Case Study 2

Socio-Economic Review, 2019, Vol. 17, No.
3, 627–650
doi: 10.1093/ser/mwx053
Advance Access Publication Date: 2 December 2017
Article
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ser/article/17/3/627/4683731 by University of the South Pacific user on 12 August 2021
Article
How national employment systems relate

to employee involvement: a decomposition
analysis of Germany, the UK and Sweden
Stefan Kirchner1,* and Sven Hauff2
1
Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences, University of Hamburg, Allende-Platz 1, 20146
Hamburg, Germany and 2Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Helmut Schmidt
University, Holstenhofweg 85, 22043 Hamburg, Germany
*Correspondence: stefan.kirchner@gmail.com
Abstract
We investigate general claims that national institutional conditions relate to
employee involvement across countries. Using a decomposition analysis, we exam-
ine how much of the key domains of national employment systems contribute to dif-
ferences in employee involvement in Germany, the UK and Sweden. Drawing on the
2015 European Working Conditions Survey (EWCS), our decomposition analysis
explains between 40% and 65% of the cross-national differences. These differences
stem from key national employment systems domains, namely the management
system, information and communication technology use, as well as training and
education. We show that these domains contribute simultaneously and with differ-
ent weights to cross-national differences, and conclude that domains’ contributions
reflect the specific institutional characteristics of the investigated national employ-
ment systems.
Key words: political economy, labor market institutions, personnel management, work, Germany,
United Kingdom, Sweden
JEL classification: D02 production and organizations, J81 working conditions, P52 comparative
studies of particular economies
1. Introduction
Employee involvement is enjoying renewed interest as a key element of job quality (e.g.
Boxall and Winterton, 2015; Marchington, 2015). Since it allows for direct employee inte-
gration and influence on decisions about the wider work organization, employee involve-
ment influences working conditions and well-being (e.g. Kalleberg et al., 2009; Gallie,
C The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press and the Society for the Advancement of Socio-Economics.
V
All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com
628 S. Kirchner and S. Hauff
2013). From a cross-national comparative perspective, several empirical studies have shown
that employees’ opportunities for involvement in organizations differ significantly across
countries (e.g. Dobbin and Boychuk, 1999; Olsen et al., 2010; Esser and Olsen, 2012;
Holman, 2013; Brewster et al., 2014). An explanation of these differences can be found in
national institutional conditions, which are assumed to shape organizational practices (e.g.
Maurice et al., 1980; Kern and Schumann, 1984; Piore and Sabel, 1985; Sorge and Streeck,
1988; Sorge, 1991; Streeck, 1991; Appelbaum and Batt, 1994). In particular, building on
Fligstein and Byrkjeflot, (1996), Dobbin and Boychuk (1999) argue that specific national
employment systems govern how work and employment is organized in a given country.
However, to date, we do not fully understand how national employment systems relate to
organizational practices generally, nor how they relate to employee involvement in particu-
lar (Delbridge et al., 2011; Almond and Gonzalez Menendez, 2014; Wood et al., 2014).
In comparative studies on organizational practices and employee involvement, Germany,
the UK and Sweden represent core countries (e.g. Maurice et al., 1980; Hall and Soskice,
2001; Amable, 2003; Lorenz and Valeyre, 2005; Gallie, 2007; Croucher et al., 2014).1
According to recent empirical studies, opportunities for involvement in the workplace are
lower in Germany as compared to the UK and Sweden (Eurofound, 2013, p. 63; similar
findings for autonomy by Esser and Olsen (2012), and job quality types by Holman (2013)).
This is surprising because, based on international comparative research, we would expect an
opposite ranking for Germany and the UK. Several researchers assume that national institu-
tional conditions in Germany foster higher job quality, including higher employee involve-
ment levels (Gallie, 2007; Frege and Godard, 2014). In contrast, the UK is usually
considered an example of low employee involvement, stressing the low-road approach taken
by UK firms (Danford et al., 2008; Kalleberg, 2009; Kelly, 2013) and the focus on manage-
rial workplace authority (Dobbin and Boychuk, 1999). Accordingly, the considerably lower
employee involvement levels in Germany compared to the UK present a puzzle that has not
yet been solved in the literature.
A possible explanation for this puzzle could be that, in a direct comparison to national
employment systems, several institutional conditions vary simultaneously. For instance,
countries differ in the ways management shares authority with regular employees, the extent
to which employees use new technology, which education levels dominate, as well as the
ways in which employee representatives can influence working conditions. Several empirical
studies refer to institutional differences in order to explain cross-national differences in
employee involvement (e.g. Dobbin and Boychuk, 1999; Olsen et al., 2010; Holman, 2013).
However, these studies usually focus on the overall differences between national employ-
ment systems and do not disentangle the different domains’ distinct effects and relative
weights. Thus, we do not yet know the extents to which single domains contribute to the
overall cross-national differences or whether a given domain contributes at all. However, it
is necessary to disentangle the effects of national employment systems domains on employee
involvement if we are to better understand how national institutional conditions relate to
1 The UK is often considered the same country category as the USA. So, it is usually assumed that
characteristics of the USA mostly also apply to the UK. While we acknowledge that there are differ-
ences between these two countries, we follow the general custom to relate insights for the UK or
the USA to the general country category.
Employee involvement in Germany, the UK and Sweden 629
employee involvement opportunities. In turn, this could also help us to understand the puz-
zling differences between Germany and the UK.
We address this research gap by asking how much distinct institutional domains of
national employment systems contribute to the overall cross-national differences in
employee involvement. To answer this question, we first discuss five key domains of national
employment systems—namely management system, information and communication tech-
nology (ICT) use, training and education, employee representation and employment con-
ditions—and their relationships to employee involvement. Building on this, we characterize
Germany, the UK and Sweden along these domains. Our empirical analysis utilizes employee
data from the 2015 European Working Conditions Survey (EWCS) from these three coun-
tries. We conduct a decomposition analysis (Jann, 2008) to identify the institutional
domains that contribute to cross-national differences in employee involvement. With this
analytic strategy, we statistically show—for the first time—how much particular institu-
tional domains contribute to cross-national differences in employee involvement.
2. Theoretical background
2.1 National employment systems
The comparative capitalisms (CC) literature (Jackson and Deeg, 2008) provides general
arguments for the relationship between national employment systems and organizational
practices. Proponents of CC posit that organizational patterns and workplaces differ, since
they are embedded in distinct national institutional frameworks (Marsden, 1999; Whitley,
1999, 2003; Hall and Soskice, 2001; Amable, 2003; Delbridge et al., 2011; Frege and Kelly,
2013; Hauptmeier and Vidal, 2014; Morgan and Hauptmeier, 2014). Thus, several authors
argue that national institutional frameworks generate a more or less coherent general logic
of economic action in a given country (Jackson and Deeg, 2008; Almond and Gonzalez
Menendez, 2014). Such logics manifest as ‘national employment systems carry different log-
ics of work control that influence how work is governed in a wide range of settings’ (Dobbin
and Boychuk, 1999, p. 262). Thus, national employment systems are characterized by domi-
nant institutional conditions that shape dominant logics of appropriateness (March, 1994).
These logics influence actors’ behaviors by establishing identities and matching rules to rec-
ognized situations (Fligstein and Byrkjeflot, 1996; Frege and Godard, 2014). Following this
literature, we argue that national employment systems enable certain organizational practi-
ces while constraining others. Specifically, we assume that the cross-national differences in
specific domains account for the empirical differences in organizational practices across
countries, which in our case is employee involvement across Germany, the UK and Sweden.
In particular, we focus on five key domains of national employment systems, namely
management system, ICT use, training and education, employee representation and employ-
ment conditions (Fligstein and Byrkjeflot, 1996; Dobbin and Boychuk, 1999; Fligstein,
2001):
(a) Management system describes the ways in which control is organized in the workplace
(Dobbin and Boychuk, 1999). Management systems differ in the prevalence of manage-
rial positions and the ways by which managers share authority in the workplace with
regular employees (Fligstein and Byrkjeflot, 1996; Whitley, 2003). The sharing of
responsibilities in the workplace is usually implemented through different forms of job
design, which can be described along two basic dimensions: task variability and uncer-
tainty (Appelbaum et al., 2000). Low task variety and uncertainty represent the power of
rules and routines. In contrast, high task variety and uncertainty are indicators of
employee-oriented management practices. A particular measure to shift managerial con-
trol to regular employees via job design is discretionary teamwork (Appelbaum and Batt,
1994; Appelbaum et al., 2000).
(b) Another aspect closely related to the management system is ICT use. As Dobbin and
Boychuk (1999) noted, employment systems face the challenges of new technologies
(similar Fligstein, 2001), and national employment systems differ substantially in their
abilities to adopt new technologies in the workplace (Castells, 2000; Hall and Soskice,
2001; Amable, 2003).
(c) Training and education refers to the ways employees usually acquire skills as well as the
formal education levels employees attain (Gallie, 2007). Key differences are the necessity
of continuing training and the foci on either vocational or university education (Fligstein
and Byrkjeflot, 1996; Gallie, 2007; Goergen et al., 2012; Goergen et al., 2014).
(d) Employee representation describes mechanisms through which employees can collec-
tively influence work and employment conditions. These mechanisms of collective influ-
ence are seen as a key difference between national employment systems, because
countries differ in the prevalence of employee representation and the power exerted by
employee representatives (Fligstein and Byrkjeflot, 1996; Dobbin and Boychuk, 1999;
Korpi, 2006; Gallie, 2007).
(e) Employment conditions comprise key aspects that regulate employment conditions and
unemployment benefits (Dobbin and Boychuk, 1999; Amable, 2003; Gallie, 2007).
Lightly regulated employment systems favor market mechanisms, which lead to high
labor turnover rates and precarious employment conditions. In contrast, highly regulated
employment systems enable longer job tenure and mitigate the precariousness of employ-
ment conditions.
2.2 Employee involvement and national employment systems domains

Employee involvement—also termed consultative involvement (Felstead et al., 2010), con-
sultative participation (Gallie, 2013), high-involvement management (Wood et al., 2012) or
organizational empowerment (Wall et al., 2004)—describes employees’ opportunities to per-
sonally influence decisions about the work organization or other aspects of the work envi-
ronment. Thus, in contrast to job autonomy or task discretion, employee involvement goes
beyond the confines of an immediate task. It can range from information, consultation in
workplace meetings or more localized briefing groups, suggestion schemes, problem-solving
groups, to employee participation in decisions about organizational issues (Wood et al.,
2012; Eurofound, 2013; Gallie, 2013).
Employee involvement can be influenced by several aspects. We argue that employee
involvement relates to national employment systems domains: Differences within these
domains should generally relate to differences in employee involvement levels across coun-
tries. To substantiate this assumption, we will first show how national employment systems
domains relate to employee involvement, since it is only where such a general relationship
exists that differences between domains can eventually account for cross-national differences
in employee involvement levels. We will then characterize Germany, the UK and Sweden
along national employment systems domains.
Management system should be relevant, since the prevalence of managerial positions and
responsibility-sharing through job design should affect employee involvement. Employees in
managerial positions experience more employee involvement. Also, if jobs are usually char-
acterized by low task variety and uncertainty, i.e. if they are governed by rules and routines,
there are fewer employee involvement opportunities (Dobbin and Boychuk, 1999;
Appelbaum et al., 2000). In contrast, high task variety and high uncertainty should not only
foster job autonomy but also employee involvement because, in such a situation, ‘it is sel-
dom practical for managers to have unilateral control over decisions: efficiency requires a
more consensus-based approach to decision making’ (Soskice, 1999, p. 115). Teamwork
should also increase employee involvement for regular employees (Appelbaum et al., 2000).
However, this increase requires one to grant teams de facto discretion (Lawler, 1986,
p. 108), and teams are found to differ substantially in their discretion (Pruijt, 2003), for
instance, to change tasks, to alter working schedules or to appoint a team leader.
ICT use is often perceived as being closely interrelated with management systems and
specific job designs that allow for more employee involvement (Appelbaum et al., 2000).
Following Castells (2000), ICT use enables new forms of decentralized work organization
that in turn allow and require a substantial involvement of employees in work processes and
organizational matters. Ample empirical evidence supports this general claim about a posi-
tive relationship between ICT use and employee involvement (e.g. Hempell and Zwick,
2008; Green, 2012; Bayo-Moriones et al., 2017).2
Concerning training and education, we assume that employee involvement increases
with continuing training opportunities and high education levels, because better-qualified
employees should be granted more opportunities for involvement in the organization
(Jackson and Schuler, 1995). Again, the underlying idea is that employee knowledge influen-
ces the effectiveness of participation and that highly qualified employees should increase per-
formance more than those with little knowledge (Glew et al., 1995).
The forms of employee representation should also relate to employee involvement levels.
However, the literature provides ambiguous predictions. First, some assume that employee
representatives seek to improve employee work and employment conditions, including more
employee involvement opportunities (Jackson and Schuler, 1995; Doellgast et al., 2009;
Esser and Olsen, 2012). Second, stronger individual employee involvement could challenge
collective employee representations, because the former might decrease the power of the lat-
ter. Thus, employee representatives might be inclined to limit direct employee involvement
(Baron and Kreps, 1999; Hauff et al., 2014). Third, Dobbin and Boychuk (1999) argue that
there could be no effect, because practices quickly spread from workplaces with representa-
tion to workplaces without representation.
A further effect can be expected from general employment conditions. Long-term
employment increases employees’ firm-specific experience and mutual trust. This should in
turn increase employee involvement (Dobbin and Boychuk, 1999; similarly, Streeck, 1991).
Conversely and similarly, precarious employment conditions should negatively affect
involvement.
2 Some empirical studies (e.g. Bayo-Moriones et al., 2017) highlight specific conditions under which
ICT use may affect employee involvement differently. However, in this article, we limit our argument
to the question whether or not there is an average positive relationship between ICT use and
employee involvement.
To advance our understanding about the relationship between national employment sys-
tems domains and employee involvement, we will analyze how these key national employ-
ment systems domains empirically relate to employee involvement in the cases of Germany,
the UK and Sweden. First, we will briefly characterize our three cases’ national employment
systems along these key domains.
2.3 The national employment systems of Germany, the UK and Sweden

2.3.1 The case of Germany
Germany is often seen as a role model of highly regulated market economies (Hall and
Soskice, 2001). Traditionally, national institutional conditions should foster longer job ten-
ure, which enables employees to build firm-specific skills (Streeck, 1991; Amable, 2003).
However, the traditional regulated logic of Germany’s employment system is increasingly
shaped by a subnotion of dualism in the labor market (Thelen, 2012).
In Germany’s management system, the distribution of workplace authority traditionally
focuses on a strong position of highly skilled blue-collar workers (Fligstein and Byrkjeflot,
1996; Whitley, 2003). Skilled workers are granted high discretion, and management parti-
ally shares authority with skilled employees in a decentralized organizational model
(Streeck, 1991). This partial authority-sharing in a decentralized model is accompanied by a
specific job design. An international comparative study (Lorenz and Valeyre, 2005) found
that, in Germany, employees work in workplaces with comparably high variability and high
uncertainty.
ICT usage levels should turn out to be moderate for German employees. The CC literature
stresses that German firms favor incremental changes (Hall and Soskice, 2001; Amable, 2003).
This decreases the adoption speed of new technologies, such as ICT. However, recent devel-
opments—such as the ‘Industrie 4.0’ discourse (Pfeiffer, 2017) and the broader ‘Arbeiten 4.0’
process (Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales, 2015)—promote increased ICT usage as
part of an overarching digital agenda in Germany’s employment system.
Training and education revolves around the traditionally strong German vocational
training system (Amable, 2003; Gallie, 2007). Employers and employees should have incen-
tives to invest in firm-specific skills (Streeck, 1991). However, comparative studies reported
comparably low participation rates in continuing vocational training for German employees
(Gallie, 2007). This indicates potential limitations to continuing vocational training.
In Germany, a strong employee representation system has traditionally been a key pillar
of the national employment system (Gallie, 2007). However, more recent developments
highlight a substantial declining coverage that limits the scope of representation (Jackson
and Deeg, 2012). While some economic sectors still have a strong employee representation
system, other sectors exist outside the traditional system (Thelen, 2012).
Traditionally, employment conditions in Germany were characterized by high job secur-
ity (Streeck, 1991). However, recent liberalization of employment regulations have led to a
growing dualization (Thelen, 2012; Hassel, 2014). Dualization widens the gap between a
secure core worforce and a peripheral workforce with insecure and more precarious employ-
ment conditions.
2.3.2 The case of the UK

The UK is often considered a key example of a lightly regulated market economy (Hall and
Soskice, 2001). In contrast to Germany, market mechanisms shape the relationships between
firms and employees. A lack of regulation has led researchers to assume that UK firms follow
a low-road approach to workforce management that leads to overall poorer working condi-
tions (Danford et al., 2008; Kalleberg, 2009, p. 12; Kelly, 2013). The UK’s employment sys-
tem is therefore more market-based and more manager-focused.
The UK’s management system is characterized by managers who seize workplace author-
ity and extend authority to skilled workers less often (Dobbin and Boychuk, 1999; Whitley,
2003). This focus on managers in the UK also shapes job design, which exhibits not only
high variety levels, but also lower uncertainty levels (Lorenz and Valeyre, 2005). This partic-
ular job design, which is often called the lean model, allows for more variety compared to
traditional job designs, yet there are fewer learning opportunities. Research results report
that the introduction of teamwork in the UK closely followed the lean model (Danford
et al., 2008; Kelly, 2013).
UK employees’ ICT use should turn out to be high, because the institutional framework
supports more radical innovation and should also foster a more extensive implementation of
new technologies in the workplace (Hall and Soskice, 2001; Amable, 2003).
Concerning training and education, the UK’s vocational training system is comparatively
weak (Amable, 2003). A very competitive university system provides highly skilled gradu-
ates. The education system emphasizes general skills.
Employee representation is also traditionally considered weak in the UK (Amable, 2003;
Gallie, 2007). This deprives UK employees of substantial power resources to influence their
working conditions.
UK employment conditions are shaped by market forces that govern labor market regu-
lations and social security. Thus, higher job insecurity and precarious employment are com-
mon employment practices. Recently, further deregulation has increased this tendency
(Thelen, 2012).
2.3.3 The case of Sweden

For some authors (Hall and Soskice, 2001), Sweden and Germany fall into the same country
category of highly regulated market economies. These authors view firms’ high skills and
long-term orientation as commonalities between the two countries. However, more recent
approaches in the CC literature emphasize dissimilarities (Gallie, 2003, 2007; Thelen,
2012). Compared to Germany, the Swedish employment system provides more support for
marginalized employee groups. Thus, the Swedish employment system follows a regulated
and more inclusive approach.
In the Swedish management system, workplace authority is traditionally shared with reg-
ular employees in a decentralized organizational model (Appelbaum and Batt, 1994).
Sweden’s workers traditionally enjoyed high involvement levels in semi-autonomous teams.
This team approach was a key element of the so-called socio-technical model (Appelbaum
and Batt, 1994). The country’s workplace’s development followed this tradition, as high dis-
cretionary teamwork prevailed. This allows for a job design with high variability and high
uncertainty. Unsurprisingly, international comparisons show that Swedish employees enjoy
the highest learning organization rates (Lorenz and Valeyre, 2005).
Swedish employees should also exhibit a high ICT usage level, indicating a particular
path of technological transformation. Firms receive support for extensive implementation of
ICT combined with targeted education policies (Schnyder, 2012; Ornston, 2013).
Concerning training and education, Sweden is an example of a combination of a strong

vocational system and an extensive higher education system. Thus, the general emphasis is
on high skills and education levels (Amable, 2003). In contrast to Germany and the UK,
Sweden’s education system is more inclusive and enables lifelong retraining. This also
applies to marginal employee groups, who receive support to raise their skill levels (Gallie,
2007; Schnyder, 2012).
Employees in Sweden enjoy powerful employee representation in the workplace, backed
by the unions’ substantial influence on national policies (Amable, 2003; Korpi, 2006; Gallie,
2007). This provides Swedish employees with substantial power resources to influence their
working conditions.
Concerning employment conditions, Sweden follows an inclusive approach that supports
marginal employee groups (Gallie, 2007; Thelen, 2012). This moderates insecure labor mar-
ket positions and precarious employment conditions. At the same time, job security is
relaxed, so as to foster labor market flexibility. However, through training programs,
employees receive support to quickly find new jobs.
In sum, we lay out substantial reasons to assume that Germany, the UK and Sweden dif-
fer significantly across national employment systems domains (i.e. management system, ICT
use, training and education, employee representation and employment conditions). Table 1
summarizes the national employment systems domains, their theorized relationships to
employee involvement and the differences between Germany, the UK and Sweden across
these domains. Following our argumentation above, there are sound theoretical reasons to
expect that all these domains relate to employee involvement. Accordingly, we assume that
all five domains contribute to the differences in employee involvement across these countries.
We use these insights drawn from the literature as a general framework to organize our
empirical analysis.
3. Data, measures and method

3.1 Data: The EWCS
The following analyses are based on data from the EWCS conducted in 2015 (Eurofound,
2016). The EWCS provides comparable data on working conditions across Europe. The tar-
get population is people aged 15 and older who were employed at the time of the survey.
Data was gathered through face-to-face interviews using a multistage, stratified random
sample. Questionnaire development included expert reviews and real-life tests in order to
design a reliable and valid instrument that is easy to understand. The interviews were done
by interviewers with substantial experience and training (Ipsos, 2015). Thus, the EWCS pro-
vides a unique, high-quality data source for cross-national comparative research.
For our analysis, we only used data from employees in Germany (DE), the United
Kingdom (UK) and Sweden (SE). Further, we included only employees from the manufactur-
ing and service sectors.3 Our final sample comprised 3522 cases (the n for each country is
DE ¼ 1564; UK ¼ 1165; SE ¼ 793).
3 Owing to low frequencies, we also excluded the remaining 18 respondents from skilled agricultural,
forestry and fish workers occupations.
Table 1. Employment systems domains, relationships to employee involvement and cross-

national differences
Domains of national Theorized relationship with DE UK Sweden (SE)

employment systems employee involvement
(a) Management Increases with managerial Vocational employee Managerial focus, Discretionary
system position, discretionary focus, traditional lean job design: teamwork-based,
teamwork as well as with and learning job lower variety learning job
job design variety and design: moderate and lower design: high
uncertainty variety and uncertainty variety and high
uncertainty uncertainty
(b) ICT use Increases with ICT use Moderate High High
(c) Training and Increases with higher Vocational training Focus on competitive Focus on higher
education education levels and focus higher education education,
training activity general and
inclusive training
(d) Employee Ambiguous (possibly Medium (potential Low High
representation increases, decreases or sectoral focus,
unrelated) dualism)
(e) Employment Increases with job security High and low Medium High (traditionally
conditions and non-precarious (dualism) (traditionally inclusive)
employment liberal market
forces)
Source: Own depiction of employment systems domains (adopted by especially drawing on Fligstein and
Byrkjeflot, 1996; Dobbin and Boychuk, 1999; Gallie, 2007).
3.2 Dependent variable: the employee involvement factor

Employee involvement is our dependent variable. In line with our definition of employee
involvement, and following other seminal contributions (Wood et al., 2012; Eurofound,
2013; Gallie, 2013), we used several items to capture different aspects of employment
involvement. We computed a factor analysis using the pooled dataset which revealed a single
factor.4 Table 2 reports the five variables and their factor loadings. The factor’s eigenvalue
was 2.42 and the Cronbach’s alpha was 0.81, indicating a viable factor solution. We used the
predicted factor scores of the computed factor to generate a new variable for employee
involvement. Finally, we normalized the variable values so that it ranged between 0 and 1.
3.3 Independent variables

Our independent variables correspond to the national employment systems domains intro-
duced above. We subsumed independent variables that account for single employee charac-
teristics into the various national employment systems domains.
(a) Management system: Our variables on management system include variables concerning
managerial positions and job design. For our analysis, we subdivided the two aspects of
management systems into two subsets: For management system positions, a binary vari-
able measures a position of workplace authority, indicating the respondent’s
4 We computed a series of alternative factor models (e.g. models for each country independently).
Across the different specifications, the models all show a high consistency with the pooled model.
Table 2. Variables and their loadings with employee involvement factor
Variables Loadings for employee

involvement factor
Consulted before work targets are set 0.63
Involved in improving the work organization or work processes 0.71
of the department or organization
A say in the choice of work partners 0.50
The ability to apply own ideas in work 0.71
Influence on decisions that are important for work 0.87
Notes: Answer categories: 1 ¼ never to 5 ¼ always; n ¼ 3458.

Source: EWCS, 2015, own calculations.
supervisory authority (1 ¼ no, 0 ¼ yes). We also distinguished employees in managerial

occupations using the International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO).5
For job design in the management system, we refer to the two major characterizations
(Appelbaum et al., 2000): task variety and uncertainty. We measured task variety by
two items (1 ¼ no, 0 ¼ yes) relating to the question whether a job involves monotony
(no task variety) and job complexity. We measured uncertainty by two binary items (1
¼ no, 0 ¼ yes) related to the question whether a job involves solving unforeseen prob-
lems and learning new things. For teamwork, as a specific form of job design, we
grouped respondents into three categories: no teamwork, teamwork without influence
and teamwork with influence. The latter indicates discretionary teamwork with influ-
ence on tasks, on the team leader selection and/or on time.
(b) ICT use: One variable accounts for the usage of ICT technology at the workplace, ask-
ing respondents how often they work with computers, laptops, and smartphones, on a
seven-item scale (1 ¼ never to 7 ¼ all of the time).
(c) Training and education: We included variables on training and educational attainment.
For training activities, we used two variables to measure whether employees received
training paid for by the employer (1 ¼ yes, 0 ¼ no) or on-the-job training (1 ¼ yes, 0 ¼
no). We included education levels, using an international classification (ISCED). We col-
lapsed the original seven-step classification into three categories: low (ISCED 0–2: up to
lower secondary education), medium (ISCED 3–4: up to post-secondary non-tertiary
education) and high (ISCED 5–6: university degree and beyond).
(d) Employee representation: Here, we used a binary variable stating if there is a trade
union, works council or a similar committee that represents employees at the respond-
ent’s company or organization (1 ¼ yes, 0 ¼ no).
(e) Employment conditions: We included several variables that account for job security and
precarious employment conditions. As a first measure, we used the contract type: indefi-
nite contract, fixed-term contract, temporary employment agency contract or other
5 To obtain information regarding occupations, EWCS respondents answered two open-ended ques-
tions about their job title and their main activities at the workplace. This ensures that respondents
do not falsely assign themselves to particular occupations. Also, the EWCS employed a centralized
coding interface and multiple coders per country to make the coding process as uniform as possible
across countries. In addition, training sessions were held for all coders and materials, with detailed
coding instructions provided (Ipsos, 2015).
contract. We also included a subjective evaluation of job insecurity and the labor market
position as well as a variable on job tenure. Job insecurity was measured as agreement
with the statement I may lose my job in the next 6 months. We determined labor market
positioning by the statement If I were to lose or quit my current job, it would be easy
for me to find a job of similar salary. (The five-item scale for both items ranged from
1 ¼ strongly disagree to 5 ¼ strongly agree.) Job tenure was measured in terms of years
with the current employer.
Table 3 reports the distribution of all variables across the three countries.
In addition to these variables, we added general controls (see Appendix): We included
respondent’s sex, age and weekly working hours, since these basic characteristics might sub-
stantially vary between the three countries. We also included industry, coded according to
the current classification (NACE, see Eurostat, 2008). A single categorical variable measures
establishment size.6 Further, we included the remaining seven non-managerial occupations
as control variables: professionals; technicians and associate professionals; clerical support
workers; service and sales workers; craft and related trades workers; plant and machine
operators and assemblers; and elementary occupations.
3.4 Method: decomposition analysis

To investigate cross-national differences, we computed a decomposition analysis (Jann,
2008) of employee involvement. This analysis revealed how much the differences in inde-
pendent variables contribute to mean differences of the dependent variable (employee
involvement) between distinct groups (employees in different countries), that is, our decom-
position analysis revealed the characteristics that contribute to the cross-national differences
in employee involvement. Our decomposition analysis also showed how much these charac-
teristics contribute to overall cross-national differences. We reported this contribution of
combined or individual variables by the estimated coefficients in the tables shown below.
This is not possible with common regression analysis.
Specifically, a decomposition analysis divides mean differences between two groups into two
parts—an explained part and an unexplained part: The explained part accounts for the group
differences in the independent variables and thus describes the mean differences accounted for
by the model. The unexplained part accounts for the remaining group differences owing to
unobserved influences. Thus, the unexplained part comprises all the cross-national differences
that the model cannot directly account for using the included independent variables. Thus, we
cannot statistically determine what generates the unexplained part.
Because a decomposition analysis compares only two groups at a time, we computed
two separate decomposition models: Model A (Germany vs. the UK) and Model B
(Germany vs. Sweden). In both decomposition models, Germany serves as common refer-
ence country. Finally, we took statistical precautions that all results for categorical variables
with more than two categories would not depend on chosen reference categories (for details,
see Jann, 2008).
6 We included industry and company size to control for possible effects that derive from countries’
industry specializations. The literature suggests that Germany, the UK and Sweden differ in their
industries’ compositions, and dominant company sizes (Dobbin and Boychuk, 1999; Amable, 2003;
Kelly, 2013).
Table 3. Distribution of dependent and independent variables by country
DE UK SE Min. Max.
Employee involvement 0.55 0.67 0.66 0 1
Factor employee involvement (normalized)
Management system: positions 10 26 13 0 1
Supervisory function
Occupation: managers 1 15 7 0 1
Management system: job design 28 58 22 0 1
Job design: monotonous tasks
Job design: complex tasks 62 66 69 0 1
Job design: learning new things 61 83 91 0 1
Job design: solving unforeseen problems on your own 79 84 96 0 1
Teamwork: none 47 22 27 0 1
Teamwork: with influence 38 54 59 0 1
Teamwork: without influence 15 24 14 0 1
ICT usage 3.09 4.34 4.40 1 7
Working with computers, laptops, smartphones
Training and education 37 56 46 0 1
Training: employer paid
Training: on-the-job 38 58 52 0 1
Education level: low (ISCED 0–2) 8 34 7 0 1
Education level: medium (ISCED 3–4) 78 22 49 0 1
Education level: high (ISCED 5þ) 14 44 44 0 1
Employee representation 48 46 84 0 1
Employee representative exists
Employment conditions 84 87 85 0 1
Contract: indefinite contract
Contract: fixed-term contract 10 4 10 0 1
Contract: temporary employment agency contract 1 3 2 0 1
Contract: other 5 6 3 0 1
Job insecurity 4.15 4.04 4.20 1 5
Easy to find a new job 2.88 3.17 3.31 1 5
Job tenure (years) 9.71 7.79 9.89 0 64
Notes: Figures of dummy variables in % of yes answers; for all other variables, means are depicted. Values are
represented as percentage, unless otherwise mentioned.
4. Results
We progressed our decomposition analysis in three steps from general to more specific
results:
4.1 Step 1: Overall results of the decomposition models

In a first step, we computed the overall results. Table 4 reports the overall results of decom-
position models A and B. The decomposition models report the values from the perspective
of Swedish or UK employees: positive values in the table indicate that Swedish or UK
employees report more employee involvement compared with their German counterparts.
Table 4. Overall results of decomposition models of employee involvement
Model A Model B
DE vs. UK DE vs. SE
Estimated coefficients Estimated coefficients
Estimated group values
Value for employees in Germany (DE) 0.56 0.56
Value for employees in the UK (UK) 0.68 .
Value for employees in Sweden (SE) . 0.67
Overall decomposition results
Total difference to Germany 0.12*** 0.11***
Explained difference 0.05*** 0.07***
Unexplained difference 0.07*** 0.04***
Explained difference share of total difference (%) 42 64
Subsets—only explained part
Management system: positions 0.03*** 0.01**
Management system: job design 0.02*** 0.05***
ICT use 0.01* 0.02***
Training and education 0.00 0.01*
Representation 0.00 0.00
Employment conditions 0.00 0.00
Control variables 0.01** 0.01*
n 2122 1865
Notes: Results (estimated coefficients) reported as seen from Swedish or British employees; *P < 0.05,
**P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.
The total computed difference in employee involvement between Germany and the UK
amounts to 0.12; between Germany and Sweden, it is 0.11. German employees have signifi-
cantly less employee involvement.
A simple juxtaposition of employee involvement means in Table 3 produces the same
conclusion. However, going well beyond simple mean differences, the upper rows of Table 4
reveal that the explained difference in model A (for Germany and the UK) accounts for
about 42% of the total differences, while model B (for Germany and Sweden) explains
around 64% of the differences.
These findings have two key implications: First, because the explained parts score around
40% and 60%, the models explain the cross-national differences well. This indicates that
the variables in the model capture a substantial share of the differences and underscores our
assumptions that the various national employment systems domains are associated with the
employee involvement levels across countries. Second, while the models account for some
differences with statistical certainty, the model cannot determine a remaining share. We will
return to this issue in our discussion.
4.2 Step 2: Aggregated decomposition models and the analysis of subsets

In a second step, we investigated the specific contributions of the employment system
domains. We computed aggregated decomposition models that combine the various
variables of each domain into several subsets. Using the domain subsets, the models revealed
the combined differences from all independent variables in a given national employment sys-
tems domain. The computed coefficients in the models denote the contribution of the subset
variables to the overall difference in employee involvement: a positive coefficient signifies
that the cross-national difference in the subset variables increase the difference in employee
involvement between Germany and the UK or Sweden.
Our results reported in the lower rows of Table 4 revealed statistically significant rela-
tionships for several subsets, including both aspects of management system positions and
job design as well as ICT use and training and education. The models estimated no statisti-
cally significant relationships for the subsets representation and employment conditions.
Thus, only some domains statistically fed into the share of the explained difference.
Interestingly, the control variables showed significant relationships in both models. This
means that specific structural conditions (mostly establishment size) are associated with
slightly higher employee involvement in Germany. However, the much larger contributions
by the other domain subsets fully consumed this small counteracting effect.
Figure 1 depicts the results from the aggregated decomposition models and illustrates the
emerging—nuanced—picture.7 This figure shows only domain subsets that statistically sig-
nificantly contributed to the cross-national differences alongside the unexplained part. For
an interpretation, we need to combine two questions: First, does the subset relate to the
cross-national differences in employment involvement? Second, how do levels of subset vari-
ables differ across Germany to the UK or Sweden? With the descriptive statistics from Table
3, we can now interpret the displayed differences:
For Germany and the UK (model A), our results showed a substantial association with
managerial positions in the management system (0.03). In addition, aspects of job design in
the management systems (0.02) and ICT use (0.01) are associated with the higher employee
involvement level in the UK. As reported above, this comes with a remaining large unex-
plained difference (0.07) owing to unknown factors. Thus, overall higher employee involve-
ment levels in the UK relate to a substantially larger share of managerial positions,
moderately more discretionary job design and higher ICT use in the workplace.
For Germany and Sweden (model B), the results also revealed the importance of the man-
agement system. In contrast, here we see a comparably small association with positions
(0.01) alongside a more substantial association with job design (0.05). The model reports
slightly higher differences owing to ICT use (0.02) and an additional yet relatively small
association with training and education (0.01). Thus, overall higher employee involvement
levels in Sweden relate to slightly more managerial positions, substantially more discretion-
ary job design, higher ICT use in the workplace and higher training and education levels.
4.3 Step 3: Focused analysis of management system variables

In a third step, we highlighted selected variables that are particularly responsible for the
cross-national differences in employee involvement. Table 5 reports only the detailed prop-
erties of the management system variables, because they contribute substantially to the
cross-national differences in employee involvement in both models. Here, the computed
7 Note that in both models, the control variable subset has a significant mitigating effect of around
0.01, accounting for the minor discrepancy between depicted differences in Figure 1 and the differ-
ences gap in Table 4; for further details, also see the Appendix.
Figure 1. Aggregated decomposition model results: subsets with significant relationships and unex-
plained part. Domain variables combined in subsets; figure displays only results for four subsets with
significant contributions as well as unexplained part displayed; not displayed subsets: representation
and employment conditions. Source: EWCS, 2015, own calculations and depiction of decomposition
results.
coefficients in the models denote the contribution of the specific variables to the overall dif-
ference in employee involvement: a positive coefficient signifies that the cross-national differ-
ence in the variable increases the difference in employee involvement between Germany and
the UK or Sweden. Again, we used the descriptive statistics from Table 3 to interpret the
computed differences.
Overall, the detailed decomposition model results in Table 5 revealed similar relation-
ships as well as country-specific patterns: major effects in the Germany–UK comparison
stem from managerial positions and supervisory functions more often held by UK employ-
ees. Also, more favorable job design (learning and teamwork) add to the cross-national dif-
ferences. However, the UK model also revealed specific effects of more monotonous work
that reflect particular characteristics of the UK employment system. Here, the higher monot-
onous work levels in the UK partially mitigate the difference to German employees. Overall,
this small counteracting effect of monotony is easily absorbed by the remaining positive
influences of positions and job design.
Comparing Germany and Sweden revealed similar relationships alongside specific pat-
terns. Here, better job design (especially less monotonous tasks, more learning opportunities
and more problem-solving opportunities) as well as higher education levels increase
employee involvement for Swedish employees. However, similar to the UK but to a much
Table 5. Detailed decomposition models of employee involvement—explained difference

focusing on the management system variables
Model A Model B
DE vs. UK DE vs. SE
Estimated coefficients Estimated coefficients
for explained difference for explained difference
Overall 0.05*** 0.07***

Management system: positions 0.01*** 0.00**
Supervisory function
Occupation: managers 0.02*** 0.00*
Management system: job design 0.01*** 0.00**
Job design: Monotonous tasks
Job design: Complex tasks 0.00* 0.00*
Job design: Learning new things 0.01*** 0.02***
Job design: Solving unforeseen 0.00* 0.01***
problems on your own
Teamwork: none 0.01*** 0.01***
Teamwork: with influence 0.01*** 0.01***
Teamwork: without influence 0.00 0.00
n 2122 1865
Notes: Results (estimated coefficients) reported as seen from Swedish or British employees: *P < 0.05,
**P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001; control variables are not displayed; minor deviations to overall subset values owing
to rounding.
lesser extent, the slightly higher share of managerial positions in Sweden also increases the
overall opportunities for employee involvement.
Returning to Table 1, which summarized our considerations, we can now conclude that
our models support some but not all of our theorized relationships. Our analyses revealed
substantial statistical contributions by three of the five investigated domains. This includes
management system, ICT use and training and education. These domains contribute to the
cross-national differences in employee involvement, since the characteristics along these
domains vary substantially among employees from Germany, the UK and Sweden.
5. Discussion
We started with the puzzle that opportunities for involvement in the workplace are lower in
Germany compared to the UK and Sweden (Eurofound, 2013). Building on previous
approaches (Fligstein and Byrkjeflot, 1996; Dobbin and Boychuk, 1999), we assumed that
institutional domains of national employment systems (management system, ICT use, train-
ing and education, employee representation and employment conditions) relate to employee
involvement and therefore could help explain the different employee involvement levels
across countries. To analyze how much each of the different domains contributes to cross-
national differences in employee involvement, we performed a decomposition analysis using
employee data from Germany, the UK and Sweden.
In line with previous findings (Eurofound, 2013), our more recent results from 2015 also
showed that employee involvement levels in Sweden and the UK exceeded those in
Germany. Following the research, we would expect higher employee involvement levels in
Germany owing to more favorable national institutional conditions. In contrast to these per-
spectives, our empirical findings point to a German employee involvement gap. Going
beyond existing studies, our decomposition analysis disentangles the effects behind these
puzzling differences and helps us to understand why employee involvement in Germany is
significantly lower than in the UK. In particular, our empirical investigation shows the
extent to which differences in the key national employment systems domains contribute to
the cross-national differences. We can now characterize the differences related to the five
key national employment systems domains:
Management systems contribute substantially to the cross-national differences in
employee involvement. We found general relationships alongside distinct national patterns.
Compared to Germany, differences to the UK emerged owing to the increased prevalence of
managerial positions, reflecting the strong management focus in the UK employment system
(Fligstein and Byrkjeflot, 1996; Dobbin and Boychuk, 1999; Whitley, 2003). A higher share
of managerial positions in the UK increases the involvement level. If we were to disregard
the difference owing to managerial positions, the overall difference in employee involvement
to German employees would shrink considerably.
We also found that job design contributes to the differences between Germany and the
UK. More learning opportunities and more teamwork in the UK increase employee involve-
ment there. While this finding conflicts with the general assumption that the UK embarked
on a low-road model, this result is in line with recent findings by Frege and Godard (2014),
who argue that firms in liberal countries improve job design elements to compensate for
trust problems in weak institutional environments. However, more monotonous work in the
UK partially counteracts this general pattern, which—in turn—partially supports conflicting
assumptions about the low road and managerial focus in the UK. Overall, the UK results
show a combination of a strong management focus combined with an effectively compensat-
ing job design.
In contrast, in the comparison between Germany and Sweden, we found that good job
design accounts for cross-national differences, reflecting the long tradition of discretionary
job designs in Swedish workplaces (Appelbaum and Batt, 1994). However, also in Sweden,
a slightly higher share of managerial positions increases employee involvement levels.
Overall, our results show the substantial importance of management system for the dif-
ference between Germany and the UK. This underlines the key role of managerial positions
in understanding employee involvement. To some extent, this also applies to the differences
between Germany and Sweden. Based on our findings, we highlight that studies of employ-
ees should include not only regular employees. Empirically, managers count as employees
too, since they also form part of the sample population in general employee surveys. Thus,
scholars of employee involvement should account for employees in managerial positions in
order to correctly address differences between countries. Generally, in our view, theoretical
and empirical approaches could advance if they would more explicitly address the impor-
tance of managerial positions for job quality.
Turning to ICT use, our results point to an overall positive relationship between ICT use
and employee involvement. The lower ICT usage levels of German employees contribute to
the German involvement gap. This finding again underscores the incremental dynamics of
Germany’s economy in the face of technological shifts. In light of these findings, recent
developments that promote ICT use in Germany’s economy—such as the Industrie 4.0 dis-
course (Pfeiffer, 2017) and the broader Arbeiten 4.0 process (Bundesministerium für Arbeit
und Soziales, 2015)—might enable a catch-up process that could increase opportunities for
more employee involvement in Germany. Taken together, our findings regarding ICT use
underline the importance of the use of new technologies as a national employment systems
domain. This importance will grow further as the digital economy expands.
Concerning training and education, our results show that differences in education levels
also contribute to the German employee involvement gap, compared to Sweden. This under-
lines the particular characteristics of Sweden’s employment system, reflecting its general
emphasis on high education levels (Amable, 2003).
Concerning employee representation and employment conditions, we found no conclu-
sive statistical evidence that they relate to increased or decreased employee involvement.
Thus, the finding on employee representation tends to support positions in the literature that
assume no direct effect at the firm level (Dobbin and Boychuk, 1999). However, our analysis
only relies on one item for firm-level employee representation. Because this item is limited,
we cannot rule out that there might be a relationship between employee representation and
employee involvement levels across countries. This would require more elaborate measures
(see limitations, below). While both aspects might have shaped employee involvement in
past processes, our findings provide no evidence for a current statistical relationship.
Overall, our decomposition models explain the differences in national employee involve-
ment levels well. The differences in the key national employment systems domains account
for 40–65% of the cross-national differences in employee involvement. Our results point out
that different national employment systems domains (i.e. management system, ICT use and
training and education) contribute simultaneously to the cross-national differences.
Accordingly, a comprehensive account of the cross-national differences in employee involve-
ment requires several domains at the same time. Building on these differentiated results, we
interpret the different domains’ contributions as a result of the diverse characteristics that
underlie the national employment systems of Germany, the UK and Sweden. Thus, our
results indicate that the national institutional conditions and the related organizational prac-
tices in Germany prove less favorable for employee involvement than researchers often
believed them to be.
Further, our results contribute to the literature, since they inform theoretical concepts
(and future empirical studies) that specific domains contribute with different weights to
cross-national differences in organizational practices. Thus, depending on the issue in ques-
tion, some institutional domains may prove more influential than others. This is highly rele-
vant for the study and explanation of cross-national differences in organizational practices.
For instance, in a case of institutional transformation of a domain, organizational practices
may prove stable if the domain only marginally contributes to the differences. Also, transfor-
mations in one domain could compensate for changes in another domain: for instance, an
increase in ICT use could be counteracted by a decrease in job design. Thus, the de facto
influence of institutional transformations on organizational practices depends on the relative
weight exerted by the involved domains.
Finally, our decomposition models leave some differences unexplained. Here, unex-
plained denotes that differences remain that cannot be determined by the variables in the
decomposition model. This especially pertains to large parts of the differences between
Germany and the UK. Thus, researchers should treat absolute mean differences between
countries with caution. While there might be good theoretical foundations that help to inter-
pret cross-national differences, researchers should empirically decompose relationships and
should statistically determine underlying patterns, if empirically possible. This would allow
for more substantiated claims. Methodological sources inflating the unexplained part could
simply derive from measurement errors (nationally specific understandings, response pat-
terns, questionnaire designs). Theoretical sources feeding the unexplained part might stem
from overlooked additional theoretical approaches (e.g. cultural differences). Future
research should propose additional and complementary theoretical explanations to resolve
the remaining cross-national differences.
Our findings and interpretations should be seen in light of several limitations: First, since
we analyzed cross-sectional data, our statistical analysis does not present evidence for a
causal argument. However, our findings shed light on the current associations that underlie
cross-national differences in employee involvement. In our view, the empirical investigation
of the current associations takes an important step in the empirical foundations of cross-
national comparative research. Nonetheless, we maintain that future research should under-
take the possible empirical steps in order to advance our understanding of cross-national
differences based on longitudinal data. Second, there might be answering patterns across
countries. This concerns, for instance, information on occupation, which might be biased by
national standards and interpretations (e.g. in the UK, the title manager is used differently to
Germany and Sweden). However, the EWCS implements the common international stand-
ard classifications (ISCO), with considerable efforts to ensure comparability across countries
(Ipsos, 2015). Other major studies (e.g. by Eurostat) rely on the same international stand-
ards. Third, the EWCS only includes a general question about an on-site workplace repre-
sentative. This limits our model’s capability to reveal possible effects of employee
representation. Here, more elaborate measures might provide additional empirical insights.
Besides limitations, there are several avenues for future research: We limited our analysis
to Germany, the UK and Sweden, which represent core countries in comparative studies.
Future studies should also include other countries. This could deepen our understandings of
how the key national employment systems domains shape organizational practices. By going
beyond employee involvement, future research should apply decomposition analysis to other
dependent variables. Such extensions could more clearly show whether or not key national
employment systems domains also relate to cross-national differences in other organiza-
tional practices.
In conclusion, our empirical analysis reveals how national institutional conditions relate
to differences in employee involvement in Germany, UK and Sweden. We statistically show,
for the first time, that different institutional domains of national employment systems (i.e.
management system, ICT use and training and education) contribute simultaneously and
with different weights to cross-national differences in employee involvement. Our study also
contributes to the cross-national comparative research, since it integrates long-held assump-
tions with current empirical data, employing innovative statistical techniques. Thus, our
analysis underscores the high relevance of cross-national comparative research to under-
stand differences in employee involvement, in particular as well as differences in organiza-
tional practices, in general.
References
Almond, P. and Gonzalez Menendez, M. C. (2014) ‘Cross-National Comparative Human
Resource Management and the Ideational Sphere: A Critical Review’, The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 25, 2591–2607.
Amable, B. (2003) The Diversity of Modern Capitalism, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P. and Kalleberg, A. L. (2000) Manufacturing Advantage: Why
High-Performance Work Systems Pay Off, Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press.
Appelbaum, E. and Batt, R. (1994) The New American Workplace. Transforming Work Systems
in the United States, Ithaca, NY, ILR Press.
Baron, J. N. and Kreps, D. M. (1999) Strategic Human Resources: Frameworks for General
Managers, New York, Wiley.
Bayo-Moriones, A., Billon, M. and Lera-López, F. (2017) ‘Are New Work Practices Applied
Together with Ict and Amt?’, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28,
553–580.
Boxall, P. and Winterton, J. (2015) ‘Which Conditions Foster High-Involvement Work Processes?
A Synthesis of the Literature and Agenda for Research’, Economic and Industrial Democracy,
1–21. doi: 10.1177/0143831X15599584.
Brewster, C., Brookes, M., Johnson, P. and Wood, G. (2014) ‘Direct Involvement, Partnership
and Setting: A Study in Bounded Diversity’, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 25, 795–809.
Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales (2015) Grünbuch Arbeiten 4.0, Berlin,
Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales Abteilung Grundsatzfragen des Sozialstaats, der
Arbeitswelt und der sozialen Marktwirtschaft.
Castells, M. (2000) The Rise of the Network Society: The Information Age: Economy, Society,
and Culture, Malden, MA, Blackwell.
Croucher, R., Brookes, M., Wood, G. and Brewster, C. (2014) ‘Is There Convergence Towards
Individual Voice in Europe?’. In Wood, G., Brewster, C. and Brookes, M. (eds) Human
Resource Management and the Institutional Perspective, New York, London, Routledge, pp.
59–77.
Danford, A., Richardson, M., Stewart, P., Tailby, S. and Upchurch, M. (2008) ‘Partnership, High
Performance Work Systems and Quality of Working Life’, New Technology, Work and
Employment, 23, 151–166.
Delbridge, R., Hauptmeier, M. and Sengupta, S. (2011) ‘Beyond the Enterprise: Broadening the
Horizons of International HRM’, Human Relations, 64, 483–505.
Dobbin, F. and Boychuk, T. (1999) ‘National Employment Systems and Job Autonomy: Why Job
Autonomy Is High in the Nordic Countries and Low in the United States, Canada, and
Australia’, Organization Studies, 20, 257–291.
Doellgast, V., Batt, R. and Sørensen, O. H. (2009) ‘Introduction: Institutional Change and Labour
Market Segmentation in European Call Centres’, European Journal of Industrial Relations, 15,
349–371.
Esser, I. and Olsen, K. M. (2012) ‘Perceived Job Quality: Autonomy and Job Security within a
Multi-Level Framework’, European Sociological Review, 28, 443–454.
Eurofound (2013) Work Organisation and Employee Involvement in Europe (Authors: Duncan
Gallie and Ying Zhou), Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union.
Eurofound (2016) Sixth European Working Conditions Survey – Overview Report, Luxembourg,
Publications Office of the European Union.
Eurostat (2008) Nace Rev. 2. Statistical Classification of Economic Activities in the European
Community, Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Felstead, A., Gallie, D., Green, F. and Zhou, Y. (2010) ‘Employee Involvement, the Quality of
Training and the Learning Environment: An Individual Level Analysis’, The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 21, 1667–1688.
Fligstein, N. (2001) The Architecture of Markets. An Economic Sociology of
Twenty-First-Century Capitalist Societies, Princeton, Princeton University Press.
Fligstein, N. and Byrkjeflot, H. (1996) ‘The Logic of Employment Systems’. In Baron, J. N.,
Grusky, D. B. and Treiman, D. J. (eds) Social Differentiation and Social Inequality, Boulder,
CO, Westview Press, pp. 11–35.
Frege, C. and Godard, J. (2014) ‘Varieties of Capitalism and Job Quality: The Attainment of Civic
Principles at Work in the United States and Germany’, American Sociological Review, 79,
942–965.
Frege, C. and Kelly, J. (2013) ‘Theoretical Perspectives on Comparative Employment Relations’.
In Frege, C. and Kelly, J. (eds) Comparative Employment Relations in the Global Economy,
London, Routledge, pp. 8–26.
Gallie, D. (2003) ‘The Quality of Working Life: Is Scandinavia Different?’, European Sociological
Review, 19, 61–79.
Gallie, D. (2007) ‘Production Regimes, Employment Regimes, and the Quality of Work’. In
Gallie, D. (ed.) Employment Regimes and the Quality of Work, Oxford, Oxford University
Press, pp. 1–33.
Gallie, D. (2013) ‘Direct Participation and the Quality of Work’, Human Relations, 66, 453–473.
Glew, D. J., O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., Griffin, R. W. and Van Fleet, D. D. (1995) ‘Participation in
Organizations: A Preview of the Issues and Proposed Framework for Future Analysis’, Journal
of Management, 21, 395–421.
Goergen, M., Brewster, C., Wood, G. and Wilkinson, A. (2012) ‘Varieties of Capitalism and
Investments in Human Capital’, Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 51,
501–527.
Goergen, M., Wood, G., Brewster, C. and Brookes, M. (2014) ‘Corporate Governance Systems
and Investments in Human Capital’. In Wood, G., Brewster, C. and Brookes, M. (eds) Human
Resource Management and the Institutional Perspective, New York, London, Routledge, pp.
78–107.
Green, F. (2012) ‘Employee Involvement, Technology and Evolution in Job Skills: A Task-Based
Analysis’, ILR Review, 65, 36–67.
Hall, P. A. and Soskice, D. (2001) ‘An Introduction to Varieties of Capitalism’. In Hall, P. and
Soskice, D. (eds) Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative
Advantage, Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 1–68.
Hassel, A. (2014) ‘The Paradox of Liberalization — Understanding Dualism and the Recovery of
the German Political Economy’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 52, 57–71.
Hauff, S., Alewell, D. and Hansen, N. K. (2014) ‘HRM Systems between Control and
Commitment: Occurrence, Characteristics and Effects on HRM Outcomes and Firm
Performance’, Human Resource Management Journal, 24, 424–441.
Hauptmeier, M. and Vidal, M. (eds) (2014) Comparative Political Economy of Work,
Houndmills, Palgrave Macmillan.
Hempell, T. and Zwick, T. (2008) ‘New Technology, Work Organization and Innovation’,
Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 17, 331–354.
Holman, D. (2013) ‘Job Types and Job Quality in Europe’, Human Relations, 66, 475–502.
Ipsos (2015) 6th European Working Conditions Survey: Technical Report, Dublin, European
Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.
Jackson, G. and Deeg, R. (2008) ‘From Comparing Capitalisms to the Politics of Institutional
Change’, Review of International Political Economy, 15, 680–709.
Jackson, G. and Deeg, R. (2012) ‘The Long-Term Trajectories of Institutional Change in

European Capitalism’, Journal of European Public Policy, 19, 1109–1125.
Jackson, S. E. and Schuler, R. S. (1995) ‘Understanding Human Resource Management in the
Context of Organizations and Their Environments’, Annual Review of Psychology, 46,
237–264.
Jann, B. (2008) ‘The Blinder-Oaxaca Decomposition for Linear Regression Models’, Stata
Journal, 8, 453–479.
Kalleberg, A. L. (2009) ‘Precarious Work, Insecure Workers: Employment Relations in
Transition’, American Sociological Review, 74, 1–22.
Kalleberg, A. L., Nesheim, T. and Olsen, K. M. (2009) ‘Is Participation Good or Bad for
Workers?: Effects of Autonomy, Consultation and Teamwork on Stress among Workers in
Norway’, Acta Sociologica, 52, 99–116.
Kelly, J. (2013) ‘The United Kingdom’. In Frege, C. and Kelly, J. (eds) Comparative Employment
Relations in the Global Economy, London, Routledge, pp. 170–186.
Kern, H. and Schumann, M. (1984) Das Ende Der Arbeitsteilung?: Rationalisierung in Der
Industriellen Produktion: Bestandsaufnahme, Trendbestimmung, München, Beck.
Korpi, W. (2006) ‘Power Resources and Employer-Centered Approaches in Explanations of
Welfare States and Varieties of Capitalism: Protagonists, Consenters, and Antagonists’, World
Politics, 58, 167–206.
Lawler, E. E. (1986) High-Involvement Management: Participative Strategies for Improving
Organizational Performance, San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass.
Lorenz, E. and Valeyre, A. (2005) ‘Organisational Innovation, Human Resource Management
and Labour Market Structure: A Comparison of the Eu-15’, Journal of Industrial Relations,
47, 424–442.
March, J. G. (1994) Primer on Decision Making: How Decisions Happen, New York, Free Press.
Marchington, M. (2015) ‘Analysing the Forces Shaping Employee Involvement and Participation
(Eip) at Organisation Level in Liberal Market Economies (LMEs)’, Human Resource
Management Journal, 25, 1–18.
Marsden, D. (1999) A Theory of Employment Systems: Micro-Foundations of Societal Diversity:
Micro-Foundations of Societal Diversity, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Maurice, M., Sorge, A. and Warner, M. (1980) ‘Societal Differences in Organizing Manufacturing
Units: A Comparison of France, West Germany, and Great Britain’, Organization Studies, 1,
59–86.
Morgan, G. and Hauptmeier, M. (2014) ‘Varieties of Institutional Theory in Comparative
Employment Relations’. In Wilkinson, A., Wood, G. and Deeg, R. (eds) Oxford Handbook of
Employment Relations - Comparative Employment Systems, Oxford, Oxford University Press,
pp. 190–214.
Olsen, K. M., Kalleberg, A. L. and Nesheim, T. (2010) ‘Perceived Job Quality in the United States,
Great Britain, Norway and West Germany, 1989-2005’, European Journal of Industrial
Relations, 16, 221–240.
Ornston, D. (2013) ‘Creative Corporatism: The Politics of High-Technology Competition in
Nordic Europe’, Comparative Political Studies, 46, 702–729.
Pfeiffer, S. (2017) ‘The Vision of “Industrie 4.0” in the Making—A Case of Future Told, Tamed,
and Traded’, NanoEthics, 11, 107–121.
Piore, M. J. and Sabel, C. F. (1985) Das Ende Der Massenproduktion: Studie Über Die
Requalifizierung Der Arbeit Und Die Rückkehr Der Ökonomie in Die Gesellschaft, Berlin,
Wagenbach.
Pruijt, H. (2003) ‘Teams between Neo-Taylorism and Anti-Taylorism’, Economic and Industrial
Democracy, 24, 77–101.
Schnyder, G. (2012) ‘Like a Phoenix from the Ashes? Reassessing the Transformation of the
Swedish Political Economy Since the 1970s’, Journal of European Public Policy, 19,
1126–1145.
Sorge, A. (1991) ‘Strategic Fit and the Societal Effect: Interpreting Cross-National Comparisons of
Technology, Organization and Human Resources’, Organization Studies, 12, 161–190.
Sorge, A. and Streeck, W. (1988) ‘New Technology and Industrial Relations: The Case for an
Extended Perspective’. In Hyman, R. and Streeck, W. (eds) New Technology and Industrial
Relations, Oxford, Basil Blackwell, pp. 19–47.
Soskice, D. (1999) ‘Divergent Production Regimes: Coordinated and Uncoordinated Market
Economies in the 1980s and 1990s’. In Kitschelt, H., Lange, P., Marks, G. and Stephens, J. D.
(eds) Continuity and Change in Contemporary Capitalism, New York, Cambridge University
Press, pp. 101–134.
Streeck, W. (1991) ‘On the Institutional Conditions of Diversified Quality Production’. In
Matzner, E. and Streeck, W. (eds) Beyond Keynesianism. The Socio-Economics of Production
and Full Employment, Aldershot, Edward Elgar, pp. 21–61.
Thelen, K. (2012) ‘Varieties of Capitalism: Trajectories of Liberalization and the New Politics of
Social Solidarity’, Annual Review of Political Science, 15, 137–159.
Wall, T. D., Wood, S. J. and Leach, D. J. (2004) ‘Empowerment and Performance’. In Cooper, C.
L. and Robertson, I. (eds) International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
Chichester, John Wiley, pp. 1–46.
Whitley, R. (1999) Divergent Capitalisms: The Social Structuring and Change of Business
Systems, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Whitley, R. (2003) ‘The Institutional Structuring of Organizational Capabilities: The Role of
Authority Sharing and Organizational Careers’, Organization Studies, 24, 667–695.
Wood, G., Brewster, C. and Brookes, M. (2014) ‘Institutions and Firm Level Hrm Practice’. In
Wood, G., Brewster, C. and Brookes, M. (eds) Human Resource Management and the
Institutional Perspective, New York, London, Routledge, pp. 1–14.
Wood, S., van Veldhoven, M., Croon, M. and de Menezes, L. M. (2012) ‘Enriched Job Design,
High Involvement Management and Organizational Performance: The Mediating Roles of Job
Satisfaction and Well-Being’, Human Relations, 65, 419–445.
Appendix
Table A1. Distribution of control variables by country (percentages and means)
DE UK SE Min. Max.
Control variables
Sex: male 54 52 54 0 1
Age: years 44.29 42.16 44.34 15 84
Weekly working hours 32.18 35.03 37.57 1 84
Industry: manufacturing 22 13 15 0 1
Industry: wholesale and retail trade; repair of . . . 20 15 10 0 1
Industry: transportation and storage 8 7 6 0 1
Industry: accommodation and food service . . . 5 5 3 0 1
Industry: information and communication 3 4 5 0 1
Industry: financial and insurance activities 3 4 3 0 1
Industry: real estate activities 1 1 1 0 1
Industry: professional, scientific and technical . . . 5 4 4 0 1
Industry: administrative and support service . . . 8 6 6 0 1
Industry: education 4 16 16 0 1
Industry: human health and social work . . . 17 21 24 0 1
Industry: arts, entertainment and recreation 2 2 3 0 1
Industry: other service activities 3 2 3 0 1
Size of establishment 3.09 3.48 3.45 1 4
Occupation: managers (for comparison) 1 15 7 0 1
Occupation: professionals 12 22 32 0 1
Occupation: technicians and associate professionals 14 10 18 0 1
Occupation: clerical support workers 15 9 6 0 1
Occupation: service and sales workers 27 25 23 0 1
Occupation: craft and related trades workers 9 4 4 0 1
Occupation: plant and machine operators . . . 10 7 6 0 1
Occupation: elementary occupations 11 8 5 0 1
Notes: Figures of dummy variables in % of yes answers; for all other variables means are depicted. Values are
represented as percentage, unless otherwise mentioned.
Source: EWCS 2015, own calculations.

Case Study 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Study 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Socio-Economic Review, 2019, Vol. 17, No.

How national employment systems relate

2.2 Employee involvement and national employment systems domains

2.3 The national employment systems of Germany, the UK and Sweden

2.3.2 The case of the UK

2.3.3 The case of Sweden

Concerning training and education, Sweden is an example of a combination of a strong

3. Data, measures and method

Table 1. Employment systems domains, relationships to employee involvement and cross-

Domains of national Theorized relationship with DE UK Sweden (SE)

3.2 Dependent variable: the employee involvement factor

3.3 Independent variables

Table 2. Variables and their loadings with employee involvement factor

Variables Loadings for employee

Notes: Answer categories: 1 ¼ never to 5 ¼ always; n ¼ 3458.

supervisory authority (1 ¼ no, 0 ¼ yes). We also distinguished employees in managerial

3.4 Method: decomposition analysis

Table 3. Distribution of dependent and independent variables by country

Employee involvement 0.55 0.67 0.66 0 1

4.1 Step 1: Overall results of the decomposition models

Table 4. Overall results of decomposition models of employee involvement

4.2 Step 2: Aggregated decomposition models and the analysis of subsets

4.3 Step 3: Focused analysis of management system variables

Table 5. Detailed decomposition models of employee involvement—explained difference

Overall 0.05*** 0.07***

Jackson, G. and Deeg, R. (2012) ‘The Long-Term Trajectories of Institutional Change in

Table A1. Distribution of control variables by country (percentages and means)

You might also like

Overall 0.05* 0.07*