There is a lack of consensus on the role of employee well‐being in the human resource management–organizational performance relationship. This review examines which of the competing perspectives –‘mutual gains’ or ‘conflicting outcomes’– is more appropriate for describing this role of employee well‐being. In addition, this review examines whether study attributes such as the measurement of key variables, the level of analysis and the study design affect a study's outcomes. The review covers 36 quantitative studies published from 1995 to May 2010. Employee well‐being is described here using three dimensions: happiness, health and relationship. The main findings are that employee well‐being in terms of happiness and relationship is congruent with organizational performance (mutual gains perspective), but that health‐related well‐being appears to function as a conflicting outcome. Directions for future research and theoretical development are suggested.
Although research has shown that the use of high-performance work systems (HPWS) is associated with employee outcomes, our knowledge of the meanings employees attach to HPWS systems and how these shape employee outcomes is still limited. This study examines the signalling impact of enacted HPWS on HR well-being and HR performance attributions, and how these influence happiness-and health-related outcomes. Using multilevel data (1,065 employees nested within 150 work units) obtained from multiple sources (line managers and employees), our results show that coverage of HPWS was positively associated with the two HR attributions. In addition, HR well-being attributions were associated with higher levels of commitment and lower levels of job strain. HR performance attributions were associated with higher levels of job strain. The findings of this study highlight the importance of taking into account how employees attach meaning to enacted HPWS in order to predict employee outcomes.
General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.-Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research-You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain-You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright, please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
The authors provide an up‐to‐date theoretically based qualitative review of research dealing with the relationship between HRM, employee well‐being, and individual/organisational performance (HRM‐WB‐IOP research). The review is based on a systematic critical analysis of all HRM‐WB‐IOP studies (N = 46) published in 13 core HRM and management journals in the 2000 to 2018 period. The authors first identify different theoretical models of the HRM‐WB‐IOP relationship, which they then use to map research in the area. The results show that mutual gains conceptualisations play a dominant role in extant HRM‐WB‐IOP research, at the expense of alternative conflicting outcomes and mutual losses models, which are also shown to receive very limited empirical support across the 46 studies. As part of this mapping exercise, the authors identify important knowledge gaps in the area and conclude by setting out a number of key recommendations for future research to address these gaps.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.