Are High Performance HR Practices Good for Employee Well-Being?: A Disaggregated Analysis

Employee well-being is a central concern in the study of contemporary work. Although it is of interest in its own right, it is also seen to have significant influence on organisational competitive advantage and performance (Albrecht 2012). The capacity of organisations to engender high levels of employee well-being and organisational performance has attracted much academic interest, and the influence of so-called high performance HR (HP-HR) practices has been a key area of academic investigation. The mainstream view suggests that implementing high performance working improves both employee- and organisational-level outcomes (Chaudhuri 2009; Macky & Boxall 2008; Appelbaum, Bailey, Berg, & Kalleberg 2000). Nonetheless, a growing body of empirical evidence demonstrates that HP-HR practices can be detrimental for employees (Jensen, Patel, & Messersmith 2013; Godard 2001; Ramsay, Scholarios, & Harley 2000). High performance working is seen to promote a stressful work environment (Kroon, van de Voorde, & van Veldhoven 2009; White, Hill, McGovern, Mills, & Smeaton 2003). An emerging view on the subject, however, relates the influence of HP-HR practices on employee well-being to the nature of the practices in question (Topcic, Baum & Kabst 2016; Wood, van Veldhoven, Croon & de Menezes 2012). It is argued that it is too simplistic to assume that HP-HR practices influence employee well-being homogeneously (Jiang, Lepak, & Baer 2012; Subramony 2009; Wright & Kehoe 2008).

This study examines the differing influence of various dimensions of HP-HR practices on employees’ happiness- and health-related well-being. It differentiates between four broad categories (bundles) of multiple complementary HP-HR practices, based on the ability-motivation-opportunity-commitment (AMOC) model (Guest & Conway, 2007). The additive effects of these HP-HR practices are examined to gain a nuanced perspective on their divergent influences on well-being.

Using matched employer-employee data from the 2011 British Workplace Employment Relations Survey (WERS 2011), the study demonstrates that the relationship between HP-HR practices and employee well-being is dependent upon the type of practice in question. Contrary to much existing research, the results show a mixed picture. Although some HP-HR practices result in beneficial well-being outcomes, not all HP-HR practices are so positive.

Generally, HP-HR practices seem to have a significant negative relationship or show no significant association with employee well-being. In particular, multiple complementary HP-HR practices that are seen as antecedents to enhancing employees’ skills and abilities seem to have a detrimental association with employees’ health-related well-being. Similarly, HP-HR practices that are seen to enhance employee commitment to the organisation also tend to be negatively and significantly related to employee well-being, increasing their job-related anxiety and depression and reducing their job satisfaction and organisational commitment. No significant association seems to exist between HP-HR practices comprising the motivation-enhancing bundle and employees’ health- and happiness-related well-being.  Likewise, no significant empirical association is established between skills and ability-enhancing practices and employees’ happiness-related well-being (job satisfaction and organisational commitment). However, the opportunity-enhancing bundle is seen to promote employee well-being, by significantly reducing employees’ level of job-related anxiety and depression and increasing their job satisfaction and organisational commitment.

The findings of the study support the view that not all HP-HR practices relate to employee well-being in the same way, and highlight the importance of disaggregating the varying components of a high performance work system The study strongly questions the positive view regarding the usefulness of HP-HR practices for employee-level outcomes, and encourages a more balanced pproach to examining the influence of HP-HR practices on employees.

Key Words: High Performance Practices. Human Resource Management, Employee Well-Being

 

References

Albrecht, S. L. 2012. The influence of job, team and organizational level resources on employee well-being, engagement, commitment and extra-role performance: Test of a model. International Journal of Manpower, 33(7), pp. 840–853.

Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P. & Kalleberg, A., 2000. Manufacturing advantage: Why high-performance work systems pay off, Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.

 Godard, J. 2001. High performance and the transformation of work? The implications of alternative work practices for the experience and outcomes of work. Industrial & Labour Relations Review, 54(4), pp.776–805.

Guest, D. E., & Conway, N. 2007. Human resource management, employee attitudes and workplace performance: An examination of the linkages using the 2004 Workplace Employment Relations Survey. Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform (BERR). URN 08/626.

Jensen, J. M., Patel, P. C. & Messersmith, J. G. 2013. High-performance work systems and job control: Consequences for anxiety, role overload, and turnover intentions. Journal of Management, 39(6), pp.1699–1724.

Jiang, K., Lepak, D., & Baer, J. 2012. How does human resource management influence organizational outcomes? A meta-analytic investigation of mediating mechanisms. Academy of Management Journal, 55(6), pp. 1264-1294.

Kroon, B., van de Voorde, K. & van Veldhoven, M. 2009. Cross-level effects of high-performance work practices on burnout: Two counteracting mediating mechanisms compared. Personnel Review, 38(5), pp.509–525.

Macky, K. & Boxall, P. 2008. High-involvement work processes, work intensification and employee well-being: A study of New Zealand worker experiences. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources.46(1), pp. 38-55.

Ramsay, H., Scholarios, D. & Harley, B. 2000. Employees and high-performancework systems: Testing inside the black box. British Journal of Industrial Relations,41(2), pp. 501-531.

Subramony, M. 2009. A meta-analytic Investigation of the relationship between HRM Bundles and firm performance. Human Resource Management, 48(5), pp.745–768.

Topcic, M., Baum, M. & Kabst, R. 2016. Are high-performance work practices related to individually perceived stress? A job demands-resources perspective. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(1), pp.45–66.

White, M., Hills, S., McGovern, P., Mills, C., & Smeaton, D. 2003. High-performance  management practices , working hours and work – life balance. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 41(2), pp. 175–195.

Wood, S., Van Veldhoven, M., Croon, M., & de Menezes, L. M. 2012. Enriched job design, high involvement management and organizational performance: The mediating roles of job satisfaction and well-being. Human Relations, 65(4), pp.419–445.

Wright, P. M. & Kehoe, R. R. 2008. Human Resource practices and organisational commitment: A deeper examination. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 46(1), pp.6–20.