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. Long-Term Capital Movements2. Telecommuting and environmental policy - lessons from the Ecommute program
3. The name is absent
4. Shifting Identities and Blurring Boundaries: The Emergence of Third Space Professionals in UK Higher Education
5. fMRI Investigation of Cortical and Subcortical Networks in the Learning of Abstract and Effector-Specific Representations of Motor Sequences
6. Brauchen wir ein Konjunkturprogramm?: Kommentar
7. An Economic Analysis of Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Consumption: Implications for Overweight and Obesity among Higher- and Lower-Income Consumers
8. Olive Tree Farming in Jaen: Situation With the New Cap and Comparison With the Province Income Per Capita.
9. IMPACTS OF EPA DAIRY WASTE REGULATIONS ON FARM PROFITABILITY
10. The Role of Land Retirement Programs for Management of Water Resources