We appreciate the helpful comments received from the editor and two anonymous reviewers. We thank Ed Gubman, Ray Baumruk, Craig Lewis, Christoph Schenzler, and seminar participants in the Management Department at Michigan State University and in the School of Industrial and Labor Relations at Cornell University for their assistance and insightful comments.
ARE THE 100 BEST BETTER? AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BEING A “GREAT PLACE TO WORK” AND FIRM PERFORMANCE
Version of Record online: 7 DEC 2006
Volume 56, Issue 4, pages 965–993, December 2003
How to Cite
FULMER, I. S., GERHART, B. and SCOTT, K. S. (2003), ARE THE 100 BEST BETTER? AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BEING A “GREAT PLACE TO WORK” AND FIRM PERFORMANCE. Personnel Psychology, 56: 965–993. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00246.x
An earlier version of this paper was presented at the August 2000 meeting of the Academy of Management in Toronto, Ontario.
- Issue online: 7 DEC 2006
- Version of Record online: 7 DEC 2006
We argue that positive employee relations effectively serves as an intangible and enduring asset, and may, therefore, be a source of sustained competitive advantage at the firm level. We survey a number of measures of firm-level performance and conceptualize how each measure is likely to be affected by highly positive firm-level employee relations. We then empirically investigate whether positive employee relations is related to firm performance, focusing on publicly traded firms included in the “100 Best Companies to Work for in America.” The relative performance of these “Best Companies” is examined via comparisons to both companies in the broad market and a group of matched firms. Our analyses suggest that companies on the 100 Best list enjoy not only stable and highly positive workforce attitudes, but also performance advantages over the broad market, and in some cases, over the matched group.