pages 727-747, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:eme:ijppmp:v:58:y:2009:i:8:p:727-747
    DOI: 10.1108/17410400911000381
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/17410400911000381/full/html?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/17410400911000381/full/pdf?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1108/17410400911000381?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jun Du & Yama Temouri, 2015. "High-growth firms and productivity: evidence from the United Kingdom," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 123-143, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eme:ijppmp:v:58:y:2009:i:8:p:727-747. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.