The article empirically investigates the relationship between work intensification (WI) and employee well-being by considering high-performance work systems (HPWS) and perceived organisational support (POS) as mediators. An integrated model is designed to discover the interactions between WIs, indicators of employee well-being (psychological health and work engagement), POS and HPWS. Our sample consists of 411 executives working in Indian IT organisations. Data analyses were performed by structural equation modelling. The research found that WI adversely impacts employee well-being. The findings revealed that POS and HPWS mediate the linkage between WI and employee well-being. The research findings make significant contributions by demonstrating how WI affects employee well-being and by assisting organisations in implementing sustainable HRM practices and constructing a congenial atmosphere. Finally, we sum up the impact of WI on workers, their families and society, and present a broad variety of implications for researchers and practitioners to comprehend sustainable HRM and its role in enhancing employee well-being.
AdilM. S., HamidK. B. A., & WaqasM. (2020). Impact of perceived organisational support and workplace incivility on work engagement and creative work involvement: A moderating role of creative self-efficacy. International Journal of Management Practice, 13(2), 117–150.
2.
AfshariL., HayatA., RamachandranK. K., BartramT., & BalakrishnanB. K. P. D. (2022). Threat or opportunity: Accelerated job demands during COVID-19 pandemic. Personnel Review, 51(9), 2482–2501. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-02-2021-0098
3.
AlwisS. D., & HernvallP. (2021). Technology intense workplaces, boundary preferences and work–life conflict: Evidence from Sri Lanka. South Asian Journal of Human Resources Management, 8(1), 29–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/2322093720965326
4.
AndersonJ. C., & GerbingD. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.103.3.411
5.
ArefinM. S., AlamM. S., IslamM. R., & RahamanM. (2019). High-performance work systems and job engagement: The mediating role of psychological empowerment. Cogent Business & Management, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1664204
6.
ArefinM. S., ArifI., & RaquibM. (2015). High performance work systems and proactive behavior: The mediating role of psychological empowerment. International Journal of Business and Management, 10(3), 132–140. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v10n3p132
7.
BabicA., StinglhamberF., & HansezI. (2019). High-performance work systems and well-being: Mediating role of work-to-family interface. Psychologica Belgica, 59(1), 301–320. https://doi.org/10.5334/pb.473
8.
BakkenB., & TorpS. (2012). Work engagement and health among industrial workers. Scandinavian Journal of Organizational Psychology, 4(1), 4–20.
9.
BakkerA. B., & DemeroutiE. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328.
BakkerA. B., & XanthopoulouD. (2013). Creativity and charisma among female leaders: The role of resources and work engagement. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(14), 2760–2779.
12.
BentlerP. M., & BonnettD. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structure. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588–606. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588
13.
BoxallP., & MackyK. (2014). High-involvement work processes, work intensification and employee well-being. Work, Employment, and Society, 28(6), 963–984. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017013512714
14.
CaesensG., & StinglhamberF. (2014). The relationship between perceived organizational support and work engagement: The role of self-efficacy and its outcomes. European Review of Applied Psychology, 64(5), 259–267.
15.
CaesensG., StinglhamberF., & OhanaM. (2016). Perceived organizational support and well-being: A weekly study. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(7), 1214–1230. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-01-2016-0002
16.
ChenH., & EyounK. (2021). Do mindfulness and perceived organizational support work? Fear of COVID-19 on restaurant frontline employees’ job insecurity and emotional exhaustion. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 94(102850). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102850
17.
ChillakuriB., & VankaS. (2022). Understanding the effects of perceived organizational support and high-performance work systems on health harm through sustainable HRM lens: A moderated mediated examination. Employee Relations, 44(3), 629–649. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-01-2019-0046
18.
CombsJ., LiuY., HallA., & KetchenD. (2006). How much do high performance work practices matter? A meta-analysis of their effects on organizational performance. Personnel Psychology, 59(3), 501–528. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00045.x
19.
CroccoF. G., & MartinA. (2019). Towards a sustainable HRM in Latin America? Union management relationship in Chile. Employee Relations. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-01-2019-0036
20.
EhnertI. (2014). Paradox as a lens for theorizing sustainable HRM. Mapping and coping with paradoxes and tensions. In EhnertI., HarryW., & ZinkK. J. (Eds.), Sustainability and human resource management: Developing sustainable business organizations (pp. 247–271). Springer.
EngelbrechtG. J., de BeerL. T., & SchaufeliW. B. (2020). The relationships between work intensity, workaholism, burnout, and self-reported musculoskeletal complaints. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing and Service Industries, 30(1), 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20821
23.
GavganiA. M., HodgsonD. M., & NalivaikoE. (2017). Effects of visual flow direction on signs and symptoms of cybersickness. PloS One, 12(8), e0182790. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182790
24.
GavinoM. C., WayneS. J., & ErdoganB. (2012). Discretionary and transactional human resource practices and employee outcomes: The role of perceived organizational support. Human Resource Management, 51(5), 665–686. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.v51.5
25.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
26.
HobfollS. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of General Psychology, 6(4), 307–324. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.6.4.307
27.
HollandP., CooperB., & SheehanC. (2017). Employee voice, supervisor support, and engagement: The mediating role of trust. Human Resource Management, 56(6), 915–929.
28.
JhunjhunwalaS. (2012). Review of Indian work culture and challenges faced by Indians in the era of globalization. Interscience Management Review, 2(2), 67–70.
29.
KahnW. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724.
30.
KorunkaC., KubicekB., PaškvanM., & UlfertsH. (2015). Changes in work intensification and intensified learning: Challenge or hindrance demands?Journal of Management Psychology, 30(7), 786–800.
31.
KowskeB., & WoodsC. (2008). Rolaids or revolution: Three scenarios for the future of work stress and employee health costs. People and Strategy, 31(4), 48–55.
32.
KubicekB., PaškvanM., & KorunkaC. (2014). Development and validation of an instrument for assessing job demands arising from accelerated change: The intensification of job demands scale (IDS). European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(6), 898–913.
33.
KubicekB., PaškvanM., & KorunkaC. (2015). Development and validation of an instrument for assessing job demands arising from accelerated change: The intensification of job demands scale (IDS). European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(6), 898–913. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2014.979160
34.
LandisR. S., BealD. J., & TeslukP. E. (2000). A comparison of approaches to forming composite measures in structural equation models. Organizational Research Methods, 3(2), 186–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810032003
35.
LittleT. D., CunninghamW. A., ShaharG., & WidamanK. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(2), 151–173. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1
36.
MäkiniemiJ. P., OksanenA., & MäkikangasA. (2021). Loneliness and well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. The moderating roles of personal, social, and organizational resources on perceived stress and exhaustion among Finnish university employees. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(13), 7146. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18137146
37.
MariappanadarS. (2016). Health harm of work from the sustainable HRM perspective: Scale development and validation. International Journal of Manpower, 37(6), 924–944. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-12-2015-0204
38.
MariappanadarS., & AustI. (2017). The dark side of overwork: An empirical evidence of social harm of work from a sustainable HRM perspective. International Studies of Management and Organization, 47(4), 372–387. https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.2017.1382272
39.
MaunoS., HerttalampiM., MinkkinenJ., FeldtT., & KubicekB. (2022). Is work intensification bad for employees? A review of outcomes for employees over the last two decades. Work & Stress, 37(1), 100–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2022.2080778
40.
MaunoS., & KinnunenU. (2021). The importance of recovery from work in intensified working life. In KorunkaC. (Ed.), Flexible working practices and approaches: Psychological and social implications of a multifaceted phenomenon (pp. 59–79). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74128-0_4
41.
MaunoS., KubicekB., FeldtT., & MinkkinenJ. (2020). Intensified job demands and job performance: Does SOC strategy use make a difference?Industrial Health, 58(3), 224–237. https://doi.org/10.2486/indhealth.2019-0067
42.
MaunoS., KubicekB., MinkkinenJ., & KorunkaC. (2019). Antecedents of intensified job demands: Evidence from Austria. Employee Relations, 41(4), 694–707. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-04-2018-0094
43.
MaunoS., & MinkkinenJ. (2020). Profiling a spectrum of mental job demands and their linkages to employee outcomes. Journal of Person-Oriented Research, 6(1), 56–72. https://doi.org/10.17505/jpor.2020.22046
44.
MazzolaJ. J., & DisselhorstR. (2019). Should we be challenging employees? A critical review and meta-analysis of the challenge-hindrance model of stress. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(8), 949–961. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2412
45.
MihailD., & KloutsiniotisP. V. (2016). The effects of high-performance work systems on hospital employees’ work-related well-being: Evidence from Greece. European Management Journal, 34(4), 424–438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2016.01.005
46.
NajeemdeenI. S., AbidemiB. T., RahmatF. D., & BulusB. D. (2018). Perceived organizational culture and perceived organizational support on work engagement. Academic Journal of Economic Studies, 4(3), 199–208.
47.
NASSCOM. (2018). Catalyzing the ecosystem for A trillion dollar digital economy. https://www.nasscom.in/sites/default/files/NASSCOM-annual-guidance-fy-2018.pdf.
48.
Ollier-MalaterreA., JacobsJ. A., & RothbardN. P. (2019). Technology, Work, and Family: Digital Cultural Capital and Boundary Management. Annual Review of Sociology, 45(1), 425–447. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-073018-022433
49.
PaškvanM., KubicekB., PremR., & KorunkaC. (2016). Cognitive appraisal of work intensification. International Journal of Stress Management, 23(2), 124–146. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039689
50.
RichardsJ. (2020). Putting employees at the centre of sustainable HRM: A review, map and research agenda. Employee Relations, 44(3), 533–554. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-01-2019-0037
51.
RosaH. (2003). Social acceleration: Ethical and political consequences of a desynchronized high-speed society. Constellations, 10(1), 3–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.00309
52.
Sandoval-ReyesJ., Acosta-PradoJ. C., & Sanchís-PedregosaC. (2019). Relationship amongst technology use, work overload, and psychological detachment from work. International Journal of Environment Research and Public Health, 16(23), 4602.
53.
SchaufeliW. B., ShimazuA., HakanenJ., SalanovaM., & De WitteH. (2019). An ultra-short measure for work engagement: The UWES-3 validation across five countries. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 35(4), 577–591. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000430
54.
ShawJ. D., DineenB. R., FangR., & VellellaR. F. (2009). Employee–organization exchange relationships, HRM practices, and quit rates of good and poor performers. Academy of Management Journal, 52(5), 1016–1033. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.44635525
55.
TennakoonU. S. (2018). Crossing the work/life boundary with ICT: Moderating effect of ICT perception on the relationship between cross-domain ICT use and work/life conflict. South Asian Journal of Human Resources Management, 5(2), 194–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/2322093718788712
56.
Van der ZeeK. I., & SandermanR. (1993). Measuring general health using the RAND-36. A manual. [Het meten van de algemene gezondheidstoestand met de RAND-36. Een handleiding]. Noordelijk centrum.
57.
YasmeenA., KhanM. M., & AhmedW. S. (2022). How ambidextrous human resource system affect employee creativity? A study in the Pakistani context. South Asian Journal of Human Resources Management, 10(1), 36–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/23220937221082771
58.
ZacharatosA., BarlingJ., & IversonR. (2005). High-performance work sys¬tems and occupational safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 77–93. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.77
59.
ZacherH., & SchmittA. (2016). Work characteristics and occupational well-being: The role of age. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01411
60.
ZhongL., WayneS. J., & LidenR. C. (2016). Job engagement, perceived organizational support, high-performance human resource practices, and cultural value orientations: A cross-level investigation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(6), 823–844.
