Human resource management and employee well‐being: towards a new analytic framework

• Published date: 01 January 2017
• Author: David E. Guest
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12139
• Date: 01 January 2017

Human resource management and employee

well-being: towards a new analytic framework

David E. Guest, Schoolof Management and Business, King’s CollegeLondon

Human Resource Management Journal, Vol 27,no 1, 2017, pages 22–38

The mutual gainsmodel suggests that HRM shouldbenefit both individualsand organisations. However, the

dominantmodels within HRM theory and researchcontinue to focus largelyon ways to improve performance,

with employee concerns very mucha secondary consideration. Furthermore, pressures at work and in society

more widely arecreating an increasing threatto employee well-being. If employee concerns andthe threats to

well-beingare to be taken seriously,a different analytic frameworkfor HRM is required.The article sets out an

alternative approach to HRM that gives priority to practices designed to enhance well-being and a positive

employment relationship, proposing that both elements are essential. Evidence is presented to support the

choice of practices and to argue thatthese also hold the potentialto improve both individualand organisational

performance. It therefore offers a different path to mutual gains. The research and policy implications of this

approach are discussed.

Contact:DavidE.Guest,SchoolofManagementandBusiness,King’s CollegeLondon, 150 Stamford

Street, London SE1 9NH,UK. Email: david.guest@kcl.ac.uk

Keywords: HRM;well-being; the employment relationship; mutualgains; performance

INTRODUCTION

Over the past 30 years, theory and research on HRM has made considerable progress.

For example,we now have a clearer understanding about thestrategic role of external

and internal fit (Boxall and Purcell, 2016), about the process whereby HRM can be

linked to performance( Jianget al., 2012), about its association withfirm performance (Paauwe

et al., 2013) and about the challenges of managing effective implementation (Bowen and

Ostroff, 2004). Although there appearsto be much to commend, not everyone agrees that this

represents significant progress. For example,Kaufman (2012) proposed that 30 years of HRM

research deserves a failing grade, while Guest (2011) suggested that researchers are ‘still

searching for answers’.

The argument in this article is somewhat different. While progress in the field is

acknowledged,it is claimed that the search for a linkbetween HRM and performance hasbeen

pursued at the expense of a concern for employee well-being. Furthermore, changes in the

nature and contextof work support the case fora greater focus on well-being.What is therefore

needed is a differentapproach to HRM that is more likely to enhanceemployee well-being but

which may also offer an alternative route to high performance. The aim of this article is to set

out and justify such an approach.

The changing context and the challenge to employee well-being

There is a strong ethical case for focusing on employee well-being. In addition, changes at

work and in the conditions surrounding work risk eroding work-related well-being with

harmful consequences for employees and, potentially, for organisations. These changes have

Pleasecitethis article in pressas: Guest, D.E.(2017) ‘Humanresource managementand employeewell-being:towardsa new analyticframework’.Human

ResourceManagementJournal 27:1, 22–38

22 HUMAN RESOURCEMANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL27, NO 1, 2017

©2017 John Wiley& Sons Ltd.

doi: 10.1111/1748-8583.12139

bs_bs_banner

been widely signalled but often ignored in the core HRM literature and justify prioritising

HR practices that can help to ameliorate their impact. For example, changes in technology

continue to affect work-related well-being. While some changes are positive, leading to the

automation of routine activities, opportunities to work from home and greater access to

information, others present challenges to employee well-being. Information technology

can increase demand and create work overload (Derks and Bakker, 2010), lead to work-

home interference (Derks et al., 2014), affect the quality of recovery time (Sonnentag,

2003), enhance the opportunities for surveillance with its implications for loss of control

and increased stress (Deery et al., 2002) and contribute to skill obsolescence and associated

job insecurity. While research has demonstrated the benefits for well-being of redesigning

jobs to provide greater autonomy, Felstead et al. (2015) find that in the UK, average levels

of autonomy have declined while work demands have increased, notably in low-skill jobs.

Following the 2008 financial crisis, pressure at work has been exacerbated by the challenge

of stalled productivity in most advanced economies. Analysing the UK productivity

challenge, Bryson and Forth (2015) found widespread increases in workload alongside

static wages. This has reduced fairness and threatened well-being but failed to improve

productivity.

Reduced fairnesscan be linked to growing inequality in society (Picketty,2014), particularly

affected by pay, while Wilkinson and Pickett(2010) claim that countries with lessdispersion of

wealth show higher well-being among their populations. Evidence about growing income

inequalityis startling. For example,Organisation for EconomicCo-operation and Development

(OECD) figuresreveal that in the USA, between1979 and 2013, real wagesincreased by 135 per

cent for the top 1 per cent ofthe working population but by only 15 per centfor the bottom 90

per cent of workers.While little is carried out to address wageinequalities, increasingnumbers

of ‘working poor ’reflect the challenge to well-being.

The growth in employment flexibility, like technology, can be a mixed blessing. Shaped by

employees, this can improve work-life balance, and Aronsson and Göransson (1999) point to

the benefits of being employed on the contract of choice. However, an increasing proportion

of the workforce does not have this choice. The 2008 financial crisis, greater international

competition, technological changes that facilitate the expansion of the ‘gig’economy and the

growth of temporary employment have increased the numbers within what Standing (2011)

describes as the ‘precariat’and have made large areas of employment potentially insecure.

Research on job insecurity convincingly demonstrates its negative impact on well-being

(De Witte et al.,2016).

Well-being may also be affected by lack of optimism about the future. Psychologists have

argued that a sense of progress and an attractive future is essential for individual well-being

(Ryff, 1989). New threats to progress have emerged, ranging from stalled economic growth

and increasing international competition to security threats and global warming. The change

in optimism about the future is particularly acute for millennials. For the first time, surveys

suggest that their prospects are poorer than those of their parents (Elliott, 2016). At work,this

is reflected in threats to career prospects, to employment security and to the long-term

economic security of a decent pension.

This briefoutline of some of the challenges towell-being is germane to HRM. Applyingmore

HR practices to improveperformance has sometimes resulted in work intensification without

providing workers with the resources to cope with this. An advocacy of financial incentives

as a core basis for motivation has encouragedthe kind of behaviour in the financial sectorthat

caused the 2008 financial crisis. Flexibleemployment has led to temporary working, zero-hour

contracts and promotion of contingency models that encourage a focus on talent while

David E. Guest

HUMAN RESOURCEMANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL27, NO 1, 2017 23

©2017 John Wiley& Sons Ltd.