Integrated and isolated impact of high-performance work practices on employee health and well-being: A comparative study.

Abstract

We investigate the positive relationships between High Performance Work Practices (HPWP) and employee health and well-being, and examine the conflicting assumption that high work intensification arising from HPWP might offset these positive relationships. We present new insights on whether the combined use (or integrated effects) of HPWP has greater explanatory power on employee health, well-being, and work intensification compared to their indicate that the combined use of HPWP may be sensitive to particular organizational settings, and may operate in some sectors but not in others.Key words: High performance work practices, human resource management, employee health, well-being, and work intensification. 2 IntroductionHigh Performance Work Practices (HPWP) are a set of unique but interdependent Human Resource Management (HRM) practices aimed at developing a more effective organization. They typically include training, team working, job autonomy, and practices that optimize employees' skills, motivation, and opportunity to exert discretionary effort (Appelbaum, Bailey, Berg & Kalleberg, 2000). The mainstream view holds that HPWP promote positive employee outcomes such as job satisfaction, commitment, trust, and psychological health (Van De Voorde, Paauwe & Van Veldhoven, 2012); however, studies investigating the ways in which HPWP might be detrimental to employees are generally scarce.Researchers have paid little attention to understanding the relationship between HPWP and work intensification (i.e., the feeling that work is more intense), and how this might offset any positive link between HPWP and employee health and well-being. Thus, the question of whether HPWP impact positively on employees' experiences of work, or are used as a managerial ploy to exploit employees, is unclear. The present study seeks to address these issues by examining data from the 2004 British Workplace Employment Relations Survey (2004 WERS), and comparing findings to data from the 2010 British National Health Service (NHS) Staff survey. The study investigates the extent to which employees' reaction to HPWP as described in the context of a nationally representative sample is comparable to a more specific context, the public healthcare sector.A common theme in HPWP research is that individual HRM practices should be used together in coherent bundles (integrated effects), rather than independently (isolated effects), to achieve a better impact on outcomes. But is there strong analytic evidence for this assumption? In fact, little progress has been made since Ichniowski, Shaw and Prennushi's (1997) seminal study in gathering evidence on whether HPWP have greater explanatory power on outcomes if analyzed in combination, rather than in isolation. To our knowledge, no study 3 has systematically compared the integrated and isolated effects of HPWP on employee health and well-being in a single analysis. This is unsatisfactory as one cannot identify best practices in the HPWP-employee health or well-being relationship without examin...

Workplace resources to improve both employee well-being and performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis

“…through workplace productivity). Sceptics of the mutual gains perspective have raised concerns that the benefits of HR practices are often skewed in favour of the organisation at the expense of employee well-being (Ogbonnaya, Daniels, Connolly, & van Veldhoven, 2017). They argue that HR practices are utilised primarily to drive organisational performance and may thus be experienced by employees as a form of work intensification.…”

Employee performance, well‐being, and differential effects of human resource management subdimensions: Mutual gains or conflicting outcomes?

“…Previous studies have reported significant links between HRM systems and employee commitment (e.g., Gong et al, ; Gould‐Williams, ; Ogbonnaya et al, ; Paré & Tremblay, ). Paré and Tremblay's () study of 394 Canadian workers, for example, showed HRM practices are positively related to both the affective and continuance dimensions of commitment.…”

“…By contrast, others argue that any performance benefits of HRM systems are offset by increased job demands, stress, and work intensification (Kroon, Van de Voorde, & Van Veldhoven, ; Ramsay, Scholarios, & Harley, ). HRM systems optimise employees' skills and performance, but with little or no benefit to their well‐being (Ogbonnaya, Daniels, Connolly, & Van Veldhoven, ). These competing views remain at the heart of HRM research and highlight the possibility of trade‐offs between the performance and well‐being benefits of HRM systems.…”

Job design, employment practices and well-being: a systematic review of intervention studies

“…Although there is evidence that high performance work systems are associated with better organisational performance (Combs et al 2006), links between high performance work systems and worker well-being are less clear (Van De Voorde, Paauwe, and Van Veldhoven 2012). However, a recent study indicates extensive use of high performance work systems, including high quality job design, is related to enhanced worker well-being, but that the moderate use of the underpinning employment practices may be related to low levels of well-being (Ogbonnaya et al 2017). Moreover, there is evidence that high performance work systems can be focused on specific organisational outcomes (Martinaityte, Sacramento, and Aryee in press), and it may be the case that high performance work systems have no beneficial or even adverse impacts on well-being if the system does not have worker well-being as one of its foci (Van De Voorde, Paauwe, and Van Veldhoven 2012).…”

“…In summary, both the socio-technical systems theory and the high performance work systems literatures indicate that job redesign needs to be integrated with other employment practices to enhance well-being and performance (Combs et al 2006;Davis et al 2013;Ogbonnaya et al 2017). This would suggest that other employment practices may augment job redesign, so that job redesign and some other employment practice(s) needs to be present in order to influence well-being and/or performance.…”