IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/lan/wpaper/542602.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The impacts of human resource management practices and pay inequality on workers' job satisfaction

Author

Listed:
  • A I Petrescu
  • R Simmons
  • S Bradley

Abstract

In this paper we investigate the relationship between Human Resource Management (HRM) practices and workers' overall job satisfaction and their satisfaction with pay. To investigate these issues we use British data from the 'Changing Employment Relationships, Employment Contracts and the Future of Work Survey' and the 'Workplace Employment Relations Survey'. After controlling for personal, job and firm characteristics, it is shown that several HRM practices raise workers overall job satisfaction and their satisfaction with pay, but these effects are only significant for non-union members. Satisfaction with pay is higher where performance-related pay and seniority-based reward systems are in place. A pay structure that is perceived to be unequal is associated with a substantial reduction in both non-union members' overall job satisfaction and their satisfaction with pay. Although HRM practices can raise worker job satisfaction, if workplace pay inequality widens as a consequence then non-union members may experience reduced job satisfaction.

Suggested Citation

  • A I Petrescu & R Simmons & S Bradley, 2004. "The impacts of human resource management practices and pay inequality on workers' job satisfaction," Working Papers 542602, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
  • Handle: RePEc:lan:wpaper:542602
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/media/lancaster-university/content-assets/documents/lums/economics/working-papers/HumanResourceManagement.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alex Bryson & Lorenzo Cappellari & Claudio Lucifora, 2004. "Does Union Membership Really Reduce Job Satisfaction?," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 42(3), pages 439-459, September.
    2. Blanchflower, David G. & Oswald, Andrew J., 2004. "Well-being over time in Britain and the USA," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(7-8), pages 1359-1386, July.
    3. Saziye Gazioglu & Aysit Tansel, 2006. "Job satisfaction in Britain: individual and job related factors," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(10), pages 1163-1171.
    4. Fredrik Heyman, 2005. "Pay inequality and firm performance: evidence from matched employer-employee data," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(11), pages 1313-1327.
    5. Easterlin, Richard A, 2001. "Income and Happiness: Towards an Unified Theory," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 111(473), pages 465-484, July.
    6. Oswald, Andrew J, 1997. "Happiness and Economic Performance," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 107(445), pages 1815-1831, November.
    7. Canice Prendergast, 1999. "The Provision of Incentives in Firms," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 37(1), pages 7-63, March.
    8. Clark, Andrew E. & Oswald, Andrew J., 1996. "Satisfaction and comparison income," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 359-381, September.
    9. David Neumark & Peter Cappelli, 1999. "Do "High Performance" Work Practices Improve Establishment-Level Outcomes?," NBER Working Papers 7374, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Winter-Ebmer, Rudolf & Zweimuller, Josef, 1999. "Intra-Firm Wage Dispersion and Firm Performance," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(4), pages 555-572.
    11. Booth, Alison L & Frank, Jeff, 1999. "Earnings, Productivity, and Performance-Related Pay," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 17(3), pages 447-463, July.
    12. Edward P. Lazear, 2000. "Performance Pay and Productivity," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(5), pages 1346-1361, December.
    13. P. B. Beaumont & R. I. D. Harris, 2003. "Internal Wage Structures and Organizational Performance," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 41(1), pages 53-70, March.
    14. J Taylor & S Bradley & A N Nguyen, 2003. "Job autonomy and job satisfaction: new evidence," Working Papers 541528, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
    15. Boselie, J.P.P.E.F. & van der Wiele, A., 2001. "Employee Perceptions of HRM and TQM and the Effects on Satisfaction and INtention to Leave," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2001-42-ORG, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    16. John Addison & Stanley Siebert & Joachim Wagner & Xiangdong Wei, 2000. "Worker Participation and Firm Performance: Evidence from Germany and Britain," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 38(1), pages 7-48, March.
    17. George Baker & Robert Gibbons & Kevin J. Murphy, 1994. "Subjective Performance Measures in Optimal Incentive Contracts," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 109(4), pages 1125-1156.
    18. Batt, R. & Applebaum, E., 1995. "Worker Participation in Diverse Settings: Does the Form Affect the Outcome, and If So, Who Benefits?," Papers 95-06, Cornell - Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies.
    19. John T. Addison & Clive R. Belfield, 2001. "Updating the Determinants of Firm Performance: Estimation using the 1998 UK Workplace Employee Relations Survey," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 39(3), pages 341-366, September.
    20. Peter B. Doeringer & Christine Evans-Klock & David G. Terkla, 1998. "Hybrids or Hodgepodges? Workplace Practices of Japanese and Domestic Startups in the United States," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 51(2), pages 171-186, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Andrew E. Clark, 2005. "Your Money or Your Life: Changing Job Quality in OECD Countries," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 43(3), pages 377-400, September.
    2. repec:ksb:journl:v:10:y:2017:i:1:p:50-76 is not listed on IDEAS

    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:lan:wpaper:542602. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Giorgio Motta). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/delanuk.html .

    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.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.