The Effects of Mutual Trustworthiness between Labour and Management in Adopting High Performance Work Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we examine the role of mutual trustworthiness between labour representatives and management and its relationship with the adoption of High Performance Work Systems (HPWS) in the Korean employment relations context. We argue that trustworthiness is a feature of the parties to the exchange, as opposed to trust, which explains the nature of exchange relationships. We follow existing literature on trustworthiness and agree that it is composed of three variables, i.e., ability, integrity, and benevolence. We test the effects of these three variables as important antecedents for the adoption of HPWS at the workplace level. Using the National Establishment Survey 2009 conducted by Statistics Korea as a sample frame, we survey a representative sample of Korean establishments. These data consist of 1,353 paired responses from labour representatives and managers. Our results show that labour-management mutual ability trustworthiness (MAT) has a positive and significant relationship with the adoption of high performance work systems ( Hypothesis 1 ); mutual benevolence trustworthiness (MBT) has a positive and significant relationship with the adoption of high performance work systems ( Hypothesis 2 ); and mutual integrity trustworthiness (MIT) has a positive and significant relationship with the adoption of high performance work systems ( Hypothesis 3 ). These results show that mutual trustworthiness in Korean employment relations is an important antecedent for the adoption of HPWS and can enable Korean industry to improve its position in the global economy. In the final analysis, it is implied that employment relations actors pursuing cooperative employment practices should ensure the development of a virtuous cycle of mutual trustworthiness.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".