The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0048-3486.htm

The influence of high-commitment Influence of

high-
work system on work well-being: commitment
work system
the mediating role of psychological
empowerment and the moderating
role of leader trust Received 20 January 2020
Revised 10 August 2020
Accepted 24 August 2020
Xiufeng Li
School of Business, Shandong Normal University, Jinan, China, and
Congcong Lin
School of Business, Renmin University of China, Beijing, China

Abstract
Purpose – We draw on the conservation of resources theory to explore when and how a high-commitment
work system (HCWS) improves employees’ work well-being.
Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected from 64 branches in a high-tech company, involving
64 supervisors and 434 employees to examine the influence of branch-level HCWS on employees’ work well-
being at individual level.
Findings – Consistent with our predictions, the results indicate that a well-designed human resource
management (HRM) system (i.e. HCWS) helps to enhance employees’ work well-being. Psychological
empowerment is seen as an important mechanism linking HCWS with work well-being. The effects of HCWS
on psychological empowerment and work well-being are significantly positive only when leader trust in
employees is high.
Originality/value – This study indicates a novel resource theoretical perspective regarding the HRM system-
employee well-being relationship. It provides insights into how contextual resources (HCWS) enhance
employees’ work well-being by potentiating the effect of personal resources (psychological empowerment). Just
as the old saying goes, “give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a
lifetime,” the leader trust serves as a critical valve.
Keywords High-commitment work system, Work well-being, Psychological empowerment, Leader trust,
Conservation of resources theory
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Work serves not only as a means of making a living but also as a way of realizing self-value and
well-being. The United Nations (2015) recently ranked “Good health and well-being” as the third
goalof17 SustainableDevelopmentGoals,attractingwideattention.Inthissense,managersneed
to pay attention to the physical and mental health of employees and try to create a happy
workplace to promote the sustainable development of their organizations (Spreitzer and Porath,
2012). Keeping with this notion, enhancing employee well-being has thus increasingly become a
strategic priority for many firms and their human resources (HR) departments (Guest, 2017). For
example, China Southern Airlines, which is listed among the top 30 best employers in China,
adheres to the management concept of “nohappy employees, no happy customers” and spares no
expense to create a favorable working and living environment for employees, to effectively
improve customer satisfaction and firm’s performance (Jiang, 2018). That is, the happier the
employees, the more “prosperous” the enterprise is likely to be.

Funding information: Supported by Shandong Social Science Foundation of China, Grant/Award Personnel Review
numbers: Project No: 16CGLJ29; Joint PhD Student Funded Programs of Renmin University of China, © Emerald Publishing Limited
0048-3486
School of Business. DOI 10.1108/PR-01-2020-0034
PR Prior studies on employee well-being have mainly focused on individual motivation,
personality (Bakker et al., 2019; Koopmann et al., 2016), job characteristics (Kinnunen and
Feldt, 2013; Zacher and Schmitt, 2016) and leadership (Chughtai et al., 2015; Yang, 2014). By
contrast, the relationship between HRM systems and employee well-being has received
limited attention (Cao et al., 2019). However, the human resource management (HRM) system,
which is a formal institution implemented by organizations, plays an important role in
shaping employees’ attitudes, behaviors and performance (Chowhan, 2016), all of which are
closely related to employee well-being in the workplace. Extant literature has three notable
gaps. First, from a theoretical perspective, previous research has primarily drawn on
behavior theory, resource-based theory, human capital theory, social exchange theory and
the ability, motivation and opportunity model to explore the impact of HRM system.
However, these theories do not capture the whole picture of individual emotions, affections
and other psychological experiences and thus may not fully grasp employees’ situation to
unpack the impact of HRM practices on work well-being.
Second, previous studies have found that HRM systems affect work well-being by
improving individual self-efficacy, job involvement and organizational justice (Du et al., 2014;
Fan et al., 2014; Heffernan and Dundon, 2016; Huang et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2013). With the
advent of a new era of employee-oriented management, organizations have increasingly relied
on employees for success. Empowering and motivating employees have become pivotal ways
to promote the development of organizations and enhance employees’ work well-being (Chen,
2016). In this case, however, more research attention is necessary on how organizations can
design and implement HRM systems to motivate employees and thus facilitate their well-being.
Third, empirical evidence linking HRM systems to work well-being remains patchy and
conflicting. Some studies have demonstrated that HRM systems are positively related to
work well-being (e.g. Fan et al., 2014; Huang et al., 2016), whereas others have shown that their
association with work well-being varies by types of HRM practices (Lin et al., 2020; Korff et al.,
2017; Wood and de Menezes, 2011). Several scholars have even described HRM system as a
double-edged sword, boosting organizational performance at the expense of employees’ job
stress and dissatisfaction (e.g. Guest, 2017; Heffernan and Dundon, 2016; Wood et al., 2012).
To address these conflicting findings, researchers have tried to uncover the boundary
conditions under which HRM systems function more or less, such as testing the moderating
role of procedural fairness, organization-based self-esteem and perceptions of exchange in the
relationship between HRM systems and work well-being (Fan et al., 2014; Heffernan and
Dundon, 2016; Zhang et al., 2013). In addition, leaders play an important role in shaping
employees’ understanding and perceptions of the work environment (Den Hartog et al., 2013),
as they are the immediate source of behavioral data on which employees base their views of
organizational policies (Mayer et al., 2007). In this sense, how leaders treat employees, such as
their trust in subordinates, may have the potential to strengthen the link between HRM
systems and work well-being, which warrants further discussion.
This study contributes to extant literature in three ways. First, we draw on conservation of
resources (COR) theory to deepen our understanding of the influence of a high-commitment work
system (HCWS) on work well-being. We ground the HRM system on the resource-based view,
which holds that a series of interdependent HRM practices must be rare, valuable, inimitable and
non-substitutable to contribute to sustainable competitive advantages of organizations (Wright
et al., 2001). From the perspective of COR theory (Hobfoll, 2001), HCWS can also be regarded as a
job resource that organizations provide to their employees to increase job involvement and
happiness at work (Boon and Kalshoven, 2014; Hu and Mao, 2017). Halbesleben et al. (2014, p.
1341) define “resources as things perceived to help one achieve his or her goals.” To some extent,
this notion fits well with the conceptualization of resources at the organizational level from
resource-based theory (Halbesleben et al., 2014). COR theory may thus provide a better
theoretical basis for bridging the two research fields of HRM and work well-being.
 Second, psychological empowerment is concerned with individuals’ cognition about Influence of
themselves in relation to their work roles, and high psychological empowerment means that high-
an internal work motivation has been effectively stimulated (Spreitzer, 1995), which serves as
a requirement for individual growth, improvement and well-being (Deci and Ryan, 2000).
commitment
Moreover, according to COR theory, psychological empowerment is a key resource in the work system
framework of personal resources. This type of resource can motivate individuals to acquire
and accumulate more resources and thus help promote greater well-being (Ten Brummelhuis
and Bakker, 2012). As such, our study focuses on psychological empowerment to further
explore whether it serves as a pivotal mechanism linking HCWS with work well-being.
Third, leaders, as spokespeople and executors of organizational HRM systems, can affect
employees’ perceptions of organizational management (Den Hartog et al., 2013; Offerman and
Malamut, 2002). This study takes leadership trust as a moderating variable to investigate its
role in the relationship among HCWS, employee psychological empowerment and work well-
being. Taking leaders’ attitudes and behavior toward employees into account, this paper aims
to reveal the boundary condition of the influence of HCWS on employees’ well-being and to
help clarify the equivocal relationship between the HRM system and employee well-being.

Theoretical background and hypotheses

HCWS
The HRM system is based on the resource-based view, with HCWS, which involves a series of
interrelated HRM practices geared toward achieving organizational goals by promoting
employees’ organizational commitment and identity, regarded as a source of sustainable
competitive advantage (Becker and Huselid, 2006). Arthur (1994) identified two types of HRM
systems: control and commitment. The former aims to reduce direct labor costs or improve
efficiency by enforcing employees’ compliance with specified rules and procedures. The latter
seeks to shape desired employee attitudes and behaviors by forging psychological links
between organizational and employees’ goals. Compared with the control HRM system, the
commitment HRM system (or HCWS) focuses on developing committed employees who can
be trusted to use their discretion to carry out job tasks in ways consistent with organizational
goals (Arthur, 1994). HCWS also pays more attention to the development and needs of
employees, attaches importance to the establishment and maintenance of long-term
employment relationship and therefore should have a profound impact on work well-being.

Work well-being
A large body of research has examined well-being, including subjective well-being and
psychological well-being, which is primarily grounded in a context-free perspective, focusing
on affect and individuals’ evaluation of their overall life field. Conversely, context-specific
well-being, such as that in the workplace, has received scant attention (Sun et al., 2016; Warr,
1987). Specifically, work, as an important domain of their life, provides opportunities for
individuals to reach their potential, build social networks and realize their own value
(Dagenais-Desmarais and Savoie, 2012). Warr (1987) was the first scholar to focus on well-
being in the work domain, and he defined job-related or work well-being as the overall
evaluation of employees’ affective experiences and functions in the workplace. In this study,
we thus focus on employee well-being at work and examine its antecedents.

Conservation of resources theory

COR theory has traditionally been used to explain antecedents of work well-being (e.g. work
engagement, job-related affect and burnout). The core tenet of COR theory is that
individuals tend to acquire, maintain and accumulate valuable resources (Hobfoll, 2001).
PR Hobfoll (1989, p. 516) defined resources as “objects, personal characteristics, conditions, or
energies that are valued by the individual.” A loss of resources leads to individual stress, anxiety
and other negative emotional experience, while resources acquisition and preservation help
individuals mitigate the ill-effects of resource losses and promote well-being (Hobfoll, 1989).
According to COR theory, various types of resources, such as organizational, job and personal
resources, are beneficial for employees to achieve work goals; to reduce physiological and
psychological costs; to stimulate personal learning, growth and development, thus enhancing
work well-being (Demerouti et al., 2001; Kalshoven and Boon, 2012; Salanova et al., 2005).
Building on COR theory, Boon and Kalshoven (2014) suggested that resources may be located at
organizational level, and organizational HRM system such as HCWS, which focuses on
employee development and commitment, can be seen as organizational resources. In line with
this view, we argue that HCWS represents organizational resources referring to organizational
aspects of a job that are functional in promoting personal growth and development which will
enhance work well-being, applying COR theory to explain the association.
We further consider how HCWS influences employees’ work well-being by focusing on the
mediating role of psychological empowerment. Also using COR theory as our basis,
organizational or job resources not only have direct effect on employees’ work well-being but
also can activate personal resources in the form of self-efficacy, self-esteem and optimism
(Xanthopoulou et al., 2007) through which work well-being is enhanced. We thus expect
psychological empowerment as important personal resources (Ten Brummelhuis and
Bakker, 2012) to link organizational HCWS with individual work well-being. Moreover, we
take leadership factor into account in the HCWS–work well-being relationship by focusing on
leader’s trust in subordinates. Since leaders are executors of organizational HRM system,
they have important implications on employees’ perceptions of organizational management
(Den Hartog et al., 2013; Jiang, 2013; Offerman and Malamut, 2002). Previous studies also have
found trust is a valuable resource for organizations (Sepp€al€a et al., 2011), and leader’s trust
plays an important role in the effect of organizational HCWS on employees. According to
COR theory, different types of resources have the potential to increase the value of each other
when they are complementary (Halbesleben et al., 2014). In these regards, leader trust may be
considered as a switch on resources obtained from organization to individuals, and will have
the potential to change the relationship between HCWS and employees’ work well-being.
Taken together, we draw on COR theory to elaborate our hypothesized model in the following
sections.

HCWS and work well-being

As mentioned, COR theory states that individuals tend to acquire, maintain and accumulate
valuable resources, and resources acquisition and preservation will help individuals mitigate
the ill-effects of resource losses and promote well-being (Hobfoll, 1989) (Hobfoll, 2001). In the
workplace, valuable resources include job control (e.g. job autonomy, decision-making
participation, career development, performance feedback) and social support (e.g. colleague,
supervisor and organizational support) (Demerouti and Bakker, 2011). From an
organizational perspective, HCWS pays attention to employee growth, development and
commitment, which can be seen as organizational resources (Boon and Kalshoven, 2014;
Kalshoven and Boon, 2012). According to COR theory, resource gains provided by HCWS are
functional in enhancing work well-being. Specifically, high-commitment HRM practices,
including training and development, information sharing, participation management and
career development, referring to various types of job resources that help employees better
achieve their work goals, enhance their job control and competence, and thus lead to greater
work well-being (Boon and Kalshoven, 2014; Hu and Mao, 2017).
Additionally, HCWS helps forge the psychological bond between the organization and
employees, enhances mutual trust and thus promotes organizational identity and affective
commitment (Arthur, 1994; Xiao and Bj€orkman, 2006). In essence, organizational identity and Influence of
commitment can decrease the ill-effects of resource loss due to the conflict between individual high-
and organizational goals. Moreover, HCWS encourages employees to engage in self-
management and self-restraint rather than being enforced by external norms and constraints
commitment
(Wood and Wall, 2007). All these factors are helpful in improving employees’ work autonomy work system
and increasing their sense of control and serve as important work resources for them to better
cope with work pressure and enhance well-being. Thus, we propose the following:
H1. HCWS is positively related to work well-being.

The mediating role of psychological empowerment

Psychological empowerment refers to individuals’ perceptions of their power to cope with
events, situations and problems; it also captures their experience of intrinsic motivation,
including four dimensions: work meaning, competence, autonomy and impact (Spreitzer,
1995). Work meaning refers to employees’ cognition of work’s purpose and value according to
their own standards. Work competence refers to their belief that they are qualified to
complete work tasks. Work autonomy is the extent to which employees can initiate and
change their working methods and behaviors. Finally, impact is the degree to which
employees can make a difference in organizations’ strategy, management or operations.
COR theory states that recourses refer to objects, personal characteristics, conditions or
energies valued by the individual (Hobfoll, 1989). Besides organizational resources,
employees may have important individual resources in form of their skills, ability and
positive psychological state (Boon and Kalshoven, 2014). Hobfoll et al. (2003) argued
resources located at individual level as personal resources, referring to the aspects
individuals own that are generally related to their sense of ability to successfully control and
have an impact on environment, such as self-efficacy, self-esteem and optimism
(Xanthopoulou et al., 2007). Previous studies have found that these personal resources not
only are related to stress resilience but also have positive effects on physical and mental well-
being (Chen et al., 2001; Scheier and Carver, 1992). In this sense, psychological empowerment
serves as a personal resource and may have an important effect on work well-being. Ten
Brummelhuis and Bakker (2012) proposed a 2 3 2 framework of resources and listed
psychological empowerment as a relatively stable and critical personal resource conducive to
acquiring and accumulating new resources (Qui~ nones et al., 2013). Building on the insights of
COR theory, we argue that the higher the psychological empowerment is, the more personal
resources employees have, thus leading to greater well-being at work (Xanthopoulou
et al., 2007).
In addition, self-determination theory suggests that people have three basic psychological
needs, namely, autonomy, competence and relationship, and that the satisfaction of these
needs is a requirement for individuals’ well-being (Deci and Ryan, 2000). In this regard,
employees with high psychological empowerment tend to believe that they are capable of
finishing tasks and have autonomy and control at work; as such, their basic psychological
needs, especially autonomy and competence, are better satisfied, and they feel work well-
being (Zheng and Liu, 2016). Taking these points together, psychological empowerment, as a
personal resource, plays an important role in fulfilling the basic psychological needs of
employees, in turn contributing to greater work well-being. Thus, we propose the following:
H2. Psychological empowerment is positively related to work well-being.
Research indicates that psychological empowerment is likely to be shaped by the
organizational context and, particularly, by HRM practices that delegate decision-making
authority (Bartram et al., 2014; Seibert et al., 2011). Specifically, HCWS advocates employee
self-management and encourages employees to participate in decision-making, which is
PR beneficial to promote work autonomy and feelings of control (Wood and Wall, 2007). Extensive
training and development-oriented performance appraisal enable employees to gain new
knowledge and skills, which enhance their work competence (Nerstad et al., 2018). Other high-
commitment HRM practices, such as information sharing, job enrichment and job rotation,
provide opportunities for employees to improve their work integrity and to evoke a sense of
meaning and influence. According to COR theory, we expect that HCWS creates favorable
resources and conditions for employees to acquire and preserve personal resources (i.e.
psychological empowerment). Previous findings have shown that adequate resources provided
by organizations or job have the potential to stimulate better personal resources, which, in turn,
result in positive individual and organizational outcomes, such as work engagement (Bakker
and Xanthopoulou, 2013; Xanthopoulou et al., 2009). In a similar vein, we argue that HCWS
influences employees’ work well-being by improving their psychological empowerment.
Because a resourceful work environment promotes employees’ self-efficacy, self-esteem,
optimism and resiliency development, it will make them feel more capable of controlling their
work environment (Luthans et al., 2006) and more confident in the work they do, consequently
evoking a sense of engagement and well-being (Xanthopoulou et al., 2007). Furthermore,
employees exposed to job resources through HCWS will feel psychological empowerment (i.e.
efficacious, meaningful and important to the organization), which will lead to greater well-
being. Thus, we propose the following:
H3. Psychological empowerment mediates the relationship between HCWS and work
well-being.

The moderating role of leader’s trust in subordinates

Trust is the foundation of high-quality exchange relationships and refers to a willingness or
an intention to make oneself vulnerable to another person despite uncertainty about motive
and prospective actions, based on the expectation of positive intentions and behaviors of the
other person (Mayer et al., 1995). Trust is mutual, and employees’ trust in leaders and leaders’
trust in employees are two sides of the same coin. A point of difference may be that the
influence of leaders’ trust is greater than that of employees’ trust (Brower et al., 2009). As
leaders are the executors of organizational management policies, they have the power to
assign job tasks, to allocate resources and rewards and to provide coaching and support. In
this regard, we focus on the leader’s trust in subordinates and suggest that it plays an
important role in the relationship between HCWS and employee outcomes (Jiang, 2013).
Previous studies have shown that a leader’s trust in subordinates is likely to influence the
way the leader treats his or her subordinates, which, in turn, is likely to affect the
subordinates’ attitudes and behaviors. Specifically, leaders may be more willing to empower
subordinates they trust, such as assigning important tasks and responsibilities to them,
offering them more opportunities to participate in management and providing more
coaching, support and feedback (Ladegard and Gjerde, 2014; Werbel and Lopes Henriques,
2009). All these factors should improve these employees’ self-esteem (Pierce and Gardner,
2004), autonomy and competence (Sepp€al€a et al., 2011), intrinsically motivating them in return
(Seibert et al., 2004). Furthermore, leader’s trust can enhance employees’ understanding and
recognition of the organizational HRM system, as it contributes to employees’ trust in and
commitment to the organization (Park and Kim, 2012). Thus, we suggest that high leader
trust in subordinates can cooperate with HCWS to evoke employee self-management and self-
motivation and can better convey information of organizational trust and empowerment to
employees, so as to improve employees’ psychological empowerment (Kahn, 1990; Mishra
and Mishra, 2012). By contrast, leaders with low trust in subordinates tend to focus on
employees’ incompetence or shirking and are likely to closely monitor them and give them
limited decision latitude (Brower et al., 2009). In this case, even if the organization implements
HCWS, the implementation process will be distorted because of the leader’s distrust in Influence of
subordinates, in turn weakening the expected effect of HCWS on improving employees’ high-
psychological empowerment. Thus:
commitment
H4. Leader’s trust in subordinates moderates the relationship between HCWS and work system
psychological empowerment, such that the relationship is stronger when the leader’s
trust in subordinates is high rather than low.

The moderated mediation effect

Taking the previous hypotheses into account, we further suggest a moderated mediation
model; that is, we propose that leader’s trust in subordinates moderates the mediating effect
of psychological empowerment on the relationship between HCWS and work well-being.
Building on COR theory, various types of resources may be complementary, thus increasing
the value of each other (Halbesleben et al., 2014). Trust is a valuable resource for organizations
(Sepp€al€a et al., 2011), and leader’s trust in employees is particularly crucial to maintain the
utility of organizational HCWS. Under the context of high leader trust, employees can easily
obtain the job resources provided by the organizational HRM system and sense greater work
well-being as a result of psychological empowerment. By contrast, under low leader trust,
employees have more difficulty in obtaining job resources because of the leader’s impediment
(e.g. delegating trivial tasks, limiting autonomy and discretion) and will perceive low-level
psychological empowerment. As such, we expect the indirect effect of HCWS on work well-
being through psychological empowerment to diminish. Thus:
H5. Leader’s trust in subordinates moderates the mediation effect of psychological
empowerment on the relationship between HCWS and work well-being, such that the
mediation effect is stronger when the leader’s trust in subordinates is high rather
than low.
Figure 1 depicts our hypothesized research model

Method
Sample and data collection
Our sample came from a high-tech company, located in Eastern China. The first author
approached the company personally and via telephone contact with HR managers. In total, 70
leaders and 469 employees of 70 branches in four provinces voluntarily participated in the
study. We invited branch leaders to fill out a survey about the HCWS implemented in their
branches and their trust in subordinates. We asked employees to fill out a survey on
psychological empowerment and work well-being. To solicit honest responses, we arranged
for research assistants to inform respondents of the confidentiality of the study and to assure
them that no one in the branches would have access to their individual responses. In addition,

HCWS

Leader’s trust H4
Branch level in subordinates H5
H1

Individual level
H2 Figure 1.
Psychological Theoretical
H3 Work well-being research model
empowerment
PR the questionnaires were immediately collected after the respondents completed them in the
workplace.
We received effective responses from 64 branches, including 64 leaders (a response rate of
91.4.5%) and 434 employees (a response rate of 92.5%). On average, there were 6.78
employees and 1 leader in each branch. In the leader sample, 68.7% of respondents were male.
In addition, 28.1% had a leader tenure of less than 2 years, 26.6% with 2–5 years, 21.9% with
5–10 years and 23.4% with more than 10 years (the average tenure was 6.03 years, SD 5 5.78).
In employee sample, 46.1% of respondents were male. In addition, 9.7% had tenure at the firm
of less than 2 years, 19.4% with 2–5 years, 19.8% with 5–10 years and 51.2% with more than
10 years (the average tenure was 12.66 years, SD 5 9.68). The details of sample were also
presented in Table 1.

Measures
HCWS. We measured HCWS using 10 items from Xiao and Tsui’s (2007) scale. A sample item
was “Careful selection procedures in recruiting.” Leaders responded on a 5-point scale
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Cronbach’s alpha was 0.812.
Leader’s trust in subordinates. We measured leader’s trust using five items from
McAllister’s (1995) affect-based trust scale. We adopted the description of some items from
the perspective of leaders, in line with prior research (e.g. Brower et al., 2009). A sample item
was “I can talk freely to my subordinates about difficulties I am having at work and know
that my subordinates are willing to listen.” Leaders responded on a 5-point scale ranging from
1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Cronbach’s alpha was 0.881.
Psychological empowerment. We measured psychological empowerment using a 12-item
scale with four dimensions from Spreitzer (1995). Sample items were “The work I do is very
important to me” (meaning), “I am confident about my ability to do my job” (competence),
“I have significant autonomy in determining how I do my job” (autonomy) and “My impact on
what happens in my department is large” (impact). Employees responded on a 5-point scale
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Cronbach’s alpha was 0.901.
Work well-being. We measured work well-being using the 12 items from Warr’s (1990)
scale. Sample items were, ‘‘Thinking of the past few weeks, how often has your job made you
feel each of the following experiences, such as relaxed, depressed and enthusiastic”?
Employees responded on a 6-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 6 (always). Cronbach’s
alpha was 0.896.
Control variables. We controlled for the gender and tenure of leaders to eliminate their
influence on leaders’ perceptions and implementation of HRM practices, in line with prior

Sample Demographic details Percentage

Leader sample: N 5 64 Gender Male 68.7%

Female 31.3%
Tenure Less than 2 years 28.1%
2–5 years 26.6%
5–10 years 21.9%
More than 10 years 23.4%
Employee sample: N 5 434 Gender Male 46.1%
Female 53.9%
Tenure Less than 2 years 9.7%
Table 1. 2–5 years 19.4%
Demographic details of 5–10 years 19.8%
sample More than 10 years 51.2%
studies (Jiang, 2013; Jiang et al., 2017). We also controlled for employees’ gender and tenure Influence of
because such variables are related to work well-being (e.g. Baltes et al., 1999; McCoy et al., high-
2013; Morrow and McElroy, 1987).
commitment
work system
Statistical analysis
Given that our research data were nested in nature and our research variables were
operationalized at different levels of analysis (e.g. HCWS and leader’s trust in subordinates at
the branch level; employees’ psychological empowerment and work well-being at the
individual level), we conducted two-level hierarchical linear modeling (HLM; Raudenbush
and Bryk, 2002) to test our hypotheses. To test the cross-level mediation and interaction, we
applied group-mean-centering for psychological empowerment to decompose individual-
level mediation and branch-level mediation (Zhang et al., 2009), and we used grand-mean-
centering for HCWS and leader’s trust to reduce potential collinearity between the group-level
intercept and slope terms (Hofmann and Gavin, 1998).

Results
Preliminary analyses
To ensure the uniqueness of our focal variables, we first conducted a set of confirmatory
factor analyses. The results indicated that the two-factor model at the individual level
(including psychological empowerment and work well-being) had a better fit to the data (χ 2/
df 5 3.692, CFI 5 0.990, IFI 5 0.990, TLI 5 0.970, RMSEA 5 0.079) than the one-factor model
(Δχ 2(1) 5 195.643, p < 0.001; CFI 5 0.843; IFI 5 0.844; TLI 5 0.607; RMSEA 5 0.283). The
two-factor model at the branch level (including HCWS and leader’s trust) also had a
satisfactory data fit (χ 2/df 5 1.212, CFI 5 0.952, IFI 5 0.955, TLI 5 0.939, RMSEA 5 0.059)
and was superior to the one-factor model (Δχ 2(1) 5 30.357, p < 0.001; CFI 5 0.885;
IFI 5 0.891; TLI 5 0.855; RMSEA 5 0.092). Taken together, these results provide evidence of
construct validity of our research variables. Table 2 presents the means, standard deviations
and correlations of the study variables. Before we ran the HLM regression, one-way analysis
of variance tests suggested that the between-branch variances in psychological
empowerment (ICC(1) 5 0.073, F 5 1.468, p < 0.001) and work well-being (ICC(1) 5 0.269,
F 5 2.171, p < 0.001) were all significant, thereby justifying the use of HLM to test our
hypotheses.

M SD 1 2 3 4

Level 1 variables
1 Employee gender 1.54 0.50
2 Employee tenure 12.66 9.68 –0.032
3 Psychological empowerment 3.42 0.57 0.066 –0.085 (0.901)
4 Work well-being 3.44 0.86 0.166** –0.130** 0.402** (0.896)
Level 2 Variables
1 Leader gender 1.31 0.47
2 Leader tenure 6.03 5.78 0.069
3 HCWS 3.10 0.52 –0.087 –0.122* (0.812) Table 2.
4 Leader’s trust in subordinates 3.72 0.68 –0.020 –0.087 0.284** (0.881) Means, standard
Note(s): N 5 434 at individual level (level 1); N 5 64 at the branch level (level 2), values in parentheses on the deviations and
diagonal are Cronbach’s alpha values correlations among
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01 (two-tailed tests) study variables
PR Hypotheses testing
Main effect. Table 3 reports results of cross-level models examining Hypotheses 1–5.
Hypothesis 1 proposes that HCWS is positively related to work well-being. The results of
Model 2 in Table 3 show that the relationship between HCWS and work well-being was
significant and positive (β 5 0.420, p < 0.001). Compared with Model 1, in which the control
variables served as predicators, Model 2, which added HCWS, accounted for an extra 32.2%
between-branch variance in work well-being. Hypothesis 1 was thus supported. Hypothesis 2
proposes a positive relationship between psychological empowerment and work well-being.
As Model 3 of Table 3 shows, psychological empowerment was positively related to work
well-being (β 5 0.556, p < 0.001). Compared with Model 1 which included the control
variables, Model 3, which added psychological empowerment, explained an extra 13.4%
between-branch variance of work well-being. Therefore, Hypothesis 2 was supported.
Mediation effect. Hypothesis 3 suggests that psychological empowerment mediates the
relationship between HCWS and work well-being. To test Hypothesis 3, we conducted a series
of HLM regression models, as Zhao et al. (2010) recommended. Model 2 and Model 5, in which
HCWS served as a predictor, showed that HCWS had a positive association with both work
well-being (β 5 0.420, p < 0.001) and psychological empowerment (β 5 0.129, p < 0.05).
Moreover, compared with Model 2, Model 4, in which HCWS and psychological
empowerment served as predictors, showed that the HCWS–work well-being relationship
was weakly related (from β 5 0.420, p < 0.001 to β 5 0.280, p < 0.01) and psychological
empowerment was positively related to work well-being (β 5 0.825, p < 0.001). To further
cross-verify these findings, we ran a Monte Carlo simulation with 20,000 replications to
obtain a confidence interval (CI) of the mediation effect (Selig and Preacher, 2008).
Bootstrapping results showed that the mediating effect of psychological empowerment was
significant (β 5 0.072, 95% CI [0.020, 0.142]), in support of Hypothesis 3.
Moderation effect. Hypothesis 4 proposes that leader’s trust in subordinates moderates the
relationship between HCWS and psychological empowerment. As Model 6 of Table 3 shows,
the interaction term of HCWS and leader’s trust was significantly related to psychological

Work well-being PE
Variable M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6

Intercept 3.419*** 3.409*** 3.422*** 3.405*** 3.416*** 3.414***

Level 1 variables
Employee gender 0.176* 0.176* 0.155 0.161* 0.038 0.038
Employee tenure –0.093* –0.093* –0.067 –0.078 –0.047 –0.047
PE 0.556*** 0.825***
Level 2 variables
Leader gender 0.129 0.149 0.111 0.091 0.082 0.081
Leader tenure 0.022 0.044 0.022 0.030 0.006 0.005
HCWS 0.420*** 0.280** 0.129* 0.157*
Leader’s trust –0.029
HCWS3leader’s trust 0.101*
σ2 0.627 0.625 0.543 0.475 0.316 0.315
τ00 0.121 0.082 0.087 0.067 0.025 0.017
τ11 –0.034
2
Table 3. Pseudo-R 0.322 0.134 0.240 0.045
Main effect and Note(s): N 5 434 at individual level (level 1); N 5 64 at the branch level (level 2), PE 5 psychological
mediation effect test empowerment
results *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001 (two-tailed tests)
empowerment (β 5 0.101, p < 0.05). Figure 2 depicts the interaction. Tests of simple slopes at Influence of
one standard deviation above and below leader’s trust indicated that the relationship between high-
HCWS and psychological empowerment was significant when leader’s trust was high (simple
slop 5 0.226, p < 0.01), but not significant when leader’s trust was low (simple slop 5 0.088,
commitment
ns). Thus, Hypothesis 4 was fully supported. work system
Moderated mediation effect. Hypothesis 5 proposes that leader’s trust in subordinates
moderates the mediating effect of psychological empowerment on the relationship between
HCWS and work well-being. Following Preacher et al.’s (2007) recommendations, we used
20,000 repeated samples based on a bootstrapping test to build a 95% CI for the mediating
effect. The results showed that the moderated mediation effect was significant (β 5 0.066,
95% CI [0.015, 0.305]) and that the mediating effect of psychological empowerment was
significant under the condition of high leader trust in subordinates (β 5 0.177, 95% CI [0.044,
0.439]), but not significant under low leader trust in subordinates (β 5 0.048, 95% CI [–0.001,
0.281]). Thus, Hypothesis 5 was supported.

Discussion
This research advances knowledge on the relationship between HCWS and work well-being,
and, in particular, reveals the mechanism and boundary condition based on COR theory. The
results show that HCWS exerts a positive effect on employees’ work well-being through
psychological empowerment, especially when the leader’s trust in subordinates is high. This
finding suggests that individual-level resources (i.e. psychological empowerment) serve as
an important cross-level mechanism linking branch-level job resources offered by HCWS
with employee outcomes. In addition, leader’s trust has the potential to change this
relationship. The branch leader is an important determinant in explaining the links between
intended HR policy and employee outcomes, an aspect that has been neglected in prior
studies. Several theoretical and practical implications based on our findings warrant further
discussion.

Theoretical implications
First, our study contributes to the literature by offering a novel theoretical explanation (i.e.
a resource perspective based on COR theory) for the relationship between HCWS and
work well-being. Previous research on well-being has mainly drawn on COR theory to
explain the influence of work characteristics (Li et al., 2015) and to determine whether
work–family interaction facilitates or hinders employees’ work well-being (Bakker and

3.6
Psychological empowerment

High leader trust

3.5

Low leader trust

3.4

Figure 2.
3.3 The moderating effect
of leader’s trust in
subordinates on HCWS
3.2 and psychological
empowerment
Low HCWS High HCWS
PR Demerouti, 2013; Halbesleben et al., 2009). Few studies have used this theory to explain the
relationship between HRM systems and work well-being (Huang et al., 2016; Yan et al.,
2016). In addition, traditional HRM systems research based on macro-level theories, such
as the resource-based ability, motivation and opportunity theory, has paid scant attention
to employees’ psychological experiences. Given that COR theory defines resources as
objects and elements beneficial to individual goal achievement and need satisfaction
(Halbesleben et al., 2014), we extend this theory to the organizational level and show that
HCWS not only is a source for organizational competitive advantage in line with
traditional resource-based theory but also is a job resource that helps enhance employee
well-being (Boon and Kalshoven, 2014). This viewpoint links the two research fields of
HRM and well-being and advances knowledge on the cross-level effect of HRM practices
on individual work well-being from the perspective of job or personal resource acquisition
and accumulation.
Second, our study shows the importance of examining the effect of psychological
empowerment on employees’ work well-being, an important outcome of HCWS. Although
previous studies have provided fruitful results regarding the relationship between HRM
practices and employees’ work well-being, psychological empowerment is a kind of key
resource within individuals that is also beneficial to well-being (Ten Brummelhuis and
Bakker, 2012) but has received less attention. According to COR theory, employees exposed
to resourceful work environments evaluate the utility and importance of resources depending
on their functions in aiding in individual goal achievement or psychological needs
satisfaction (Halbesleben et al., 2014). Therefore, if environmental or job resources offered
through organizational HRM practices are truly perceived as important personal resources,
their impact on employees’ well-being will be lasting and far-reaching. This is also in line with
Xanthopoulou et al.’s (2007) finding that personal resources mediate the relationship between
job resources and employee outcomes. Thus, psychological empowerment as a kind of job-
related personal resource plays a pivotal role in linking organizational HRM practices with
employees’ work well-being.
Third, this study contributes to the growing understanding of the specific conditions
under which HRM practices are functional effectively on employee outcomes by focusing
on the moderating role of leader’s trust in subordinates. Prior studies have shown mixed
results regarding the relationship between HRM practices and employees’ work well-being
(Heffernan and Dundon, 2016; Wood and de Menezes, 2011). Thus, questions remain such
as when this relationship will hold and what may account for such a relationship. Den
Hartog et al.’s (2013) research indicates that leaders play an important role in the
implementation of organizational policies and practices, as the way they treat subordinates
constitutes an immediate source of behavioral data on which employees base their views of
organizational management practices (Mayer et al., 2007; Offerman and Malamut, 2002).
However, studies have paid scant attention to the interactive effect of HRM practices and
leadership (Hong et al., 2016). This work demonstrates that a leader’s trust in employees
positively moderates the relationship between HCWS and psychological empowerment,
though this relationship is significant only when a leader’s trust is high. This finding
suggests that leader’s trust serves as a valve for turning job resources provided by HCWS
into personal resources, such as psychological empowerment, thereby promoting
employees’ work well-being.

Practical implications
Our findings have valuable implications for managers. Changing workplaces cause
increasing stress and challenges for both employees and employers; at the same time,
organizations want to remain viable and to keep employees healthy and performing well
(Guest, 2017). This has recently become a strategic priority for firms and their HR
departments. HR managers need to navigate the introduction of well-designed management Influence of
systems into a dynamic business environment. Our results indicate that if the aim is to high-
enhance employees’ work well-being, HCWS should pay strong attention to the development
and growth of employees (Arthur, 1994) and should be used to promote employees’
commitment
psychological empowerment. We therefore advise managers to abolish the traditional notions work system
of employer- and control-oriented management systems and instead actively adopt HCWS.
In addition, given our finding of a moderating role of leader’s trust in subordinates, and
that specifically high leader trust strengthens the positive effect of HCWS on psychological
empowerment and work well-being, we advise leaders to trust in employees and work to
delegate to and empower them. In this case, employees could more easily obtain job resources
offered by HCWS and, through that, accumulate more personal psychological resources,
which would help them enhance their well-being in the workplace. Accordingly, research on
HCWS in tandem with favorable leadership may pave the way for advancing employees’
well-being at work. By contrast, if organizations continue to stick with a control-oriented
management system and leadership, employee dissatisfaction is likely to result.

Limitations and future research

Our study has two potential limitations that may lead to future research. First, our cross-
sectional research design impedes inference of causality. Longitudinal research would better
capture the whole picture of the changing work environment. Future research could draw on
the dynamic perspective of COR theory to probe the process of how HCWS offers job
resources to facilitate personal resource gain, preservation and accumulation, in turn
facilitating work well-being. Second, this study only considered the moderating effect of
leader’s trust in employees on the relationship among HCWS, psychological empowerment
and work well-being. However, in daily work, employees often engage in a high level of
interaction and communication with their colleagues (Chiaburu and Harrison, 2008),
especially under the team work model advocated by HCWS (Xiao and Tsui, 2007). Future
research could pay more attention to the moderating role of colleagues that may influence on
the functions of HCWS on employee work well-being. Third, HRM and leadership research
on employee well-being have long proceeded in a parallel fashion. However, there are
growing importance of the interaction between HRM and leadership as both two factors
coexisting in the organization have an important influence on the employees’ attitudes and
behaviors. Additionally, leaders who are executors of organizational management and their
attitudes and behaviors impact employees’ perceptions of organizational management (Den
Hartog et al., 2013; Offerman and Malamut, 2002). Our study echoed this issue by revealing
leader trust serving as a boundary condition by strengthening HCWS–work well-being
relation. Furthermore, Yin et al. (2018) suggested four types of interactive effect of HRM
practices and leadership behavior on employee outcomes as causal effect, joint effect,
substituting effect and enhancing effect, which represent a promising research avenue. Few
studies have found service leadership, empowering leadership and ethical leadership
interact with HRM practices to affect employee outcomes (Hong et al., 2016; Jo et al., 2020;
Kalshoven and Boon, 2012). Given that, we expect more future research to explore the
relationship between a specific leadership behavior and specific HRM practices and to figure
out the boundary conditions in influencing their interactive effect on employees’ work
well-being.

Conclusion
In this study, we draw on COR theory to explain the cross-level effect of HCWS on employee
work well-being. Our findings suggest that HCWS not only can enhance employees’
PR well-being at work but also can improve personal psychological resources, such as
psychological empowerment, to bring greater work well-being to employees. High leader
trust in subordinates plays an important moderating role in strengthening the HCWS–
psychological empowerment–work well-being relationship. These findings shed greater light
on the relationships among management policy, leader trust and employee well-being.

References
Arthur, J.B. (1994), “Effects of human resource systems on manufacturing performance and turnover”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 670-687.
Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2013), “The spillover-crossover model”, in Grzywacz, J.G. and
Demerouti, E. (Eds), New Frontiers in Work and Family Research, Psychology Press, New York,
NY, pp. 54-70.
Bakker, A.B. and Xanthopoulou, D. (2013), “Creativity and charisma among female leaders: the role of
resources and work engagement”, International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Vol. 24 No. 14, pp. 2760-2779.
Bakker, A.B., Hetland, J., Olsen, O.K. and Espevik, R. (2019), “Daily strengths use and employee well-
being: the moderating role of personality”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 1, pp. 144-168.
Baltes, P.B., Staudinger, U.M. and Lindenberger, U. (1999), “Lifespan psychology: theory and
application to intellectual functioning”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 50 No. 1,
pp. 471-507.
Bartram, T., Karimi, L., Leggat, S.G. and Stanton, P. (2014), “Social identification: linking high
performance work systems, psychological empowerment and patient care”, International
Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 25 No. 17, pp. 2401-2419.
Becker, B.E. and Huselid, M.A. (2006), “Strategic human resources management: where do we go from
here?”, Journal of Management, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 898-925.
Boon, C. and Kalshoven, K. (2014), “How high-commitment HRM relates to engagement and
commitment: the moderating role of task proficiency”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 53
No. 3, pp. 403-420.
Brower, H.H., Lester, S.W., Korsgaard, M.A. and Dineen, B.R. (2009), “A closer look at trust between
managers and subordinates: understanding the effects of both trusting and being trusted on
subordinate outcomes”, Journal of Management, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 327-347.
Cao, M., Xi, M. and Zhao, S. (2019), “High-performance work systems and employee well-being: a cross-
level model based on self-determination”, Nankai Business Review, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 176-185.
Chen, C. (2016), “A new paradigm for management is needed in sharing-based era”, Chinese Journal of
Management, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 157-164.
Chen, G., Gully, S.M. and Eden, D. (2001), “Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale”,
Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 62-83.
Chiaburu, D.S. and Harrison, D.A. (2008), “Do peers make the Place? Conceptual synthesis and meta-
analysis of coworker effects on perceptions, attitudes, OCBs, and performance”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 5, pp. 1082-1103.
Chowhan, J. (2016), “Unpacking the black box: understanding the relationship between strategy, HRM
practices, innovation and organizational performance”, Human Resource Management Journal,
Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 112-133.
Chughtai, A., Byrne, M. and Flood, B. (2015), “Linking ethical leadership to employee well-being: the
role of trust in supervisor”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 128 No. 3, pp. 653-663.
Dagenais-Desmarais, V. and Savoie, A. (2012), “What is psychological well-being, really? a grass roots
approach from the organizational sciences”, Journal of Happiness Studies, Vol. 13 No. 4,
pp. 659-684.
Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (2000), “The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: human needs and the self- Influence of
determination of behavior”, Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 227-268.
high-
Demerouti, E. and Bakker, A.B. (2011), “The job demands-resources model: challenges for future
research”, SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 1-9.
commitment
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A., Nachreiner, F. and Schaufeli, W. (2001), “The job demands–resources model
work system
of burnout”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 3, pp. 499-512.
Den Hartog, D.N., Boon, C., Verburg, R.M. and Croon, M.A. (2013), “HRM, communication, satisfaction, and
perceived performance: a cross-level test”, Journal of Management, Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 1637-1665.
Du, J., Li, N. and Long, L. (2014), “High performance work systems and employee psychological well-
being: the mediating effect of self-efficacy”, Chinese Journal of Management, Vol. 11 No. 2,
pp. 215-221, 243.
Fan, D., Cui, L., Zhang, M.M., Zhu, C.J., H€artel, C.E.J. and Nyland, C. (2014), “Influence of high
performance work systems on employee subjective well-being and job burnout: empirical
evidence from the Chinese health care sector”, International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 931-950.
Guest, D.E. (2017), “Human resource management and employee well-being: towards a new analytic
framework”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 22-38.
Halbesleben, J.R.B., Harvey, J. and Bolino, M.C. (2009), “Too engaged? a Conservation of resources
view of the relationship between work engagement and work interference with family”, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 6, pp. 1452-1465.
Halbesleben, J.R.B., Neveu, J.P., Paustian-Underdahl, S.C. and Westman, M. (2014), “Getting to the
‘COR’ understanding the role of resources in conservation of resources theory”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 1334-1364.
Heffernan, M. and Dundon, T. (2016), “Cross-level effects of high-performance work systems (HPWS)
and employee well-being: the mediating effect of organizational justice”, Human Resource
Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 211-231.
Hobfoll, S.E. (1989), “Conservation of resources: a new attempt at conceptualizing stress”, American
Psychologist, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 513-524.
Hobfoll, S.E. (2001), “The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process:
advancing conservation of resources theory”, Applied Psychology: An International Review,
Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 337-421.
Hobfoll, S.E., Johnson, R.J., Ennis, N. and Jackson, A.P. (2003), “Resource loss, resource gain, and
emotional outcomes among inner city women”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 84 No. 3, pp. 632-643.
Hofmann, D.A. and Gavin, M.B. (1998), “Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: implications
for research in organizations”, Journal of Management, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 623-641.
Hong, Y., Liao, H., Raub, S. and Han, J.H. (2016), “What it takes to get proactive: an integrative
multilevel model of the antecedents of personal initiative”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 101 No. 5, pp. 687-701.
Hu, B. and Mao, Y. (2017), “The multilevel effects of high performance human resource practices on
occupational well-being in China’s context”, Management Review, Vol. 29 No. 7, pp. 163-173.
Huang, L.C., Ahlstrom, D., Lee, A.Y.P., Chen, S.Y. and Hsieh, M.J. (2016), “High performance work
systems, employee well-being, and job involvement: an empirical study”, Personnel Review,
Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 296-314.
Jiang, K. (2013), Bridging the Gap between Reality and Perception: Managers’ Role in Shaping Employee
Perceptions of High Performance Work Systems, (Doctoral Dissertation), available at: https://
search.proquest.com/docview/1442199679 (accessed 8 September 2019).
Jiang, H. (2018), “China southern airlines: No happy employees, no happy passengers”, available at:
https://www.hbrchina.org/2018–1102/6882.html (accessed 12 November 2019).
PR Jiang, K., Hu, J., Liu, S. and Lepak, D.P. (2017), “Understanding employees’ perceptions of human
resource practices: effects of demographic dissimilarity to managers and coworkers”, Human
Resource Management, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 69-91.
Jo, H., Aryee, S., Hsiung, H.H. and Guest, D. (2020), “Fostering mutual gains: explaining the influence
of high-performance work systems and leadership on psychological health and service
performance”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 198-225.
Kahn, W.A. (1990), “Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 692-724.
Kalshoven, K. and Boon, C. (2012), “Ethical leadership, employee well-being and helping: the
moderating role of HRM”, Journal of Personnel Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 60-68.
Kinnunen, U. and Feldt, T. (2013), “Job characteristics, recovery experiences and occupational well-
being: testing cross-lagged relationships across 1 year”, Stress and Health, Vol. 29 No. 5,
pp. 369-382.
Koopmann, J., Lanaj, K., Bono, J. and Campana, K. (2016), “Daily shifts in regulatory focus: the
influence of work events and implications for employee well-being”, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 37 No. 8, pp. 1293-1316.
Korff, J., Biemann, T. and Voelpel, S.C. (2017), “Differentiating HR systems’ impact: moderating effects
of age on the HR system–work outcome association”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 415-438.
Ladegard, G. and Gjerde, S. (2014), “Leadership coaching, leader role-efficacy, and trust in
subordinates. a mixed methods study assessing leadership coaching as a leadership
development tool”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 631-646.
Li, A., Wang, X., Xiong, G., Li, B. and Ling, W. (2015), “A dual-pathway model of work influencing on
happiness: a perspective of job demands-resources model”, Acta Psychologica Sinica, Vol. 47
No. 5, pp. 624-636.
Lin, C., Li, X. and Lam, L.W. (2020), “Development or maintenance? dual-oriented human resource
system, employee achievement motivation, and work well-being”, Human Resource
Management, Vol. 59 No. 4, pp. 311-325.
Luthans, F., Avey, J.B., Avolio, B.J., Norman, S.M. and Combs, G.M. (2006), “Psychological capital
development: toward a micro-intervention”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 27 No. 3,
pp. 387-393.
Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, F.D. (1995), “An integrative model of organizational trust”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 709-734.
Mayer, D., Nishii, L., Schneider, B. and Goldstein, H. (2007), “The precursors and products of justice
climates: group leader antecedents and employee attitudinal consequences”, Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 60 No. 4, pp. 929-963.
McAllister, D.J. (1995), “Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation
in organizations”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 24-59.
McCoy, S.K., Newell, E.E. and Gardner, S.K. (2013), “Seeking balance: the importance of environmental
conditions in men and women faculty’s well-being”, Innovative Higher Education, Vol. 38 No. 4,
pp. 309-322.
Mishra, A.K. and Mishra, K.E. (2012), “Positive organizational scholarship and trust in leaders”, in
Cameron, K.S. and Spreitzer, G.M. (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of Positive Organizational
Scholarship, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 449-461.
Morrow, P.C. and McElroy, J.C. (1987), “Work commitment and job satisfaction over three career
stages”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 330-346.
Nerstad, C.G.L., Dysvik, A., Kuvaas, B. and Buch, R. (2018), “Negative and positive synergies: on
employee development practices, motivational climate, and employee outcomes”, Human
Resource Management, Vol. 57 No. 5, pp. 1285-1302.
Offerman, L.R. and Malamut, A.B. (2002), “When leaders Harass: the impact of target perceptions of Influence of
organizational leadership and climate on harassment reporting and outcomes”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 5, pp. 885-893. high-
Park, W.W. and Kim, S. (2012), “The need of leader–subordinate reciprocal dyadic trust to build the
commitment
subordinate’s trust in the organization: the case of Korean air pilots”, International Journal of work system
Aviation Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 97-119.
Pierce, J.L. and Gardner, D.G. (2004), “Self-esteem within the work and organizational context: a review of
the organization-based self-esteem literature”, Journal of Management, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 591-622.
Preacher, K.J., Rucker, D.D. and Hayes, A.F. (2007), “Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses:
theory, models, and prescriptions”, Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 185-227.
nones, M., Van den Broeck, A. and De Witte, H. (2013), “Do job resources affect work engagement
Qui~
via psychological empowerment? a mediation analysis”, Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 127-134.
Raudenbush, S.W. and Bryk, A.S. (2002), Hierarchical Linear Models, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Salanova, M., Agut, S. and Peiro, J. (2005), “Linking organizational resources and work engagement to
employee performance and customer loyalty: the mediation of service climate”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 6, pp. 1217-1227.
Scheier, M.F. and Carver, C.S. (1992), “Effects of optimism on psychological and physical well-being:
theoretical overview and empirical update”, Cognitive Therapy and Research, Vol. 16 No. 2,
pp. 201-228.
Seibert, S.E., Silver, S.R. and Randolph, W.A. (2004), “Taking empowerment to the next level: a
multiple-level model of empowerment, performance, and satisfaction”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 332-349.
Seibert, S.E., Wang, G. and Courtright, S.H. (2011), “Antecedents and consequences of psychological
and team empowerment: a meta-analytic review”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 96 No. 5,
pp. 981-1003.
Selig, J.P. and Preacher, K.J. (2008), Monte Carlo Method for Assessing Mediation: An Interactive Tool
for Creating Confidence Intervals for Indirect Effects [Computer Software], available at: http://
quantpsy.org (accessed 6 November 2019).
Sepp€al€a, T., Lipponen, J., Pirttila-Backman, A.M. and Lipsanen, J. (2011), “Reciprocity of trust in the
supervisor–subordinate relationship: the mediating role of autonomy and the sense of power”,
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 755-778.
Spreitzer, G.M. (1995), “Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions, measurement, and
validation”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 1442-1465.
Spreitzer, G. and Porath, C. (2012), “Creating sustainable performance”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 90 Nos 1-2, pp. 92-99.
Sun, J., Li, X. and Lin, C. (2016), “Conceptual evolution and dimensional measurement of work well-
being”, Human Resources Development of China, Vol. 13, pp. 38-47.
Ten Brummelhuis, L.L. and Bakker, A.B. (2012), “A resource perspective on the work-home interface:
the work-home resources model”, American Psychologist, Vol. 67 No. 7, pp. 545-556.
United Nations (2015), “Sustainable development goals”, available at: http://www.un.org/
sustainabledevelopment/sustainable–development–goals/ (accessed 5 May 2019).
Warr, P.B. (1987), Work, Unemployment and Mental Health, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Warr, P.B. (1990), “The measurement of well-being and other aspects of mental health”, Journal of
Occupational Psychology, Vol. 63 No. 3, pp. 193-210.
Werbel, J.D. and Lopes Henriques, P. (2009), “Different views of trust and relational leadership:
supervisor and subordinate perspectives”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 24 No. 8,
pp. 780-796.
PR Wood, S. and de Menezes, L.M. (2011), “High involvement management, high-performance work
systems and well-being”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 22 No. 7,
pp. 1586-1610.
Wood, S.J. and Wall, T.D. (2007), “Work enrichment and employee voice in human resource
management-performance studies”, International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 1335-1372.
Wood, S., van Veldhoven, M., Croon, M. and 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, Vol. 65 No. 4, pp. 419-446.
Wright, P.M., Dunford, B.B. and Snell, S.A. (2001), “Human resources and the resource based view of
the firm”, Journal of Management, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 701-721.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2007), “The role of personal
resources in the job demands-resources model”, International Journal of Stress Management,
Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 121-141.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2009), “Reciprocal relationships
between job resources, personal resources, and work engagement”, Journal of Vocational
Behavior, Vol. 74 No. 3, pp. 235-244.
Xiao, Z. and Bj€orkman, I. (2006), “High commitment work systems in Chinese organizations: a
preliminary measure”, Management and Organization Review, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 403-422.
Xiao, Z. and Tsui, A.S. (2007), “When brokers may not work: the cultural contingency of social capital
in Chinese high-tech firms”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 1-31.
Yan, A.M., Hu, R.Z. and Xu, T. (2016), “The relationship between new generation employees’
perceptions of high-performance work system and work-related wellbeing”, Chinese Journal of
Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 542-550.
Yang, C. (2014), “Does Ethical leadership lead to happy workers? a study on the impact of ethical
leadership, subjective well-being, and life happiness in the Chinese culture”, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 123 No. 3, pp. 513-525.
Yin, K., Chen, L., Wang, Z., Peng, J. and Xu, H. (2018), “Relationship between leadership behaviors and
HRM practices: causal, joint, substitute or strengthen effect?”, Advances in Psychological Science,
Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 144-155.
Zacher, H. and Schmitt, A. (2016), “Work characteristics and occupational well-being: the role of age”,
Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 7, p. 1411.
Zhang, Z., Zyphur, M.J. and Preacher, K.J. (2009), “Testing multilevel mediation using hierarchical
linear models: problems and solutions”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 12 No. 4,
pp. 695-719.
Zhang, M., Zhu, C.J., Dowling, P.J. and Bartram, T. (2013), “Exploring the effects of high-
performance work systems (HPWS) on the work-related well-being of Chinese hospital
employees”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 24 No. 16,
pp. 3196-3212.
Zhao, X., Lynch, J.G. Jr and Chen, Q. (2010), “Reconsidering baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about
mediation analysis”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 197-206.
Zheng, X. and Liu, X. (2016), “The effect of interactional justice on employee well-being: the mediating
role of psychological empowerment and the moderating role of power distance”, Acta
Psychologica Sinica, Vol. 48 No. 6, pp. 693-709.
Appendix Influence of
Texts of items
HCWS (source: Xiao and Tsui, 2007)
high-
commitment
(1) Careful selection procedures in recruiting.
work system
(2) Extensive training and socialization.
(3) Expanded jobs and job rotation.
(4) Appraisal of team performance rather than individual performance.
(5) Feedback for development purposes rather than for evaluation.
(6) Extensive ownership of shares, options or profit sharing.
(7) Promotion of egalitarianism in income, status and culture.
(8) Participation in the form of suggestion, grievance systems and morale survey.
(9) Open communication and wide information sharing.
(10) Work in teams; successes of teams rather than individuals are hailed.
Leader Trust (adapted from McAllister, 1995)
(1) I have a sharing relationship with my subordinates. We can both freely share our ideas, feelings
and hopes.
(2) I can talk freely to my subordinates about difficulties I am having at work and know that my
subordinates will want to listen.
(3) My subordinates and I would both feel a sense of loss if one of us was transferred and we could
no longer work together.
(4) If I shared my problems with my subordinates, I know my subordinates would respond
constructively and caringly.
(5) I would have to say that my subordinates and I have both made considerable emotional
investments in our work.
Psychological empowerment (source: Spreitzer, 1995)
(1) The work 1 do is very important to me (meaning 1).
(2) My job activities are personally meaningful to me (meaning 2).
(3) The work I do is meaningful to me (meaning 3).
(4) I am confident about my ability to do my job (competence 1).
(5) I am self-assured about my capabilities to perform my work activities (competence 2).
(6) I have mastered the skills necessary for my job (competence 3).
(7) I have significant autonomy in determining how I do my job (self-determination 1).
(8) I can decide on my own how to go about doing my work (self-determination 2).
(9) I have considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how I do my job (self-
determination 3).
(10) My impact on what happens in my department is large (impact 1).
(11) I have a great deal of control over what happens in my department (impact 2).
(12) I have significant influence over what happens in my department (impact 3).
PR Work well-being (source: Warr, 1990)
Thinking of the past few weeks, how much of the time has your job made you feel each of the following:
(1) Relaxed
(2) Worried
(3) Depressed
(4) Calm
(5) Contented
(6) Gloomy
(7) Optimistic
(8) Tense
(9) Enthusiastic
(10) Cheerful
(11) Miserable
(12) Uneasy.

About the authors

Xiufeng Li (PhD, Renmin University of China) is an associate professor and head of the Department of
Human Resource Management at the School of Business, Shandong Normal University. Her research
interest includes HR systems, employee well-being, trust and work meaning. Her research has been
published in journals such as Human Resource Management.
Congcong Lin is a PhD candidate at the School of Business, Renmin University of China. Her current
research interest includes human resource practices at different levels of analysis, employee well-being,
job crafting and motivation. Her research has been published in journals such as Human Resource
Management. Congcong Lin is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: lincongcong@ruc.
edu.cn

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com