Best practice or best fit? High involvement management and base pay practices in Canadian and Australian firms
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using survey data from 349 Canadian and Australian firms, this study examines, first, whether country per se makes a difference to base pay practice for non-managerial employees, and, second, whether firms reporting a high involvement management (HIM) style adopt a distinct approach to base pay configuration. Contrary to the convergence thesis, the results reveal significant inter-country differences, with Canadian firms accentuating job-based methods while Australian firms are more likely to use person-based practices. Contrary to best practice predictions, in neither country is HIM style a significant predictor of person-based base pay practices. Indeed, in Canada HIM style is strongly associated with job-based practices. In both countries, pay for personal skill/competency is associated chiefly with teamworking rather than with HIM style. Overall, these findings provide little support for the claimed ‘best practice’ association between HIM and person-based practices. They also highlight the continued importance of contextual/institutional factors and, hence, of ‘best fit’ considerations in firms’ choice of base pay practices.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it