DOI: 10.1002/hrm.

22021

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

The challenge of increasing employees' well-being and

performance: How human resource management practices and
engaging leadership work together toward reaching this goal

Andrés Salas-Vallina1 | Joaquín Alegre1 | 

Alvaro López-Cabrales2

1
Department of Business Management,
University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain Abstract
2
Department of Business Management, Pablo Despite continuing interest in employees' well-being, there are still large gaps in our
de Olavide University, Sevilla, Spain
understanding of the mediating role this concept plays in the human resource man-
Correspondence agement (HRM)–performance relationship. In addition, more insights as to how HRM
Andrés Salas-Vallina, Department of Business
is implemented by leaders are required, as studies largely center either on leadership
Management, University of Valencia, Valencia,
46022, Valencia, Spain. or on HRM, with little research addressing how HRM and leadership jointly deter-
Email: andres.salas@uv.es
mine employees' well-being and performance. This study examines the link between
Funding information well-being-oriented human resource management (WBHRM) and performance in a
Generalitat Valenciana, Grant/Award Number:
sample of very large organizations, based on the job demands–resource model and
GV/2019/159; Spanish Ministry of Science,
Innovation and Universities, Grant/Award social exchange theory. In addition, we explore the moderating role of middle man-
Number: PGC2018-097981-B-100
agers' leadership in the relationship between WBHRM and employees' well-being.
The results reveal that engaging leadership behavior fosters genuine implementation
of WBHRM and has a direct impact on employees' performance.

KEYWORDS

engaging leadership, exhaustion, happiness at work, human resource management,

performance, trust, well-being

1 | I N T RO DU CT I O N First, well-being remains a vague concept that requires further

In some contexts, changes at work and in working conditions are
generating harmful consequences for employees, and negatively
impacting on organizations. These changes justify a shift in the
focus of human resource management (HRM) research toward
employee well-being (Guest, 2017; Huettermann & Bruch, 2019).
Since the 2008 financial crisis, pressure at work to achieve
ambitious levels of productivity has intensified, leading to a decline
in both employee well-being and performance (Guest, 2017).
Inequality and poor working conditions have also increased
(Picketty, 2014), reducing fairness and optimism. Against this back-
ground, HR practices can play a relevant and strategic role in
improving employees' well-being, as well as increasing individual
performance. However, we have identified a number of concerns in
the HRM–well-being relationship, as voiced by Guest (2017) and
Huettermann and Bruch (2019).
clarification. Previous studies have measured well-being as a single
dimension** (Peccei et al., 2013), thus overlooking three main facets
of work-related well-being, namely, psychological, physical, and social
well-being (Grant, Christianson, & Price, 2007). The use of narrow
conceptualizations involves a loss of sensitive information. For exam-
ple, Wood and Ogbonnaya (2018) contributed to the concept of well-
being by considering anxiety, depression, and job satisfaction; this
opens interesting opportunities to include both hedonic well-being
(psychological well-being) and perceptions of belonging to the organi-
zation (social well-being) in future research. Ogbonnaya et al. (2019)
extended their conceptualization of well-being to satisfaction, enthu-
siasm, and health, thus leaving space to incorporate feelings of
belonging to the organization in forthcoming studies. Ogbonnaya and
Messersmith (2018) used affective commitment as a proxy for well-
being, yet only focused on feelings toward the organization, over-
looking the social and physical dimensions of well-being. Hauff et al.

Hum Resour Manage. 2020;1–15. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hrm © 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC. 1

2 SALAS-VALLINA ET AL.
(2020) proposed a wider approach to well-being through physical
health, mental health, job satisfaction, and work engagement, opening
up several interesting new research questions. For example, future
studies might consider hedonic well-being or feelings of attachment
to others to complement Guerci's well-being conceptualization.
Others extended the conceptualization of work-related well-being,
opening the option of integrating the social and hedonic dimensions
of well-being in subsequent studies (Heffernan & Dundon, 2016;
Huettermann & Bruch, 2019; Hauff et al., 2020).
Given this mixed and partial scenario, we aim to put forward a new
and more comprehensive conceptualization of well-being that takes into
account Grant's assumptions by looking at happiness at work (HAW) (psy-
chological well-being, including hedonic and eudaimonic aspects), exhaus-
tion (physical well-being), and trust (social well-being). In doing this, we
contribute to the conceptualization of well-being in two ways: by consid-
ering these three dimensions and by introducing the concept of HAW.
Fisher (2010, p. 402) argued that “what seems more intriguing and useful
is further research on a higher-order construct […] containing a number of
positive attitudes and feelings.” Consideration of HAW enables us to bet-
ter predict employee contributions to an organization. HAW is a novel and
powerful concept (Salas-Vallina, López-Cabrales, Alegre, & Fernández,
2017), understood as a work state involving engagement, job satisfaction,
and affective organizational commitment (Fisher, 2010). Job satisfaction is
related to adequacy, sufficiency, and satisfaction, and assesses employees'
feelings about working conditions, such as their salary or career opportuni-
ties. Engagement refers to employees giving themselves to their job, and
can be understood as a special feeling of energy and motivation related to
enjoyment and passion at work. Affective organizational commitment is
related to emotional links, identification, and involvement in the organiza-
tion (Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002). HAW also
encompasses the compatibility principle, which states that broad-ranging
positive attitudes predict better behavior (Harrison, Newman, & Roth,
2006). Moreover, HAW clarifies the ambiguous range of positive attitudes
(job satisfaction, commitment, involvement, engagement) as some of them
overlap each other (Warr & Inceoglu, 2012).
Second, a positive employment relationship perspective offers scope
for mutual gains for both employees and employers (Guest, 2017). A posi-
tive employment relationship should emerge by managing both shared
and different interests of employers and employees, by promoting a high
level of trust, fostering feelings of fair treatment, and promoting employee
emancipation (Guest, 2017). For this purpose, we developed and tested
the novel concept of well-being human resource management (WBHRM),
as a system of HR practices that are especially aimed at maintaining and
improving employees' psychological, physical, and social well-being, on
the basis of a positive employment relationship (Guest, 2017). The focus
on this principle can help not only to enhance aspects of employee well-
being but also to address critics who suggest that other popular HR prac-
tices are becoming exploitative (Godard, 2004), thus harming work-
related well-being (Hauff, Guerci, & Gilardi, 2019).
Third, from a contingency perspective, and answering the recent call
of Huettermann and Bruch (2019), this study also examines the moderat-
ing role of engaging leadership in the HRM–well-being relationship. As
opposed to prior studies that mainly address HRM and leadership as
substitutes for each other, we suggest that HRM and leadership can
cooperate to promote employee well-being and individual performance.
In order to create strong situations in which employees unambiguously
interpret the signals sent by CEOs and other senior managers, organiza-
tions need to demonstrate consistency in their messages (Bowen &
Ostroff, 2004). In this sense, the positive link between WBHRM and
employees' well-being depends on the degree to which the signals sent
by leaders are consistent with HR practices oriented toward well-being.
Engaging leadership is understood as a leadership style that inspires,
strengthens, empowers, and connects followers (Schaufeli, 2015). Unlike
other leadership styles, engaging leadership is firmly rooted in the well-
established self-determination theory (SDT) (Deci & Ryan, 2000); there-
fore, it can increase employees' job resources (Rahmadani, Schaufeli,
Ivanova, & Osin, 2019), well-being, and mental health (Deci et al., 2001;
Nikolova, Schaufeli, & Notelaers, 2019; Rahmadani et al., 2019).
Therefore, this research aims to make inroads into unexplored mecha-
nisms and contingencies, whereby WBHRM positively affects both well-
being and performance (Guest, 2017). First, we suggest WBHRM as a
new conceptual set of HR practices oriented toward well-being that could
constitute a promising approach for HR literature, having a positive impact
on the three dimensions of psychological, physical, and social well-being.
Second, we explore the moderating role of engaging leadership in the rela-
tionship between WBHRM and employee well-being. Third, we push for-
ward with the ongoing theoretical debate regarding the effects of HR
practices on well-being and performance (Peccei et al., 2013). And finally,
we adopt a multilevel and multisource research design in response to calls
for this in the literature (Ho & Kuvaas, 2019).
2 | THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1 | WBHRM and task performance
Organizations seek to maximize their internal resources through the
enhancement of valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable
resources (Barney & Wright, 1998) in order to increase performance.
Accordingly, HRM systems are a mechanism conceived to foster and
improve performance (Paauwe, Wright, & Guest, 2013). Although there
is a lack of agreement concerning the appropriate composition of HRM
bundles (Posthuma, Campion, Masimova, & Campion, 2013), there is
consensus on the fact that HRM bundles need multiple and mutually
reinforcing elements (Bartram, Karimi, Stanton, & Leggat, 2014).
High-performance work systems (HPWS), high-involvement work
systems (HIWS), and high-commitment work systems (HCWS) are tradi-
tional human resource practices that have been used to increase perfor-
mance. However, according to Guest (2017), in some cases they show
mixed outcomes (e.g., work systems that enhance employee involvement
but also intensify work load). HPWS refer to “work practices that lead in
some way to superior organizational performance” (Boxall & Macky, 2009,
p. 4), yet there is no consensus on the paths that need to be followed to
reach this. Boxall and Macky (2009) also clarified that HIWS refer to prac-
tices that make better use of employee capacities for self-management,
personal development, and problem solving, and involve high-commitment
SALAS-VALLINA ET AL.
work practices. HIWS can lead to “win-win” outcomes, yet there are still
serious concerns as to the effects of HIWS and work intensification.
Finally, HCWS emerge to meet a need to modify the approach to manag-
ing employees, moving from control to commitment. However, HCWS
primarily benefit organizations rather than individuals (Appelbaum, Bailey,
Berg, Kalleberg, & Bailey, 2000). HCWS are related to employment prac-
tices (not work practices), including pay, job security, and procedural jus-
tice, but all of these employment practices can be implemented without
modifying working structures and without fostering job autonomy
(Boxall & Macky, 2009). Therefore, HPWS, HIWS, and HCWS may have
positive, mixed, or negative impacts on employees' well-being (Jensen,
Patel, & Messersmith, 2013; Jensen & Van De Voorde, 2016).
Examining the factors that can moderate and alleviate the “dark
side” effects of HRM on employees' health is fundamental to clarify-
ing the HRM–performance relationship (Ogbonnaya & Messersmith,
2018). The “mutual gains” approach can be used to clarify how HRM
practices can be ethical, sustainable (Cooper, Wang, Bartram, &
Cooke, 2019), and beneficial for both employees and organizations
(Guest, 2017); further empirical evidence for this is needed.
Drawing on Guest's (2017) proposal of HR practices involving
investment, engagement, a positive social and physical context, voice,
and organizational support, Cooper et al. (2019) proposed a set of HR
practices focused on covering employees' basic psychological, physi-
cal, and social needs, thus associating them with employee well-being.
These practices were shown to foster both resilience and perfor-
mance in the Chinese banking sector (Cooper et al., 2019). The pre-
sent study aims to empirically contribute to the literature by checking
these practices through an analysis of wider data and to examine
whether they positively contribute to individual performance.
In general, the organizational support provided by WBHRM can be
considered as a job resource. Support leads employees to provide assis-
tance to others and enables employees to access the resources available
to other colleagues. Yet it also contributes to the establishment of ambi-
tious objectives (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004) and extra-role behavior
(Bakker & Demerouti, 2007), thus creating the conditions that facilitate
better performance. The Job Demands-Resources model (JD-R) argues
that job resources refer to the physical, psychological, social, and organi-
zational aspects of a job that help to achieve work objectives and reduce
job demands (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001). The
JD-R model suggests that job resources lead to positive behavior, such as
increased performance. Under this model, Bakker and Demerouti (2007)
argued that employees' positivity makes them more productive and more
willing to go the extra mile. We argue that each WBHRM practice has a
direct link to performance, and that they also reinforce each other, thus
exerting a multiplier effect on individual performance.
Employment security refers to the psychological state in which
employees expect job continuity within an organization (Kraimer, Wayne,
Liden, & Sparrowe, 2005). Pfeffer (1998) stated that providing job secu-
rity to employees increases their level of confidence, which, in turn, nur-
tures commitment and performance. By promoting employment security,
the workforce is encouraged to take a longer-term perspective on their
jobs, and to invest their best to guarantee the firm performs better. New-
man, Cooper, Holland, Miao, and Teicher (2019) found that human
3
resource practices that foster job security improve performance levels.
Job security perceptions can vary depending on different organizational
practices. When the employer invests in and offers signals pointing to a
long-term work relationship, employees' perceptions of job security
improve, thus leading to higher levels of task performance (Tsui, Pearce,
Porter, & Tripoli, 1997). This study argues that job security, as part of
WBHRP, has a positive impact on individual performance.
Training and development refer to the HRM practices of mentoring,
educating, and developing employees' careers, skills, and abilities. The
training-firm performance relationship has been widely studied and has
been shown to have a direct impact on different outcome variables
(Garavan et al., 2019). Competence and self-efficacy are the result of a
better trained workforce, which, in turn, leads to superior performance
results (De Clercq, Haq, & Azeem, 2019). Because some methodological
issues still remained unclear in Garavan et al.'s study, they put out a call
to address the validity problems of these relationships through further
research. We agree that not only training practices but also bundles of
practices require further exploration, and thus our study gathered data
during three different periods of time.
Employee voice is an element that has been pinpointed in the litera-
ture on the quality of working life. It refers to how employees express
concerns and interests, solve problems, and participate in workplace
decision-making (Pyman, Cooper, Teicher, & Holland, 2006). Voice artic-
ulation contributes to performance by creating a mechanism through
which improvements in work processes can be generated (Walton,
1985) as a result of increased involvement, which, in turn, fosters perfor-
mance (Wood & Wall, 2007). Extensive two-way communication, indi-
vidual expression of voice, and collective representation are key features
of HR practices designed to promote employee well-being (Guest, 2017).
When combined with collaboration in employee relations, voice mecha-
nisms increase trust and performance (Della Torre, 2019). This may be
due to the fact that employee voice increases work motivation because
employees' beliefs and judgments are taken into account.
Information sharing can be considered as a job resource leading to
positive attitudes (Cooper et al., 2019), thus resulting in improved out-
comes (Schaufeli, 2015). In addition, the use of teams can increase com-
mitment and satisfaction in some cases, such as when they have a
certain degree of autonomy (Gallie et al., 2012). In addition, the literature
on the quality of work highlights the crucial role of supportive manage-
ment in enhancing employee-well-being. A supportive relationship with
one's direct superior has been considered in the JD-R model as a job
resource (Schaufeli, 2015), and WBHRM is focused on fostering a leader-
ship style that facilitates followers' personal development.
By implementing HR practices oriented toward well-being, both
employees and organizations benefit. Following Guest (2017), there
are strong economic and ethical arguments for paying greater atten-
tion to HRM practices focused on employees' well-being.
In short, we argue that WBHRM can enhance positive relation-
ships and connections between employees, leading to increased
thought-action skills, which can improve task performance. Therefore,
our first hypothesis is as follows:
Hypothesis 1 WBHRM is positively related to individual performance.
4 SALAS-VALLINA ET AL.
2.2 | The mediating role of well-being
Despite strong interest in the impact of HRM on firm performance
(Huettermann & Bruch, 2019; Yang, Huang, Tang, Yang, & Wu, 2019),
further understanding of the mediating processes through which HRM
impacts on increased performance is needed (Edgar, Geare, Halhjem,
Reese, & Thoresen, 2015). Organizations seek to maximize their internal
capabilities through rare and inimitable resources that are socially com-
plex and causally ambiguous (Barney & Wright, 1998). In addition, there
are diverse mechanisms that can explain how and why HRM impacts on
performance (Cappelli & Keller, 2014). Different motivation-related and
human capital variables can mediate the relationship between HRM and
performance, such as employee attitudes and behaviors (Shantz, Alfes, &
Arevshatian, 2016), and employee well-being (Ogbonnaya & order construct close to HAW, consisting of job satisfaction and orga-
Messersmith, 2018), thus generating higher productivity (MacDuffie,
1995) and superior performance (Wood & Ogbonnaya, 2018).
There has been broad debate on how HRM improves firm perfor-
mance, including arguments positing that HRM influences perfor-
mance by means of employee well-being (Marescaux, De Winne, &
Forrier, 2019). In order to clarify the exact role of well-being within
the HRM–performance relationship, we explored its possible mediat-
ing role in the relationship between WBHRM and performance.
Employee well-being can be defined as “a state of complete phys-
ical, mental and social well-being, not merely absence of disease or
infirmity” (WHO, 1946). Warr (1987), in Grant et al., 2007, p. 52,
understood well-being as “the overall quality of an employee's experi-
ence and functioning at work.” HRM research has mainly followed
Grant et al.'s (2007) conceptualization of well-being, by focusing on
three dimensions: happiness, health, and social well-being (Van De
Voorde, Paauwe, & Van Veldhoven, 2012). Happiness is related to
positive attitudes such as job satisfaction and affective organizational
commitment (Grant et al., 2007). Recently, Salas-Vallina and
Alegre (2018) conceptualized HAW as a three-dimensional construct,
consisting of engagement, job satisfaction, and affective organiza-
tional commitment (Salas-Vallina et al., 2017). The health dimension
of well-being reflects physical and mental health (stress and exhaus-
tion) (Grant et al., 2007). Social well-being covers interactions at work,
including social support, trust, and fairness (Grant et al., 2007).
More insights into the conditions that explain when the different
types of well-being are enhanced or harmed are needed. Employee
direct voice is an effective way to increase work satisfaction, in turn
improving performance (Cotton, Vollrath, Froggatt, Lengnick-Hall, &
Jennings, 1988). Fisher (2010) argued that HRM might, at least par-
tially, improve employees' happiness because job security, training,
and information sharing improve motivation and quality of life at
work. As suggested by Hu and Jiang (2018), when HRM sends a signal
that the management is concerned about employees' well-being, trust
(social well-being) is fostered. Furthermore, trust is inextricably bound
to HR practices, which create relations and interactions and are the
mechanisms whereby organizations and employees communicate
(Lewicka & Krot, 2015). Conway, Fu, Monks, Alfes, and Bailey (2016)
found that performance management in a large public-sector organi-
zation increased employees' exhaustion (health dimension), but that
this was cushioned by promoting employee voice. Similarly, Alfes,
Shantz, and Truss (2012) found that HR practices reduced exhaustion
when they were perceived by employees as being supportive. In turn,
employees who feel emotionally exhausted will work at suboptimal
psychological functioning levels (Leiter & Maslach, 2005), which has
damaging effects on performance.
Therefore, WBHRM, that is, practices that are employee-cen-
tered, are expected to increase well-being, though there is a need to
find evidence of their effects on employees. Recent research has
examined the effects of WBHRM on employee performance through
the indirect effects of social climate and employee resilience (Cooper
et al., 2019).
In a meta-analysis, Harrison et al. (2006) showed that a higher-
nizational commitment, was a strong predictor of job performance.
More recently, Coo and Salanova (2018) found positive effects of
happiness on work performance in a context of large semipublic hos-
pitals. According to Guinot and Chiva (2019), higher levels of trust
enable employees to focus their attention on the work that needs to
be done (in-role performance), and on activities that add specific value
to the organization (extra-role performance).
This study aims to complement this and go one step further by
examining well-being from a broader perspective, including HAW,
exhaustion, and trust, following Grant's approach. Essentially, the well-
being–performance relationship is grounded in the social exchange the-
ory (Blau, 1964), whereby employees who perceive good treatment at
work reciprocate through positive contributions. WBHRM is perceived
by employees as good treatment, and they reciprocate through
increased performance. However, the principles of reciprocity in the
social exchange theory stress that reciprocity behavior is contingent on
the perceived value of the benefit received (Gouldner, 1960). In the
case of WBHRM, the nature of employee well-being and performance
as repayment for good treatment is therefore likely to be contingent on
staff needs for security, training, and development. However, the job
demands–resource model enables us to supply this contingent issue by
showing that job resources, such as WBHRM, lead to positive attitudes
and behaviors (well-being), in turn, impacting on positive outcomes
(performance). In this sense, the job demands–resources model
(Demerouti et al., 2001) complements and dovetails with the social
exchange theory. Furthermore, well-being perceptions (HAW, trust, and
exhaustion) could guarantee the perceived value of WBHRM, which
could be connected to the social exchange theory. Scholars such as
Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch, and Rhoades (2001) invoked
applying the social exchange theory to HRM.
From a “mutual gain” perspective, WBHRM can promote the ben-
efits of performance by aligning employees” needs with organizational
goals (Guest, 2017). WBHRM generates a win-win scenario for both
employees and organizations (Peccei et al., 2013) by means of
employees' well-being, resulting in improved performance. Therefore,
we hypothesize:
Hypothesis 2a Happiness at work (HAW) positively mediates the rela-
tionship between WBHRM and individual performance.
SALAS-VALLINA ET AL.
Hypothesis 2b Exhaustion negatively mediates the relationship
between WBHRM and individual performance.
Hypothesis 2c Trust positively mediates the relationship between
WBHRM and individual performance.
2.3 | The moderating effect of engaging leadership
The support and commitment of managers becomes fundamental for
the effective development and implementation of HR practices, as
leaders play an important role in shaping employees' perceptions of
HRM (Nishii & Wright, 2008). This study aims to build on and add to
the WBHRM-employees' well-being relationship by exploring the role
of engaging leadership as a contingency variable, in order to explain
when WBHRM improves or harms well-being and its subsequent
effect on performance. We therefore take a first step toward examin-
ing the interaction between WBHRM and engaging leadership.
Leadership is traditionally focused on the personal and interper-
sonal dynamics of how individuals influence each other when moving
toward organizational goals (Northouse, 2015), whereas HRM exam-
ines the systems and processes in an organization that aim to influ-
ence employees' behaviors (Lievens, 2015). Leaders have been
highlighted as an important factor in implementing HR practices
(Chuang, Jackson, & Jiang, 2016).
Some HR literature (; Leroy, Segers, Van Dierendonck, & Den
Hartog, 2018) suggests that leadership and HR are independent
players, yet their interaction codetermines employees' attitudes and
behaviors. Leaders and HR practices supplement each other, and need
to be aligned to achieve optimal effects. Leroy et al. (2018) and Leroy
et al. (2018) proposed this approach, based on the notions of strong
HR systems, and horizontal and vertical alignment (Ostroff & Bowen,
2016). Sharing the same perspective will lead to a greater likelihood
of sending similar signals.
Leadership has also been considered as a job resource, as it is
functional in achieving work objectives, reducing job demands, and
stimulating personal growth. Schaufeli (2015) proposed the integra-
tion of the job demands–resources model into leadership literature by
considering engaging leadership as a job resource, resulting in
improved outcomes, which, in turn, reduce the negative consequences
of work demands (stress). According to this view, positive leadership
styles that focus on people rather than on organizations can boost the
influence of HRM on employees' well-being. Thus, leaders are impor-
tant agents for nurturing positive attitudes among their employees.
However, it remains unclear as to how leadership styles can improve
broader positive attitudes. This is related to the focus of these leadership
styles, as well as the poor theoretical base of current leadership concepts
(Van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013). Bormann and Rowold (2018) argued
that there is a proliferation of premature leadership conceptualizations,
such as relations-centered leadership styles, which are not explicitly
theory-based concepts (Rahmadani et al., 2019).
A review of literature reveals that the leader–employee well-
being relationship has been examined through narrow aspects of well-
5
being and from performance-based perspectives (Skakon, Nielsen,
Borg, & Guzman, 2010), and further research is needed to explain the
role of managers in the relationship between HRM and well-being
(Oppenauer & Van De Voorde, 2018).
In an attempt to address this gap, the current study tests the
novel concept of engaging leadership, proposed by Schaufeli (2015).
Engaging leadership is seen as a distinct concept, which is firmly
rooted in a strong theory, namely, the SDT (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Com-
pared with other leadership styles, SDT enables engaging leadership
to follow a more parsimonious description of the leadership process
(Rahmadani et al., 2019). Engaging leadership can accurately predict
well-being because it is relationship-oriented and facilitates the fulfill-
ment of basic psychological needs at work by strengthening, con-
necting, empowering, and inspiring employees (Schaufeli, 2015).
These leadership behaviors are grounded in SDT and are especially
focused on fostering autonomy, relatedness, and building competence
(Fowler, 2018). The SDT motivational process shows how engaging
leaders can increase employees' job resources by providing them with
support, autonomy, and feedback, thus increasing their positive atti-
tudes (Rahmadani et al., 2019). In short, engaging leadership could ful-
fill the basic needs of satisfaction, well-being (Deci et al., 2001), and
mental health (Rahmadani et al., 2019).
We suggest that engaging leadership has a moderating effect in
the relationship between WBHRP and well-being, whereby engaging
leaders, who inspire, strengthen, empower, and connect (Schaufeli,
2015), ensure genuine implementation of WBHRP, since they are
completely focused on their followers' well-being (Rahmadani et al.,
2019; Schaufeli, 2015).
By empowering, leaders satisfy their followers' need for auton-
omy. In a meta-analysis, Christian, Garza, and Slaughter (2011) found
that job characteristics from the Job Characteristics Model, such as
autonomy, were positively related to engagement. In addition, when
basic psychological needs are satisfied, this is positively related to job
satisfaction (Mayer, Bardes, & Piccolo, 2008) and work engagement
(Gagné, 2003), and is negatively associated with exhaustion (Van den
Broeck, Vansteenkiste, De Witte, & Lens, 2008).
When inspired, followers increase their feeling of control and mean-
ingfulness, as they think they can make significant contributions
(Rahmadani et al., 2019). Inspiring leaders improve their followers' identi-
fication with work, which promotes more positive attitudes (Sosik, 2006)
such as HAW (Salas-Vallina & Alegre, 2018). Inspiration, described as the
action or power of moving the intellect or emotions (Downton, 1973),
can influence followers through affective and emotional aspects (Bass,
1985). Inspirational leaders also increase followers' trust (Joshi,
Lazarova, & Liao, 2009), possibly due to the fact that inspiration fosters
confidence among subordinates (Yukl, 2010). In addition, since inspira-
tional leaders make it easy to achieve desirable goals by highlighting why
followers will succeed (Bass & Bass, 2009), they act as a job resource,
reducing job demands, and, by extension, followers' exhaustion.
By strengthening followers, leaders make employees feel more com-
petent. Rigby and Ryan (2018) stated that by satisfying the psychological
needs of autonomy and competence, employee motivation and engage-
ment are increased, which leads us to establish a positive connection
6 SALAS-VALLINA ET AL.

between strengthening leaders and HAW. Delegation, if appropriately
applied, might be a useful tool to increase trust among leaders and fol-
lowers. In addition, a more competent workforce would be directly
related to lower levels of exhaustion, since having additional resources
reduces negative outcomes (JD-R model, Demerouti et al., 2001).
The last characteristic or dimension of engaging leadership,
known as connection, enables employees to work as a team, generat-
ing a strong sense of belongingness and trust among them
(Grossman & Feitosa, 2018). Teamwork improves work-related well-
being, through a process of perceived organizational support, involv-
ing social interaction and collaborative decision-making (Kozlowski &
Klein, 2000). Teamwork has demonstrated a protective function in
reducing job demands, and subsequently, burnout (Schaufeli et al.,
2009); thus it may also diminish exhaustion. Table 1 presents the
items and dimensions comprising the WBHRM scale.
In consequence, we suggest that the interaction of WBHRM and
engaging leadership might have a positive effect on employee well-
being from different angles, as both WBHRM and engaging leadership
could act as job resources, leading to positive employee outcomes
(Demerouti et al., 2001). Accordingly, we hypothesize as follows:
Hypothesis 3a Engaging leadership moderates the relationship between
WBHRM and HAW in such a way that WBHRM leads to higher
(lower) HAW under high (low) engaging leadership.
Hypothesis 3b Engaging leadership moderates the relationship between
WBHRM and exhaustion in such a way that WBHRM leads to
lower (higher) exhaustion under high (low) engaging leadership.
Hypothesis 3c Engaging leadership moderates the relationship between
WBHRM and trust in such a way that WBHRM leads to higher
(lower) trust under high (low) engaging leadership.
Figure 1 presents the theoretical model.

TABLE 1 Items and dimensions comprising the WBHRM scale

Dimension Item
Employment security 1. Things look secure for me in the future in this organization
2. I can expect to stay with this organization for as long as I wish
3. I feel that job security is almost guaranteed to me in this job
4. My company is committed to a goal of long-term employment security
5. If this organization were facing economic problems, employee downsizing would be the last option used
Training and development 6. I have the chance to attend to formal training programs to learn new skills and knowledge
7. This group has provided me with training opportunities enabling me to extend my range of skills and abilities
8. In this organization, formal training programs are offered to employees in order to increase their
promotability in this organization.
9. This organization spends enough resources on employees' training
10. This organization is committed to the training and development of its employees
11. In this organization, we are provided with the training needed to achieve high standards of work
Job quality 12. I can actively offer suggestions to improve work procedures or processes
13. Managerial decisions are significantly influenced by the view of employees
14. People feel involved in main company decisions
Information sharing 15. Communicating is a problem in my team (R)
16. Members of my team inform each other about work-related issues
17. The quality of information exchange in our team is good
18. I get new facts, insights, and ideas from my colleagues
19. During work meetings we tell each other what we knew already and do not exchange new information
Use of teams 20. My job requires a lot of cooperative work with other people
21. Team members depend on each other's work to be able to do their job
22. Team members jointly decide how the work is to be done
23. Teams are given collective responsibility for specific products or services
Relationship with the immediate 24. I receive support and guidance from my supervisor
manager
25. I feel recognized and appreciated when my job is well done
26. If given the opportunity, my immediate manager would take advantage of me
27. Help is available from my immediate manager when I have a problem

Abbreviation: WBHRM, well-being-oriented human resource practices.

SALAS-VALLINA ET AL.
FIGURE 1 Theoretical model. WBHRM, well-being-oriented human resource management
3 | M E TH O DO LO GY
3.1 | Procedure and sample
A quantitative survey was used to examine data gathered from
employees and their line managers in Spain. HR managers from very
large organizations were contacted (≥1,000 employees), as these orga-
nizations were more likely to have a comprehensive HRM system. In
Time 1, employees were asked about their WBHRM and engaging lead-
ership perceptions of their direct supervisor. Eight organizations with a
heterogeneous sample of teams on diverse levels accepted and took
part in the research. An email was sent to 12,423 employees and
384 line managers. After 10 days, a reminder was sent, resulting in a
total working sample of 3,219 employees (25.91% response rate) in
212 teams. Data were collected from January 2017 to March 2017.
Only data from teams consisting of at least three members were con-
sidered, producing a final sample of 2,914 employees in 192 teams.
These teams included firms from diverse sectors, including the technol-
ogy (37), ceramic tile (18), footwear (19), finance (16), car assembly (14),
consultancy (27), health care (22), and tourism (39) industries. The aver-
age team size was 5.56 members and varied from 3 to 12 members.
61.58% of the employees were women, with an average age of
39.22 years (SD = 11.82). The average job tenure was 9.78 years
(SD = 12.04). 17.79% had a master's degree, 34.14% had a bachelor's
degree, and 48.07% had secondary school qualifications or less. The
sample was made up of middle managers (8.41%), professional staff
(22.84%), administrative staff (16.56%), and operators (52.19%).
In Time 2, employees were asked about their HAW, exhaustion,
and trust levels. Data were gathered between October 2018 and
December 2018. After two reminders, a total working sample of
1,398 employees returned the questionnaires (49% response rate,
123 teams, and 64% response rate).
7
In Time 3 (January 2019 to March 2019), team leaders reported
individual performance. Out of a total of 123 team leaders,
93 answered the questionnaire, yielding a 76% response rate.
3.2 | Measures
WBHRM, engaging leadership, and employees' well-being (HAW,
exhaustion, and trust) were measured through employee ratings to
test the effectiveness of WBHRM (perceived HRM practices) on
improved employee well-being. Using employee rather than manage-
rial ratings enabled us to capture perceived HR practices. We also
used evaluative items instead of descriptive items (Beijer, Peccei, Van
Veldhoven, & Paauwe, 2019), as these are better designed and suited
to attitudinal variables. Individual performance was evaluated by line
managers.
WBHRM was measured at group level on the basis of the six-
dimension and 31-item measurement scale proposed by Cooper
et al. (2019), based on Zacharatos, Barling, and Iverson (). Recent
research has called for the use of employee ratings to measure employee
perceptions of HR practices, and the use of evaluative items rather than
descriptive items (or factual items) when connecting HR practices to
affective states. Evaluative items focus on subjective evaluations of the
practice in question, and are more appropriate when connecting HR
practices to affectively laden employee outcomes (Beijer et al., 2019).
This study follows the literature recommendations, adapting the scale to
evaluative items of employee perceptions to measure WBHRM. Four
items were removed as they presented low factor loadings.
Dimensions included employment security, training and develop-
ment, employee voice, information sharing, use of teams, and relation-
ships with direct managers. An example item was “This group has
provided me with training opportunities enabling me to extend my
8 SALAS-VALLINA ET AL.

range of skills and abilities.” The degree of interrater reliability among 4 | RE SU LT S

raters was examined using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)
1 and ICC2 (LeBreton & Senter, 2008). In addition, the interrater
agreement index (rWG(J)) was obtained to ensure consensus between
ratings. The results showed sufficient justification for data aggrega-
tion, with ICC1 standing at 0.58, and ICC2 at 0.91. The rWG(J) for each
of the six WBHRM practices ranged from 0.84 to 0.96, and the
median rWG(J) was 0.88. The scale's α reliability was 0.910.
Engaging leadership was measured at individual level, using
Schaufeli's (2015) engaging leadership scale. This is a nine-item scale,
ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (totally agree) (i.e., “My supervi-
sor is able to enthuse others about his/her plans”; α =0.93). For the
aggregation, ICC1 was 0.35 and the ICC2 was 0.87, and the median
level of rWG(J) was 0.92, ranging from 0.89 (strong) to 0.98 (very high),
providing support for aggregation of this construct at team level. Prin-
cipal component analysis showed that the nine items loaded satisfac-
torily onto a single latent factor (BBNFI = 0.968, CFI = 0.991,
RMSEA = 0.056). The scale's α reliability was 0.892.
HAW was measured at individual level using Salas-Vallina and
Alegre's (2018) shortened HAW scale. This is a nine-item scale ranging
from 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (totally agree) (e.g., “At my work I feel
plenty of energy”; α = 0.90).
Exhaustion was measured at individual level using the 5-item scale
drawn up by Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá, and Bakker (2002),
ranging from 1 (never) to 7 (daily) (e.g., “I feel used up at the end of a
workday”; α = 0.91).
Trust was measured at individual level using the 7-item scale,
ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (totally agree), developed by
Robinson and Rousseau (1994). The word “employer” was changed
to “manager” (e.g., “My manager is open and upfront with
me”; α = 0.89).
Performance was reported at individual level by group leaders,
using Eisenberger et al. (2001) measurement scale. It is a 4-item scale,
ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (totally agree), measuring in-role
behavior (e.g., “This employee meets the formal performance require-
ments of the job”; α = 0.95).
The control variables were employee age (coded on a 7-point ordi-
nal scale from 1 = <25 years to 7 = 65 years and over), gender (coded
1 = male, 0 = female), hours worked per week, and group size, based
on previous studies (Cooke, Cooper, Bartram, Wang, & Mei, 2019).
Table 2 shows the fit values of the measurement scales.
4.1 | Analyses
A five-factor confirmatory factor analysis was carried out (engaging
leadership, HAW, exhaustion, trust, and performance), revealing a
good fit (RMSEA = 0.06; CFI = 0.97; TLI = 0.96). High and signifi-
cant loadings were also found, which gave a valid measurement
model.
Descriptive statistics and correlations are shown in Table 3.
WBHRM showed a positive relationship with individual performance
(r = 0.24; p < .001).
Structural equation modeling was performed using the
MPLUS software. Variables were mean-centered to minimize
multicollinearity. WBHRM was checked so it could be considered
as a group-level construct. The rwg, the within-group of agreement
mean for WBHRM was 0.92, which was above the recommended
value of 0.70 (LeBreton & Senter, 2008). The ICC1 values were
0.20 for WBHRM. The reliability of the aggregated group means,
namely ICC2 for WBHRM, was 0.72. Therefore, sufficient within-
group agreement was found to aggregate WBHRM, and significant
variation across groups was revealed.
First, Hypothesis was tested, resulting in a satisfactory fit
(CFI = 0.95; TLI = 0.92; RMSEA = 0.04; SRMR = 0.03). The results sug-
gest a direct path between WBHRM and performance.
Hypotheses 2a, 2b, and 2c were supported. The mediating roles
of HAW, exhaustion, and trust were checked. The indirect path from
WBHRM to individual performance through HAW was significant
(β = 0.15; p < .05), suggesting that HAW includes this indirect effect.
Similarly, the path from WBHRM to task performance through trust
was significant (β = 0.24; p < .05), revealing a mediating role. Finally,
the indirect path from WBHRM to individual performance through
exhaustion was significant (β = −0.22; p < .05). Table 4 shows the
results of the structural equation model, and Table 5 shows the indi-
rect effects on individual performance.
Hypotheses 3a, 3b, and 3c were supported. There were signifi-
cant interaction effects between WBHRM and engaging leadership.
When these interaction effects were added, the model increased
the explained variance in HAW from 15.4 to 21.1; exhaustion rose
from 28.8 to 31.9; and trust went up from 34.6 to 37.2, compared
with a model containing only the main effects. A simple slope

TABLE 2 Fit values for the

Mod. S-B χ 2 df p value BBNFI CFI RMSEA NC (=χ 2/df )
second-order factorial model of
WOHRP 939.188 463 .016 0.977 0.982 0.038 2.028 WBHRM, engaging leadership, HAW,
Engaging leadership 62.744 22 .030 0.922 0.938 0.051 2.852 exhaustion, trust, and employee task
HAW 48.620 22 .042 0.989 0.975 0.061 2.210 performance

Exhaustion 21.140 10 .021 0.991 0.996 0.039 2.114

Trust 12.276 12 .014 0.992 0.998 0.013 1.023
Individual performance 9.510 6 .028 0.944 0.979 0.029 1.585

Note: All the loadings for the second-order factors were significant at p < .001.
Abbreviation: HAW, happiness at work; WBHRM, well-being-oriented human resource practices.
SALAS-VALLINA ET AL. 9

analysis checking the relationship between WBHRM and HAW, mean (Cohen et al., 2003). The results show that the positive effect
exhaustion, and trust at high and low levels of engaging leadership of WBHRM on HAW only appeared when it was reinforced by
behavior was performed, considering 1 SD above and below the engaging leadership (β = 0.18; p < .01). When this did not occur,

TABLE 3 Means, SDs, and

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5
correlations
1. WBHRM 4.83 1.28
2. Happiness at work 3.98 1.13 0.003
3. Exhaustion 2.43 1.26 −0.26** −0.29**
4. Trust 4.19 1.14 0.31** 0.17* −0.24**
5. Engaging leadership 4.29 1.01 0.33** 0.28** −0.26** 0.41**
6. Individual performance 3.91 0.94 0.33** 0.19* −0.22** 0.25** 0.31**

Abbreviation: WBHRM, well-being-oriented human resource practices.

*p < .05; **p < .01.

TABLE 4 Results from the structural equation model

Path coefficient
Hypothesis Description of path (unstandardized β) Result
Step 1 (control)
Age 0.08
Gender 0.01
Hours worked 0.04
Group size 0.10
R2 0.05
Step 2
H1 WBHRM ! individual performance 0.26*** H1 (+): Supported
H2a WBHRM ! HAW ! individual performance 0.15*** H2a (+): Supported
H2b WBHRM ! exhaustion ! individual performance −0.22*** H2b (−): Supported
H2c WBHRM ! trust ! individual performance 0.24*** H2c (+): Supported
H3a WBHRM ! engaging leadership ! HAW 0.18*** H3a (+): Supported
H3b WBHRM ! engaging leadership ! exhaustion −0.19*** H3b (−): Supported
H3c WBHRM ! engaging leadership ! trust 0.22*** H3c (+): Supported

Abbreviation: HAW, happiness at work; WBHRM, well-being-oriented human resource practices.

***p < .001.

TABLE 5 Indirect effects of WBHRP on group performance through engaging leadership, HAW, exhaustion, and trust

Independent Dependent Indirect 95% bias Total 95% bias

variable variable Mediator Moderator effect corrected CI effect corrected CI
WBHRM Individual HAW Engaging High 0.08** (0.01, 0.12) 0.24** (0.14, 0.29)
performance leadership
WBHRM Individual HAW Engaging Low 0.03* (0.02, 0.08) 0.20** (0.11, 0.27)
performance leadership
WBHRM Individual Exhaustion Engaging High −0.04* (0.01, 0.04) −0.17* (0.09, 0.16)
performance leadership
WBHRM Individual Exhaustion Engaging Low −0.06** (0.03, 0.10) −0.23* (0.07, 0.15)
performance leadership
WBHRM Individual Trust Engaging High 0.07** (0.01, 0.07) 0.26** (0.12, 0.28)
performance leadership
WBHRM Individual Trust Engaging Low 0.02* (0.01, 0.05) 0.21** (0.06, 0.22)
performance leadership

Abbreviation: CI, confidence interval; HAW, happiness at work; WBHRM, well-being-oriented human resource practices.
*p < .05; **p < .01.
10 SALAS-VALLINA ET AL.

F I G U R E 2 Standardized SEM results. Only significant results are shown. WBHRM, well-being-oriented human resource management.
*p < .05; **p < .01; *p < .001

F I G U R E 3 The moderating role of engaging leadership behavior F I G U R E 4 The moderating role of engaging leadership behavior
in the relationship between WBHRM and HAW in the relationship between WBHRM and exhaustion

the effect of WBHRM was not significant (β = .02; p > .05). A posi- 5 | DI SCU SSION
tive and significant effect of WBHRM and trust was
found (β = 0.22; p < .05), which became stronger when man- This study aims to contribute to the HRM–well-being performance
agers exhibited engaging leadership behavior (β = 0.28; p < .01). literature by examining the mediating role of well-being in the HRM–
Finally, a negative effect of WBHRM on exhaustion was found performance relationship and the moderating role of engaging leader-
(β = −0.12; p < .05), which became more significant when managers ship in the relationship between HRM and employees' well-being.
exhibited engaging leadership behavior (β = −0.19; p < .05) Thus, we have answered the call for more insights into the circum-
(Figures 2–5). stances under which organizations can promote different dimensions
SALAS-VALLINA ET AL.
F I G U R E 5 The moderating role of engaging leadership behavior
in the relationship between WBHRM and trust
of well-being and individual performance (Guest, 2017). In general,
the results support the proposed hypotheses. The major and most
innovative contributions of this study are fourfold. First, we measured
and conceptualized WBHRM, a novel approach to HRM. Second, we
shed light on the three-dimensional configuration of work-related
well-being. Third, we proposed a model where the combined effect of
WBHRM and well-being shows a real impact on individual perfor-
mance, which is reflective of the mutual gains approach. Finally, we
demonstrated that the moderating role of engaging leadership
increased the impact of WBHRM on well-being and performance.
In this case, individual performance improved through HAW and
trust, and exhaustion was reduced. These results suggest a more com-
plex causal relationship between HRM and performance, as the three
well-being dimensions were significant in this connection. Interest-
ingly, a recent type of leadership known as engaging leadership played
a pivotal role in explaining why HR practices had a positive impact on
employees' well-being in this study.
Basically, the proposed model connecting well-being and per-
formance comes under the theoretical contributions of both the
social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) and the job demands–
resources model. Employees who perceive more human and sup-
portive management reciprocate through positive contributions.
However, the basic assumptions of reciprocity in social exchange
theory emphasize that reciprocity behavior is contingent on the
perceived value of the benefit received (Gouldner, 1960).
According to the JD-R model, job resources (WBHRM) generally
lead to positive attitudes (work-related well-being) and outcomes
(individual performance), in turn reducing job demands. This means
that the JD-R model takes into account employee needs, thus com-
plementing social exchange theory. The JD-R model combined with
social exchange theory enable us to improve the explanation of the
mutual gains-conflicting outcome dilemma: do companies that
focus on both the well-being of their employees and the
11
achievement of their goals perform better, or only those that focus
on the achievement of organizational goals?
On the basis of these findings, our study contributes to the
HRM–well-being performance literature in four major ways.
First, the results show that the mechanism explaining well-being
and performance depends on a bundle of practices that reinforce each
other, rather than on a single practice. This joint impact of WBHRM
on well-being is in line with other studies (Cooper et al., 2019;
Huettermann & Bruch, 2019), shedding light on the current debate
about the optimal composition of HRM bundles (Cooper et al., 2019).
In addition, and as an original contribution of this article, this study
not only looked at positive employee outcomes of WBHRM, but also
included potential negative health outcomes such as exhaustion. By
considering employee outcomes as an end, rather than as a means to
an end, organizations can benefit from enhanced performance (Guest,
2017). Therefore, a coherent HRM-based well-being strategy, repre-
sented by WBHRM, provides real mutual gains.
Second, engaging leadership is a central contributor that improves
the impact of WBHRM on HAW, exhaustion, and trust. Both HRM and
leadership contribute to a more motivated and productive workforce,
yet they can interact in different ways: leadership has an influence
through the leader at individual or group level, while HRM has a greater
effect via systems and processes. Leroy et al. (2018) and Leroy
et al. (2018) called for more than one perspective to capture how leader-
ship enacts HR practices. They highlighted the need to demonstrate the
capacity of leadership in promoting value-based people management
and, in particular, to verify how leadership can foster both performance
and well-being. Interestingly, our results show that the positive moderat-
ing effect of engaging leadership strengthens the impact of WBHRM on
individual performance, an idea which had been put forward in theory,
but had not been proved empirically (; Leroy et al., 2018).
Our study supports the reasoning that engaging leadership acts as a
job resource (Nikolova et al., 2019), by satisfying the basic psychological
needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness for the healthy func-
tioning of employees. By inspiring (making employees feel that they are
contributing to the organization's mission), strengthening (granting free-
dom in decision-making), and connecting (promoting team spirit),
employees' basic psychological needs are covered. The JD-R model pre-
dicts that job resources will result in improved positive attitudes and
greater well-being, and our results confirm this. Other favorable leader-
ship styles overlap to some extent with engaging leadership. However,
their focus is different, as engaging leadership assigns particular impor-
tance to satisfying psychological needs and the social aspect of employee
functioning, and it is rooted in a strong motivational theory (SDT). We
contribute to past research that found other interacting variables in the
HRM–well-being relationship (Alfes et al., 2012; Conway et al., 2016), by
including engaging leadership as a central interacting variable. When
leaders empower, inspire, strengthen, and connect, WBHRM creates a
strong effect and contributes to both well-being and performance.
Third, by integrating the literature on HRM, leadership and well-
being, we have shed light on the HRM–performance path. Social
exchange theory and the job demands–resources model support the
effects of WBHRM on well-being through engaging leadership, in
12
turn, impacting on individual performance. WBHRM and engaging
leadership act as a job resource, exerting a positive impact on
employees' well-being, which is reciprocated in the form of improved
performance. In addition, the interaction effect of WBHRM and
engaging leadership reduces the negative effect of job demands
(exhaustion).
Fourth, this research follows a multilevel and multisource time-
lagged research design, which gives a more realistic account of the
overall nature of the research variables. By bringing HRM practices
down to the level of individual perceptions, we were better able to
capture implemented HRM practices, as suggested by Leroy
et al. (2018) and Leroy et al. (2018). We also reduced potential com-
mon method bias by using line managers' ratings of followers' perfor-
mance together with a temporal disconnection.
In conclusion, the proposed integrative model is necessary to
ensure that research into people management effectively influences
strategic organizational decisions (Woodrow & Guest, 2014). Both
WBHRM and engaging leadership create a more favorable job envi-
ronment, which, in turn, reduces exhaustion, and fosters HAW and
trust, bringing increased performance.
5.1 | Practical implications
This study found that WBHRM can increase individual performance
via employees' well-being. As a first step, organizations need to be
aware that employees need to experience well-being, and that they
play a crucial role in the promotion of well-being through HR prac-
tices. Organizations should establish a series of HR practices that
together lead employees to increased performance through HAW
and trust. Employees' well-being could be enhanced by promoting a
safer employment relationship, in which employees perceive that
the organization values them in the long term; by setting participa-
tive decision-making procedures; by investing in training and
coaching programs, through which employees feel more capable
and skilled; by fostering information sharing; and by enhancing
two-way communication and a high-quality relationship between
leaders and followers. This, in turn would improve employees' indi-
vidual performance.
As a second step, leaders should establish and promote an
open climate that enables them to assess to what extent their fol-
lowers feel their well-being needs are being catered for. For exam-
ple, leaders who wish to satisfy the need for autonomy should
reflect on how to increase decision-making levels so that they can
delegate new tasks. In turn, leaders who detect the need for greater
competence should discuss how to train their followers to master
challenging tasks.
WBHRM and engaging leadership enable consistent messages to
be sent from both the HR department and direct superiors, based on
a motivational process in which job resources lead to positive atti-
tudes and improved performance. In other words, it takes two to
tango, and both HRM practices and leadership need to be focused on
employees for a win-win scenario of mutual gains.
SALAS-VALLINA ET AL.
5.2 | Limitations and future research suggestions
This study has several limitations. First, we did not examine HR prac-
tices in isolation. Since some HR practices have a negative impact on
employees' well-being, future research could assess the individual
effect of each HR practice. Second, our study focused on very large
private companies with well-structured HR departments. Future
research could explore how WBHRM impacts on performance,
through engaging leadership and well-being, in smaller companies,
where HR policies may be less well defined, and thus the role of line
managers could be even more significant. Third, we gathered informa-
tion from the same source (employees), except for individual perfor-
mance. Although the time-lagged nature of this research reduces the
odds of common-method bias, future studies could gather data from
more varied sources of information. Fourth, different outcome vari-
ables, such as extra-role performance, could be examined. For exam-
ple, the role of WBHRM and well-being on organizational citizenship
behavior could be an interesting line of research. Finally, other
person-centered leadership styles, such as ethical and servant leader-
ship, could be examined in order to examine their effects on the
WBHRM-well-being relationship. A comparative study exploring the
different repercussions of ethical, servant, and engaging leadership on
employees' well-being might clarify the role of leadership in the
WBHRM–well-being connection.
ACKNOWLEDG MENTS
We are grateful to the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Uni-
versities for the financial support (grant PGC2018-097981-B-I00). We
would also like to thank Conselleria d'Innovació, Universitats, Ciència i
Societat Digital (grant GV/2019/159) for their financial support.
OR CID
Andrés Salas-Vallina https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0129-7013
RE FE RE NCE S
Alfes, K., Shantz, A., & Truss, C. (2012). The link between perceived HRM
practices, performance and well-being: The moderating effect of trust
in the employer. Human Resource Management Journal, 22(4),
409–427. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12005
Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P. B., Kalleberg, A. L., & Bailey, T. A. (2000).
Manufacturing advantage: Why high-performance work systems pay off.
New York, NY: Cornell University Press.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model:
State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328.
Barney, J. B., & Wright, P. M. (1998). On becoming a strategic partner: The
role of human resources in gaining competitive advantage. Human
Resource Management, 37(1), 31–46.
Bartram, T., Karimi, L., Stanton, P., & Leggat, S. (2014). Social identification:
Linking high performance work systems, psychological empowerment
and quality of patient care. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 25, 2401–2419. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.
2014.880152
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations.
New York, NY: Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2009). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory,
research, and managerial applications. New York, NY: Simon and
Schuster.
SALAS-VALLINA ET AL.
Beijer, S., Peccei, R., Van Veldhoven, M., & Paauwe, J. (2019). The turn to
employees in the measurement of human resource practices: A critical
review and proposed way forward. Human Resource Management Jour-
nal. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12229
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Wiley.
Bormann, K. C., & Rowold, J. (2018). Construct proliferation in leadership
style research: Reviewing pro and contra arguments. Organizational
Psychology Review, 8(2-3), 149–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/
2041386618794821
Bowen, D. E., & Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding HRM–firm performance
linkages: The role of the “strength” of the HRM system. Academy of
Management Review, 29(2), 203–221.
Boxall, P., & Macky, K. (2009). Research and theory on high-performance
work systems: Progressing the high-involvement stream. Human
Resource Management Journal, 19(1), 3–23.
Cappelli, P., & Keller, J. R. (2014). Talent management: Conceptual
approaches and practical challenges. Annual Review of Organizational
Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 305–331.
Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement:
A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual
performance. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 89–136.
Chuang, C. H., Jackson, S. E., & Jiang, Y. (2016). Can knowledge-intensive
teamwork be managed? Examining the roles of HRM systems, leader-
ship, and tacit knowledge. Journal of Management, 42(2), 524–554.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313478189
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple
regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences, Mahwah. New
Jersey: Erlbau.
Conway, E., Fu, N., Monks, K., Alfes, K., & Bailey, C. (2016). Demands or
resources? The relationship between HR practices, employee engage-
ment, and emotional exhaustion within a hybrid model of employment
relations. Human Resource Management, 55(5), 901–917. https://doi.
org/10.1002/hrm.21691
Coo, C., & Salanova, M. (2018). Mindfulness can make you happy-and-pro-
ductive: A mindfulness controlled trial and its effects on happiness,
work engagement and performance. Journal of Happiness Studies, 19
(6), 1691–1711.
Cooke, F. L., Cooper, B., Bartram, T., Wang, J., & Mei, H. (2019). Mapping
the relationships between high-performance work systems, employee
resilience and engagement: A study of the banking industry in China.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(8),
1239–1260. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1137618
Cooper, B., Wang, J., Bartram, T., & Cooke, F. L. (2019). Well-being-
oriented human resource management practices and employee perfor-
mance in the Chinese banking sector: The role of social climate and
resilience. Human Resource Management, 58(1), 85–97. https://doi.
org/10.1002/hrm.21934
Cotton, J. L., Vollrath, D. A., Froggatt, K. L., Lengnick-Hall, M. L., &
Jennings, K. R. (1988). Employee participation: Diverse forms and dif-
ferent outcomes. Academy of Management Review, 13(1), 8–22.
De Clercq, D., Haq, I. U., & Azeem, M. U. (2019). Workplace ostracism and
job performance: Roles of self-efficacy and job level. Personnel Review,
48(1), 184–203. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-02-2017-0039
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The" what" and" why" of goal pursuits:
Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological
Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.
Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Gagné, M., Leone, D. R., Usunov, J., &
Kornazheva, B. P. (2001). Need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being
in the work organizations of a former eastern bloc country: A cross-
cultural study of self-determination. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 27(8), 930–942.
Della Torre, E. (2019). Collective voice mechanisms, HRM practices and
organizational performance in Italian manufacturing firms. European
Management Journal, 37(3), 398–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.
2018.09.001
13
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The
job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 86(3), 499–512.
Downton, J. V. (1973). Rebel leadership: Commitment and charisma in the
revolutionary process. New York, NY: Free Press.
Edgar, F., Geare, A., Halhjem, M., Reese, K., & Thoresen, C. (2015). Well-
being and performance: Measurement issues for HRM research. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(15),
1983–1994. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1041760
Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P., & Rhoades, L. (2001).
Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86, 42–51.
Fisher, C. D. (2010). Happiness at work. International Journal of Manage-
ment Reviews, 12(4), 384–412.
Fowler, S. (2018). Toward a New Curriculum of Leadership Competencies:
Advances in Motivation Science Call for Rethinking Leadership Devel-
opment. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 20(2), 182–196.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1523422318756644
Gagné, M. (2003). The role of autonomy support and autonomy orienta-
tion in prosocial behavior engagement. Motivation and Emotion, 27(3),
199–223.
Gallie, D., Zhou, Y., Felstead, A., & Green, F. (2012). Teamwork, skill devel-
opment and employee welfare. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 50
(1), 23–46.
Garavan, T., McCarthy, A., Sheehan, M., Lai, Y., Saunders, M. N., Clarke, N.,
… Shanahan, V. (2019). Measuring the organizational impact of train-
ing: The need for greater methodological rigor. Human Resource Devel-
opment Quarterly, 30(3), 291–309. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.
21345
Gibson, C., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and
mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 47(2), 209–226.
Godard, J. (2004). A critical assessment of the high performance paradigm.
British Journal of Industrial Relations, 42, 349–378.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement.
American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161–178.
Grant, A. M., Christianson, M. K., & Price, R. H. (2007). Happiness, health,
or relationships? Managerial practices and employee well-being
tradeoffs. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(3), 51–63.
Grossman, R., & Feitosa, J. (2018). Team trust over time: Modeling recipro-
cal and contextual influences in action teams. Human Resource Man-
agement Review, 28(4), 395–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.
2017.03.006
Guest, D. E. (2017). Human resource management and employee well-
being: Towards a new analytic framework. Human Resource Manage-
ment Journal, 27(1), 22–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12139
Guinot, J., & Chiva, R. (2019). Vertical trust within organizations
and performance: A systematic review. Human Resource
Development Review, 18(2), 196–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1534484319842992
Harrison, D. A., Newman, D. A., & Roth, P. L. (2006). How important are
job attitudes? Meta-analytic comparisons of integrative behavioral
outcomes and time sequences. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2),
305–325.
Hauff, S., Guerci, M., & Gilardi, S. (2019, July). Well-being-oriented HRM
configuration: Diffusion, contingencies, and outcomes. Academy of
Management Proceedings, 2019(1), 12675.
Hauff, S., Guerci, M., & Gilardi, S. (2020). Well-being-oriented HRM con-
figurations: diffusion, contingencies and outcomes. Evidence-based
HRM, in press. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBHRM-09-2019-0080
Heffernan, M., & Dundon, T. (2016). Cross-level effects of high-
performance work systems (HPWS) and employee well-being: The
mediating effect of organisational justice. Human Resource Manage-
ment Journal, 26(2), 211–231. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.
12095
14
Ho, H., & Kuvaas, B. (2019). Human resource management systems,
employee well-being, and firm performance from the mutual gains and
critical perspectives: The well-being paradox. Human Resource Man-
agement Journal, 59(3), 235–253. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21990
Hu, X., & Jiang, Z. (2018). Employee-oriented HRM and voice behavior: A
moderated mediation model of moral identity and trust in manage-
ment. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 29(5),
746–771.
Huettermann, H., & Bruch, H. (2019). Mutual gains? Health-related HRM,
collective well-being and organizational performance. Journal of Man-
agement Studies, 56(6), 1045–1072.
Jensen, J. M., Patel, P. C., & Messersmith, J. G. (2013). High-performance
work systems and job control: Consequences for anxiety, role over-
load, and turnover intentions. Journal of Management, 39(6),
1699–1724. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311419663
Jensen, J. M., & Van De Voorde, F. C. (2016). High performance at the
expense of employee health? Reconciling the dark side of high per-
formance work systems. In N. M. Ashkanasy, R. J. Bennet, &
M. Martinko (Eds.), Understanding the high performance workplace:
The line between motivation and abuse (pp. 63–84). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Joshi, A., Lazarova, M. B., & Liao, H. (2009). Getting everyone on board:
The role of inspirational leadership in geographically dispersed teams.
Organization Science, 20(1), 240–252.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory
and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent
processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory,
research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new
directions (pp. 3–90). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kraimer, M. L., Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2005). The role
of job security in understanding the relationship between employees'
perceptions of temporary workers and employees' performance. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 90(2), 389–398.
LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about
interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research
Methods, 11(4), 815–852.
Leiter, M. P., & Maslach, C. (2005). A mediation model of job burnout. In
A. S. G. Antoniou & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Research companion to organi-
zational health psychology (pp. 544–564). Cheltenham, UK: Edward
Elgar.
Leroy, H., Segers, J., Van Dierendonck, D., & Den Hartog, D. (2018). Man-
aging people in organizations: Integrating the study of HRM and lead-
ership. Human Resource Management Review, 28(3), 249–257. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2018.02.002
Lewicka, D., & Krot, K. (2015). The model of HRM-trust-commitment rela-
tionships. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 115(8), 1457–1480.
Lievens, F. (2015). Human resource management. Lannoo Campus: Leuven,
Belgium.
MacDuffie, J. P. (1995). Human resource bundles and manufacturing per-
formance: Organizational logic and flexible production systems in the
world auto industry. ILR Review, 48(2), 197–221.
Marescaux, E., De Winne, S., & Forrier, A. (2019). Developmental HRM,
employee well-being and performance: The moderating role of devel-
oping leadership. European Management Review, 16(2), 317–331.
https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12168
Mayer, D. M., Bardes, M., & Piccolo, R. F. (2008). Do servant-leaders help
satisfy follower needs? An organizational justice perspective. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17(2), 180–197.
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affec-
tive, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A
meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 61(1), 20–52.
Newman, A., Cooper, B., Holland, P., Miao, Q., & Teicher, J. (2019). How
do industrial relations climate and union instrumentality enhance
employee performance? The mediating effects of perceived job
SALAS-VALLINA ET AL.
security and trust in management. Human Resource Management, 58
(1), 35–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21921
Nikolova, I., Schaufeli, W., & Notelaers, G. (2019). Engaging leader–
engaged employees? A cross-lagged study on employee engagement.
European Management Journal, 37(6), 772–783.
Nishii, L., & Wright, P. (2008). Variability within organizations: Implications
for strategic human resource management. In D. B. Smith (Ed.), The
people make the place: Dynamic linkages between individuals and organi-
zations (pp. 225–248). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Northouse, P. G. (2015). Leadership: Theory and practice. London: Sage
publications.
Ogbonnaya, C., & Messersmith, J. (2018). Employee performance, well-
being, and differential effects of human resource management sub-
dimensions: Mutual gains or conflicting outcomes? Human Resource
Management Journal, 29(3), 509–526. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-
8583.12203
Ogbonnaya, C., & Messersmith, J. (2019). Employee performance, well-
being, and differential effects of human resource management sub-
dimensions: Mutual gains or conflicting outcomes?. Human Resource
Management Journal, 29(3), 509–526. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-
8583.12203
Oppenauer, V., & Van De Voorde, K. (2018). Exploring the relationships
between high involvement work system practices, work demands and
emotional exhaustion: A multi-level study. The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 29(2), 311–337. https://doi.org/10.
1080/09585192.2016.1146321
Ostroff, C., & Bowen, D. E. (2016). Reflections on the 2014 decade award:
Is there strength in the construct of HR system strength? Academy of
Management Review, 41(2), 196–214. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.
2015.0323
Paauwe, J., Wright, P., & Guest, D. (2013). HRM and performance: What
do we know and where should we go? In J. Paauwe, D. Guest, &
P. Wright (Eds.), HRM and performance: Achievements and challenges
(pp. 1–14). Chichester, England: Wiley.
Peccei, R. E., Van de Voorde, F. C., Van Veldhoven, M. J. P. M., Paauwe, J.,
Guest, D. E., & Wright, P. M. (2013). HRM, well-being and perfor-
mance: A theoretical and empirical review (pp. 15–45). In J. Paauwe,
D. Guest, & P. Wright (Eds.), HRM and performance: Achievements and
challenges. Chichester, England: Wiley.
Pfeffer, J. (1998). Seven practices of successful firms. California Manage-
ment Review, 40(2), 96–124.
Picketty, T. (2014). Capital in the Twenty-first Century: The economics of
inequality. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
Posthuma, R. A., Campion, M. C., Masimova, M., & Campion, M. A. (2013).
A high performance work practices taxonomy: Integrating the litera-
ture and directing future research. Journal of Management, 39(5),
1184–1220. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313478184
Pyman, A., Cooper, B., Teicher, J., & Holland, P. (2006). A comparison of
the effectiveness of employee voice arrangements in Australia. Indus-
trial Relations Journal, 37(5), 543–559.
Rahmadani, V. G., Schaufeli, W. B., Ivanova, T. Y., & Osin, E. N. (2019).
Basic psychological need satisfaction mediates the relationship
between engaging leadership and work engagement: A cross-national
study. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 30, 453–471. https://
doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21366
Rigby, C. S., & Ryan, R. M. (2018). Self-determination theory in human
resource development: New directions and practical considerations.
Advances in Developing Human Resources, 20(2), 133–147. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1523422318756954
Robinson, S. L., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Violating the psychological con-
tract: Not the exception but the norm. Journal of Organizational Behav-
ior, 15(3), 245–259.
Salas-Vallina, A., & Alegre, J. (2018). Happiness at work: Developing a
shorter measure. Journal of Management and Organization, 1–21.
https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2018.24
SALAS-VALLINA ET AL.
Salas-Vallina, A., López-Cabrales, A., Alegre, J., & Fernández, R. (2017). On
the road to happiness at work (HAW): Transformational leadership
and organizational learning capability as drivers of HAW in a
healthcare context. Personnel Review, 46(2), 314–338. https://doi.org/
10.1017/jmo.2018.24
Schaufeli, W. B. (2015). Engaging leadership in the job demands-resources
model. Career Development International, 20(5), 446–463. https://doi.
org/10.1108/CDI-02-2015-0025
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002).
The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirma-
tory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71–92.
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker A. B., & Van Rhenen W. (2009). How changes in
job demands and resources predict burnout, work engagement, and
sickness absenteeism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(7), 893–
917. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.595
Shantz, A., Alfes, K., & Arevshatian, L. (2016). HRM in healthcare: The role
of work engagement. Personnel Review, 45(2), 274–295. https://doi.
org/10.1108/PR-09-2014-0203
Skakon, J., Nielsen, K., Borg, V., & Guzman, J. (2010). Are leaders' well-
being, behaviours and style associated with the affective well-being of
their employees? A systematic review of three decades of research.
Work and Stress, 24(2), 107–139.
Sosik, J. J. (2006). Full range leadership: Model, research, extensions and
training. In C. Cooper & R. Burke (Eds.), Inspiring Leaders (pp. 49–82).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Tsui, A. S., Pearce, J. L., Porter, L. W., & Tripoli, A. M. (1997). Alternative
approaches to the employee-organization relationship: Does invest-
ment in employees pay off? Academy of Management Journal, 40(5),
1089–1121.
Van De Voorde, K., Paauwe, J., & Van Veldhoven, M. (2012). Employee
well-being and the HRM–organizational performance relationship: A
review of quantitative studies. International Journal of Management
Reviews, 14(4), 391–407. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.
00322.x
Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., De Witte, H., & Lens, W. (2008).
Explaining the relationships between job characteristics, burnout, and
engagement: The role of basic psychological need satisfaction. Work
and Stress, 22(3), 277–294.
Van Knippenberg, D., & Sitkin, S. B. (2013). A critical assessment of
charismatic—Transformational leadership research: Back to the
drawing board? The Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 1–60.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2013.759433
Walton, R. E. (1985). From “control” to “commitment” in the workplace.
Harvard Business Review, 63, 77–84.
Warr, P. (1987). Work, unemployment, and mental health. London: Oxford
University Press.
Warr, P., & Inceoglu, I. (2012). Job engagement, job satisfaction, and con-
trasting associations with person–job fit. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 17(2), 129–138.
WHO (1946). Constitution of the World Health Organization. Retrieved
from www.who.int/governance/eb/constitution/en/index.html.
Wood, S., & Ogbonnaya, C. (2018). High-involvement management, eco-
nomic recession, well-being, and organizational performance. Journal
of Management, 44(8), 3070–3095. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0149206316659111
Wood, S. J., & Wall, T. D. (2007). Work enrichment and employee voice in
human resource management-performance studies. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(7), 1335–1372.
Woodrow, C., & Guest, D. E. (2014). When good HR gets bad results:
Exploring the challenge of HR implementation in the case of work-
place bullying. Human Resource Management Journal, 24(1), 38–56.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12021
Yang, F., Huang, X., Tang, D., Yang, J., & Wu, L. (2019). How guanxi HRM
practice relates to emotional exhaustion and job performance: The
moderating role of individual pay for performance. The International
15
Journal of Human Resource Management, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.
1080/09585192.2019.1588347
Yukl, G. A. (1998). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in organizations, Upper Saddler River. New Jer-
sey: Pearson.
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Andrés Salas-Vallina is an Assistant Professor in Business Man-
agement at the Department of Management “Juan José Renau
Piqueras” at the University of Valencia. His research is focused on
human resource management, work-related well-being, social cap-
ital, and knowledge exchange. He is principal investigator in the
project regarding HRM, well-being, and performance financed by
the Valencian Government (Spain). He has published his research
at journals such as Employee Relations, Personnel Review, or Journal
of Business Research, among others.
Joaquín Alegre is a Professor in Innovation Management at the
Department of Management “Juan José Renau Piqueras” at the
University of Valencia. His teaching and research interests focus
on different issues dealing with the innovation process within
organizations. Innovation, organizational learning, and knowledge
management are frequent topics in his research. His investigations
have focused on the organizational level as well as on the
employees' level. He has been principal investigator in four
research projects financed by the Spanish Government. He has
published his findings at journals such as Research Policy, Journal
of Product Innovation Management, Technovation, or International
Journal of Management Reviews.

Alvaro López-Cabrales is an Associate Professor of Human
Resource Management in the Business Administration Depart-
ment, Pablo de Olavide University (Seville), where he obtained his
doctorate degree in 2003. He has been Visiting Scholar at the
Texas A&M University in the United States. His current work
focuses on research in human capital, employment relationships,
and sustainability in HRM. He is publishing his research in interna-
tional journals as Human Resource Management, R&D Management,
Personnel Review, British Journal of Management, The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, Employee Relations,
Human Resource Management Review, or Corporate Social Responsi-
bility & Environmental Management, among others.
How to cite this article: Salas-Vallina A, Alegre J, López-
 The challenge of increasing employees' well-being
Cabrales A.
and performance: How human resource management
practices and engaging leadership work together toward
reaching this goal. Hum Resour Manage. 2020;1–15. https://
doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22021