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. Lumpy Investment, Sectoral Propagation, and Business Cycles2. PERFORMANCE PREMISES FOR HUMAN RESOURCES FROM PUBLIC HEALTH ORGANIZATIONS IN ROMANIA
3. Developmental changes in the theta response system: a single sweep analysis
4. An Intertemporal Benchmark Model for Turkey’s Current Account
5. The name is absent
6. How to do things without words: Infants, utterance-activity and distributed cognition.
7. An Efficient Circulant MIMO Equalizer for CDMA Downlink: Algorithm and VLSI Architecture
8. The Prohibition of the Proposed Springer-ProSiebenSat.1-Merger: How much Economics in German Merger Control?
9. Types of Cost in Inductive Concept Learning
10. The name is absent