High-involvement practices and performance of French 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
This article deals with the relationship between human resource practices (HRPs) and firm performances in France. It focuses on four specific HRPs that are able to involve employees: empowerment, compensation, communication and training. Each HRP taken in isolation is supposed to be positively related to performances because it is a source of motivation and commitment for employees. But there also exists a synergy between these practices: when they are combined into a bundle and are implemented all together, they should lead to better firm performances. A survey carried out among 180 human resource managers of large French companies leads to validation of most of our hypotheses. Contrary to previous research, we do not find a significant link between compensation and firm performance. The other HRPs are all indirectly related to financial performances, with social performance playing a mediating role. When they are combined into a bundle, HRPs have a stronger impact on performance than when they are studied individually. The article concludes with the importance of developing a strategic human resource policy and of implementing coherent and complementary high-involvement practices to increase firm performance.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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