presentation Global Forum on Jobs and Policies: New Jobs Strategy for Changing World of Work, Seoul (South Korea), organised by Korea Labor Institute, 21 November 2019

1. ‘European workplace innovation’
Peter Oeij / TNO, Netherlands
International Conference on Jobs and New Technology: New Jobs Strategy for Changing World of Work
21 November 2019
Venue: JW Marriot Hotel Seoul (Grand Ballroom), Seoul, South Korea
Host: Presidential Jobs Commission
Organizer: Korea Labor Institute
This project has received
funding from the
European Union’s Horizon
2020 research and
innovation programme
under grant agreement
No 8222293.

2. Content of my talk
- 1.How is workplace innovation understood in Europe?
- 2.What seems to be the issue with Workplace innovation in South Korea?
- 3.Workplace innovation & interventions in Europe
- 4.Conclusions and suggestions of future avenues for South Korea
안녕하세요 !
반갑습니다 !

3. 1. How is workpace innovation (WPI) understood in Europe?

4. - Elements determining the European approach of WPI:
-The tradition of the European Social Model, European Employment Strategy and the concept of
the Welfare State (Rogowski, 2008)
-The European Union in the aftermath of two World Wars
-The tradition of Humanism and its influence on EU politics and work and organisation studies:
Humanisation of Work, Tavistock Institute of Human Relations, Sociotechnical-systems thinking,
Quality of Working life, the rejection of Technological Determinisn and the awareness of Market
imperfections/failure
-March 1999: the European Work Organisation Network (EWON) was launched
[i.e., first concrete start of workplace innovation, with strong affinity with modern sociotechnical
concepts (De Sitter et al., 1997; Totterdill et al., 2002)]
-Some entrepreneurs understand: Workplace innovation is a strategic choice (Child, 1972).

5. WPI =
Approach
that requires
a mindset
Humanistic view
on labour,
management
and organisation
Employee
engagement
and employee
involvement
Not top
down but
bottom up
Workplace innovation = WPI
Decentralis-
ation not
centralisation
Social
dialogue
Modern manager

6. Managers understand they
need a(n) integral / holistic
view on their organisation
Structure follows strategy,
And
Culture follows structure
(Chandler,1962, Karanika-Murray& Oeij,2017)
structure
culture
strategy
Modern manager

7. 7
structure culture
strategy
Humanistic management
‘philosophy’:
Decentralise as much as
possible
Production system:
No unneeded division of
labour;
No unneeded bureaucracy;
No unneeded separation of
management tasks from
operations
Secure autonomy
in design of:
Departments; teams; jobs &
tasks
HR system:
Nurtures commitment
Type of leadership:
People centred
&
Bottom up
Organisational behaviour:
High employee involvement
& engagement
Outcome:
Good quality of working life
Good quality of organisational performance
More innovative capability
…structure follows strategy, culture follows structure…
Modern manager
(Source: Karanika-Murray & Oeij, 2017; Oeij et al., 2019)

8. Definition workplace innovation
(Oeij & Dhondt, 2017, p.66 in Oeij, Rus & Pot, eds.)
So:
organistional performance
Structural + cultural change =
quality of working life
employee engagement

9. What to remind about workplace
innovation(Oeij, Dhondt, Pot & Totterdill, 2018, p. 55; Oeij, Rus & Pot, 2017)
FROM SYMPTOMATIC SOLUTIONS TO ROOT
CAUSES:
WPI: affects structure of organisational design (root causes) (MacDuffie,
1997)
WPI: background in modern sociotechnics (De Sitter et al., 1997)
Employee engagement can only be realised when structural
conditions for good quality of work are met (culture alone is not
enough)
Therefore WPI ≠ ‘just HR measures’ [i.e. HPWS, Appelbaum et al., 2000]
(symptomatic solutions)
From
bureaucratic
organisation
design…
To flexible
flow-based
organisation
design
(Van Amelsvoort &
Van Hootegem,
2017)

10. Face value correlation HPWS – WPI:
(Source: KLI Working Paper, 2017) (Source: Oeij, Dhondt, Pot, Totterfill, 2018)
- In EU: same (Nordic) countries score high on HPWS-index and WPI-index
- Korea: low uptake of HPWS according to HPWS index

11. 2. What is the issue with workpace innovation (WPI) in South Korea?

12. KLI Working Paper 2017-16 (Kiu-Sik Bae & Chang-Won Lee, 2017)
KLI observes various reasons why Korean companies are behind in WPI:
• A technology-focused mindset of management > consequence is limited attention
for trustbuilding relationships with workers and usage of workers’ knowledge
• Confrontational industrial relations > consequence is focus on control of workers and
substitution of labour with automa[tisa]tion
Additional information providedby KLI:
• Governmental policy today: promotes workplace innovations by
sending consultants to SMEs and providing subsidies for Smart
Factories > but the effectiveness of government promotion policies remains to be seen.

13. 3. Workplace innovation & interventions in Europe

14. Research example of workplace innovation
Oeij et al, 2016, Implementing Workplace
Innovation across Europe: why, how and
what? Economic and Social Changes:
Facts, Trends, Forecast, 5(47), 195-218.
-51 cases selected from European Company Survey
(contains 30.000 companies) with high score on
WPI-index
-from 10 different EU member states
-interview among mangement, employees and
employee representatitives / unions
-period 2013-2015

15. Workplace Innovation interventions
Source:
Third European Company Survey Workplace innovation in European
companies: Technical annex
[to the report Third European Company Survey – Workplace innovation in
European companies (Eurofound, 2015), which is available online at
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/report/2015/working-
conditions/third-european-companysurvey-workplace-innovation-in-
european-companies ]

16. What is the secret to succesful WPI
implementation of the cases in the Eurofound
research? [Oeij ea, 2015]
• Mature employment relationships:
• 1.management, employees and works councils agree about why WPI should be
implemented [efficiency, competitive advantage, innovatieve capability]
• 2.management, employees and works councils agree about leverage factors
[employee involvement, top management commitment, powerful leadership]
• 3.management, employees and works councils agree about desired impacts
factors [employee engagement, longer term sustainability, high performance]

17. Source: Oeij P. R.A., Dhondt S., Žiauberytė-Jakštienė R., Corral
A., Totterdill P. Implementing workplace innovation
across Europe: Why, How and What? Economic and Social
Changes: Facts, Trends, Forecast, 2016, no. 5, pp. 195-218.
DOI: 10.15838/esc/2016.5.47.11

18. Initiative of
WPI:
economic goal
Target:
improved
economic
performance
Mediating role
for employees
& employee
reps
Design of WPI
practices
Implementation
of WPI
practices
Target:
improved
quality of work
& engagement
1 32
2
18
PATTERN OF IMPLEMENTING WPI-
PRACTICES (PROCESS MODEL)

19. To summarize
• Economic goals are a driver [initiating by management]
• Employees are quickly involved in designing and implementing the
intervention
• Quality of work goals become part of the design as a consequence
• Key factor: dialogue about common interests for the longer term
(Thus: mature employment relationships are not only a condition but continue to grow over time/for the future)
management
works council
employees

20. Workplace innovation as an intervention
• It starts with a ‘problem’ that needs to be solved by an ‘intervention’ [requires solid
analysis of root cause (MacDuffie, 1997)]
• WPI says: it should positively affect both organisational performance (right
to exist) and quality of work (sustainable employability)
• WPI is about ‘content’
• An intervention in ‘structure’, ‘culture’ or mix of both
• WPI is not the same as technological intervention or ‘social’ intervention
• WPI is a means, not a goal in itself
• WPI is about ‘process’
• It engages and / or involves people
• It is much like a change process
• It uses talents of people and further develops those talents
• It is a deliberate choice that companies can make (remember: Humanistic mindset)

21. 4. Conclusion and suggestions for future avenues

22. Assumed differences South Korea and EU
• Focus on technology / Neo-
liberal thinking strong?
• Large companies [chaebols]
dominant position?
• Conflicting industrial relations?
• Women leaving the labour
market after marriage (also
higher educated staff)?
• Social welfare may not be
overlooked / Humanist tradition
• Much innovations come from
SME companies
• Unions force employers to
negotiate
• Social rights protect the equality
of all workers
Sources: Cho, 2014; Cho et al., 2018; Frenkel & Lee, 2010; Kim & Bae, 2005; Kim et al., 2015; Kiu-Sik & Hyunji,
2008/9; Kiu-Sik & Chang-Won, 2017; http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=27454 )

23. Assumed commonalities South Korea and EU
• Strong /fierce international competition
• High labour costs
• To remain competitive focus must be on quality (not only cost reduction)
• Dependency on highly skilled work force (to remain innovative in long term)
• In EU and US: Shortage well educated labour in future (risk factor limit to
growth)
• polarization trend and ‘so-so’ technologies displace middle-skill occupations now, but
upcomig technologies like AI, Machine Learning, Cobotisation will enhance future
demand of specialised employees [MIT, 2019]. How are these developments in South Korea?
• Ageing population (expensive social costs)

24. Assumed common challenges South Korea and EU
• Flexible labour relations (but should not undermine social security
and social cohesion)
• Investing in training in new skills (Fourth Industrial Revolution)
• Reinvent social security institutions (unemployment benefits,
pensions, basic income or not)
• Needed energy transition, dealing with climate change
• Need to answer to populist movements / political unrest
• The number of WPI companies is still modest (about 10-15%)

25. Europe’s answer
• Above all: EU has strong focus in having the right institutions in place (see extra references).
• Awareness that automation, robotics and AI should not only eradicate jobs, but needs more
training and education as a proper response and (regional) cooperation / smart industrialisation
(Dhondt et al, 2019; Stam & Van de Ven, 2018)
• Good jobs strategy: WPI implies sustainable employment and participation in change / renewal
/ innovation, therefore enhancing the organisation’s innovative capability [absorptive capacity].
In the EU employers and unions make concerted efforts to also make low paid jobs interesting
and encertain social security basics (MIT, 2019; Osterman, 2018; Rodrik & Sabel, 2019).
• Regard employees as experts about their own work; external consultants will meet resistance
unless employees are invited to participate [democratic dialogue](Totterdill et al, 2009)
• In few collective labour agreements (Netherlands): arrangements made about innovation in
combination with WPI [cooperation and social innovation goals, training for employees]
• In Belgium private consultants are trained in workplace innovation methods by a non-
commercial agency, with the purpose that every consultant in every company speaks the same
‘WPI-language’ (https://www.workitects.be/)
• EU initiative to roll out Workplace Innovation (EUWIN) (https://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/innovation/policy/workplace_en ;
https://nl-nl.facebook.com/euwinEU/ ; also Alasoini, 2015)

26. EUWIN – EUropean Workplace
Innovation Network
free download
available
http://portal.ukwon.eu/euwin-dashboard
Knowledge Bank Workplace Innovation: Best practices and
other information about Workplace Innovation and Smart
Working
http://www.workplaceinnovation.org/nl/kennis/kennisbank

27. Netherlands and Belgium
• Institutional aspect: ‘Polder model’: consensus industrial relations model (NL)
• Employees / Unions: little direct influence in technological choice at organisational
level, but influence conditions & effects like job security, enumeration, working
schemes, working conditions / safety [NL];
• Government: legislation social security, employee representation, working conditions
& safety, declaration of ‘general binding’ of collective labour agreements, subsidies
(SME), financing research [NL]
• Education and institutionalisation modern sociotechnics
• NL:Tripartite organisation NCSI (Dutch centre for workplace innovation), TU Eindhoven,
Radboud University, Hanzehogeschool, Consultancy firms (Koers, ST Groep)
• BE: Flemish governmental support, Flanders Synergyconsultancy, KU Leuven, consultancy firm
Workitects
• European Social Fund: WPI subsidies for hundreds of SME-companies (but in practice
focus on HR measures, not organisational redesign measures)

28. Role TNO and some examples in NL
• Mainly (applied and evaluation) research & policy advice; less consultancy
• My company2.0 [2012-2013] guiding 100 SME companies, training, consulting
• Expedition Workplace innovation [2014-2015] learning community 10 companies
• Logistics Innovation adoption [2015-2018] Serious Game, Massive Open Online Course
• Logistics ‘New leadership for innovation’ [2019-2020] learning network co-creation instrument
• Logistics SHAREHOUSE [2017-2022] Cooperation Warehouse technology education, business, science

29. Some suggestions /questions for future avenues for WPI in Korea
• Companies & industrial sectors
• Dialogue and employee engagement is a succes factor for WPI in Europe: what could this mean for
employment and industrial relations in Korea?
• WPI activities in Korea in past 10 years: if present, focus is/was on employment relations, safety and
organisational culture (symptoms), but perhaps structural elements were underrepresented (causes)?
• Governmental bodies
• When investing in technological and business innovation programmes, include resources for workplace
innovation to complement technological / business innovation
• The EU instititions are a reconcilement of economic goals and social goals, enhancing opportunities for
individual EU Member States to choose their own configurations at national/regional/local level
• Many EU regulations are based on a ‘chain responsibility’ for companies within and across sectors;
what would this imply for the relation between chaebols and related (SME) companies (suppliers etc.)?
• There is much knowledge and evidence about the relation between WPI-interventions/ measures and
their economic and quality of work effects: how can this be best used, applied, disseminated and
anchored in Korea?

30. Thank you for your attention!
• Peter Oeij [peter.oeij@tno.nl] www.beyond4-0.org
감사합니다

31. References
-Alasoini, T. (2015). Workplace development programmes as institutional entrepreneurs. Why they produce change and why they do not. Dissertation. Helsinki.
-Appelbaum, E., Baily, T., Berg, P. & Kalleberg, A.L. (2000). Manufacturing advantage. Why High-Performance Work Systems pay off. Corneel University Press.
-Chandler, A.D. (1962). Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of American Enterprise. MIT Press, Boston.
-Child, J. (1972). “Organizational Structure, Environment and Performance The Role of Strategic Choice,” Sociology, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1-22.
-Cho S.J. (2014) Workplace Innovation and the Work Process. In: B. Kiu-Sik (ed.) Employment Relations in South Korea. Palgrave Macmillan, London.
-Cho, S.J., Oh, G., Kim, D-B., Jeon, W-S., Im, W-T. (2018). Current Status and Future Direction of Workplace Innovation. English summary. Korea Labor Institute.
-Dhondt, S., Van der Zee, F., Preenen, P., Kraan, K. & Oeij, P. (2019). Dominant technology and organization: impacts of digital technology on skills. Chapter prepared for Fraunhofer. (Forthcoming).
-Frenkel, S. J. and Lee, B. H. (2010), Do high performance work practices work in South Korea? Industrial Relations Journal, 41: 479-504. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2338.2010.00581.x
-Karanika-Murray, M. & Oeij, P.R.A. (2017). The role of work and organizational psychology for workplace innovation practice: From short-sightedness to eagle view. European Work and Organizational Psychology in Practice, 1, 19-30
-Kim, D.-O. & Bae, J. (2005) Workplace innovation, employment relations and HRM: two electronics companies in South Korea, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16:7, 1277-1302.
-Kim, Y., Kim, D., & Ali, M. (2015). The Effects of Mutual Trustworthiness between Labour and Management in Adopting High Performance Work Systems. Relations Industrielles / Industrial Relations, 70(1), 36-61
-Kiu-Sik, B. & Hyunji, K. (2008/2009). Workplace innovation: Direction and government policies. [Session 3].
-Kiu-Sik, B. & Chang-Won, L. (2017). Innovation needed for workplace innovation policies. KLI Working Paper 2017-16. Seoul: Korea Labor Institute.
-MacDuffie, J.P. (1997). The Road to “Root Cause”: Shop-Floor Problem-Solving at Three Auto Assembly Plants. Management Science, Vol. 43, No. 4 : doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.43.4.479.
-MIT Work of the Future (2019). The work of the future: Shaping technology and institutions. (D. Autor, D.A. Mindell, E.B. Reynolds). Fall 2019 Report.
-Oeij P. R.A., Dhondt S., Žiauberytė-Jakštienė R., Corral A., Totterdill P. Implementing workplace innovation across Europe: Why, How and What? Economic and Social Changes: Facts, Trends, Forecast, 2016, no. 5, pp. 195-218. DOI: 10.15838/esc/2016.5.47.11
-Oeij, P.R.A., Preenen, P.Y.T., Van der Torre, W., Van der Meer, L., Van den Eerenbeemt, J. (2019). Technological choice and workplace innovation: Towards efficient and humanised work. European Public & Social Innovation Review, 4(1), 15-26.
-Osterman, P. (2018). In search of the High Road. Meaning and evidence. ILR Review, 71, 1, January, 3-34.
-Rogowski, R. (ed). The European social model and transitional labour markets. Law and Policy. Surrey: Ashgate
-Rodrik, D. & Sabel, C. (2019). Building a good jobs economy. Draft, April.
-Sitter, U. de, Den Hertog, F., & Dankbaar, B. (1997), “From Complex Organizations with Simple Jobs to Simple Organizations with Complex Jobs”, Human Relations, Vol. 50, no. 5, pp. 497-534.
-Stam, E. & Van de Ven, A. (2018). Entrepreneurial ecosystems. A systems perspective. U.S.E. Working Paper 18-06. Utrecht University, School of Economics.
-Totterdill, P., Dhondt, S. & Milsome, S. (2002). Partners at work? A report to Europe’s policy makers and social partners. Report of the Hi-Res Project [High Road of work organisation as a resource].
-Totterdill, P., Exton, O., Exton, R., Sherrin, J., (2009). Workplace Innovation in European Countries. Report to KOWIN (Korean Ministry of Labour). Nottingham: UKWON.
-Van Amelsvoort, P. & Van Hootegem, G. (2017). Towards a Total Workplace Innovation concept based on Sociotechnical Systems Design. In: Oeij, P. R.A., Rus, D. and Pot F.D. (eds) (2017). Workplace Innovation: Theory, Research and Practice (pp. 281-299). Springer: Cham

32. Additional References
-Dhondt, S. and P. Oeij. “Social innovation related to innovation in management studies”. In Theoretical approaches to social innovation
– A critical literature review (pp.122-150), edited by J. Howaldt, A. Butzin, D. Domanski and C. Kaletka. Dortmund: SI-Drive [EU Seventh
Framework Programme], September 2014.
-Howaldt, Jürgen and Oeij, Peter R.A. (Eds.) (2016). Workplace innovation – Social innovation: Shaping work organisation and working
life. Special issue of World Review of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable, Issue, 12, Vol. 1, pp. 1-129.
-Oeij, P.R.A., Dhondt, S. & Korver, T. (2011). Social innovation, workplace innovation and social quality. International Journal of Social
Quality, 1 (2, Winter), 31-49.
-Oeij, P., Dhondt, S., Pot, F., Totterdill, P. (2018). Workplace innovation as an important driver of social innovation. In: Howaldt, J.,
Kaletka, C., Schröder, A., Zirngiebl, M. (eds), Atlas of Social Innovation – New Practices for a Better Future (pp. 54-57). Dortmund:
Sozialforschungsstelle, TU Dortmund.
-Oeij, P., Dhondt, S., Torre, W. van der (2018). Linking practice fields of social innovations in the domain of employment. In:
Howaldt, J., Kaletka, C., Schröder, A., Zirngiebl, M. (eds.), Atlas of Social Innovation – New Practices for a Better Future (pp. 173-
175). Dortmund: Sozialforschungsstelle, TU Dortmund.
-Oeij, P.R.A., Rus, D., Dhondt, S. & Van Hootegem, G. (Eds) (2019). Workplace innovation in the era of disruptive technologies. Special
Issue of International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation.16(3), 199-309. DOI: 10.1504/IJTTC.2019.10021355
-Oeij, P. R.A., Rus, D. and Pot F.D. (eds) (2017). Workplace Innovation: Theory, Research and Practice, Series 'Aligning Perspectives on
Health, Safety and Well-Being’. Springer: Cham (Switzerland); DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-56333-6; ISBN 978-3-319-56332-9.
-Oeij, P.R.A., Van der Torre, W., Vaas, S., & Dhondt, S. (2019). Understanding Social Innovation as an innovation process: Applying the
Innovation Journey model. Journal of Business Research, 101(8), 243-254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.04.028
-Pot, F., Dhondt, S. & Oeij, P. (2012), Social innovation of work and employment. In: Franz, H-W. and Hochgerner, J. (Eds.), Challenge
Social Innovation (pp. 261-274). Berlin: Springer.
-Pot, Frank, Dhondt, Steven, Oeij, Peter, Rus, Diana, & Totterdill, Peter (2019). Complementing digitalisation with workplace innovation.
In: Howaldt, J., Kaletka, C., Schröder, A., Zirngiebl, M. (eds.), Atlas of Social Innovation. 2nd Volume – A world of new practices (pp. 42-
46). Oekoem Verlag, München (ISBN: 978-3-96238-157-8). Download free : www.socialinnovationatlas.net
[Available on request: peter.oeij@tno.nl]

33. Some relevant EU documents that
promote workplace innovation
-European Commission (2019). Employment and Social Developments in Europe 2019, Sustainable growth for all:
choices for the future of Social Europe. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Directorate-General
for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=8219
-EESC (European Economic and Social Committee) (2019). Social dialogue for innovation in digital economy [own-
initiative opinion SOC/577] Brussels: EESC.
-Industry 2030 high-level industrial roundtable (2019). A vision for the European industry until 2030. Brussels:
European Commission.
-European Agency for Safety & Health at Work published a study, Foresight on new and emerging occupational safety
and health risks associated with digitalisation by 2025 (EU-OSHA, 2018)
-European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA) (2019). The fourth industrial revolution and social
innovation in the workplace. (Discussion Paper). Bilbao: EU-OSHA.
-On its innovation web page DG GROW refers to “key enabling technologies, such as workplace innovation” (DG
GROW, 2019). DG GROW (European Commission) (2019) http://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/innovation_en
and https://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/innovation/policy/workplace_en
-The European Pillar of Social Rights sets out 20 key principles and rights to support fair and well-functioning labour
markets and welfare systems.

34. Discount publication on Workplace Innovation