Appendix A.1: Percentage of Employee Involvement by Practice Dummy
This appendix discusses the definition of employee involvement practices adoption based on the percentage
of workers under the given practice. The table below computes average percentages of workers under each of
the bundles of employee involvement practices. One can see that the average percentages vary a lot from across
practices, whether they are considered individually as combinations. They vary between 15 and 70% in 1993 and
between 6 and 80% in 1996. Job rotation is the practice that hardly reaches 50% of workers. Therefore, letting
the definition of the adoption start at a percentage of workers higher than 1% leads to the question of which
ideal percentage should apply. Moreover, choosing any percentage higher than 25% implies that teamwork and
job rotation cannot be analyzed as individual practices. To avoid this problem, I kept the 1% definition in the
remaining of the paper.
|
Practices |
Meeting |
Team |
Job Rot. |
Meeting |
Meeting Job Rot. |
Team |
All |
|
Year |
1993 | ||||||
|
Sector |
Manuf. | ||||||
|
% Meet. |
46.75 |
0 |
0 |
54.97 |
49.41 |
0 |
56.82 |
|
(3.55) |
(5.05) |
(4.17) |
(3.81) | ||||
|
% Team |
0 |
15.16 |
0 |
43.80 |
0 |
33.74 |
37.44 |
|
(8.28) |
(4.36) |
(11.65) |
(2.91) | ||||
|
% Job Rot. |
0 |
0 |
36.59 |
0 |
34.31 |
24.35 |
49.56 |
|
(9.66) |
(3.36) |
(6.04) |
(3.65) | ||||
|
N |
116 |
2 |
14 |
62 |
91 |
10 |
103 |
|
Sector |
Non Man. | ||||||
|
% Meet. |
71.02 |
0 |
0 |
74.62 |
43.08 |
0 |
59.82 |
|
(3.37) |
(4.41) |
(4.35) |
(4.72) | ||||
|
% Team |
0 |
55.01 |
0 |
37.73 |
0 |
39.16 |
35.75 |
|
(21.28) |
(4.09) |
(17.66) |
(3.35) | ||||
|
% Job Rot. |
0 |
0 |
19.31 |
0 |
31.34 |
24.32 |
25.11 |
|
(5.96) |
(3.43) |
(12.54) |
(3.11) | ||||
|
N |
107 |
3 |
13 |
49 |
65 |
4 |
73 |
|
Year |
1996 | ||||||
|
Sector |
Manuf. | ||||||
|
% Meet. |
60.30 |
0 |
0 |
59.06 |
67.89 |
0 |
55.10 |
|
(3.97) |
(3.97) |
(3.58) |
(2.82) | ||||
|
% Team |
0 |
6.39 |
0 |
35.07 |
0.00 |
79.49 |
47.71 |
|
(0.60) |
(3.04) |
(11.17) |
(2.77) | ||||
|
% Job Rot. |
0 |
0 |
44.76 |
0 |
47.19 |
27.97 |
45.22 |
|
(12.57) |
(3.02) |
(8.14) |
(2.60) | ||||
|
N |
84 |
7 |
9 |
78 |
112 |
7 |
160 |
|
Sector |
Non Man. | ||||||
|
% Meet. |
77.29 |
0 |
0 |
77.52 |
82.69 |
0 |
76.45 |
|
(3.40) |
(5.40) |
(3.56) |
(3.27) | ||||
|
% Team |
0 |
70.51 |
0 |
53.01 |
0 |
28.65 |
38.10 |
|
(16.05) |
(5.01) |
(2.63) |
(3.24) | ||||
|
% Job Rot. |
0 |
0 |
21.76 |
0 |
38.27 |
27.94 |
40.75 |
|
(4.77) |
(3.79) |
(3.17) |
(3.77) | ||||
|
N |
80 |
6 |
9 |
45 |
76 |
4 |
82 |
31
More intriguing information
1. The name is absent2. The Economic Value of Basin Protection to Improve the Quality and Reliability of Potable Water Supply: Some Evidence from Ecuador
3. Trade and Empire, 1700-1870
4. The name is absent
5. Insurance within the firm
6. INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS AND GROUP PROCESSES
7. Human Resource Management Practices and Wage Dispersion in U.S. Establishments
8. IMMIGRATION AND AGRICULTURAL LABOR POLICIES
9. Three Strikes and You.re Out: Reply to Cooper and Willis
10. Literary criticism as such can perhaps be called the art of rereading.