高绩效工作系统会降低员工幸福感吗?来自元分析的证据

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1042.2023.02005

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

基于53篇文献的55项独立研究、研究样本总人数达51750的数据, 对高绩效工作系统与员工幸福感的关系进行了元分析, 并检验了文化和行业差异对二者关系的调节作用。结果表明: (1)高绩效工作系统对员工幸福感各维度均存在显著的正向作用, 即具有“一致效应”, 而非“矛盾效应”。(2)文化情境调节了高绩效工作系统与员工幸福感的关系, 在高权力距离和集体主义文化情境下, 员工感知的高绩效工作系统与主观幸福感、心理幸福感、健康幸福感的正相关更强。(3)行业对高绩效工作系统与员工幸福感的关系具有显著的调节作用。相比生产性服务业, 医疗服务业员工感知的高绩效工作系统与主观幸福感的正相关更强; 但医疗服务业员工感知的高绩效工作系统与健康幸福感的正相关低于生产性服务业。研究结论有助于全面理解高绩效工作系统与员工幸福感的关系, 启示学界重新认识和审视高绩效工作系统的价值。

关键词: 高绩效工作系统, 员工幸福感, 文化情境, 行业差异, 元分析

Abstract:

With the rise of employee-centered human resource practices in the last two decades, the relationship between high-performance work systems and employee well-being has become an important topic in human resource management research. However, to date, research findings on the relationship between high-performing work systems and employee well-being remain divergent. The reasons are, firstly, the existing studies on the relationship between high-performance work systems and employee well-being mainly focus on some dimensions and indicators, ignoring the multidimensional nature of employee well-being; secondly, the conclusions on the specific strength and direction of the correlation between high-performance work systems and specific dimensions of employee well-being are inconsistent and require systematic and in-depth analysis; thirdly, the existing studies ignore the context in which high-performance work systems affect employee well-being variables, i.e., the boundary conditions of the relationship between the two, especially the role of cultural context and industry differences.

Based on 55 independent studies from 53 papers with a total study sample of 51,750, this paper conducted a meta-analysis of the relationship between high performance work systems and employee well-being (subjective well-being, psychological well-being, relational well-being, and health well-being) and examined the moderating effects of cultural differences (power distance, individual-collectivism, and short-term-long-term orientation) and industry differences on the relationship. The results indicate that: (1) there is a significant positive effect of high performance work systems on all dimensions of employee well-being. (2) Cultural contexts moderated the relationship between high performance work systems and employee well-being, and the positive correlations between employees' perceived high performance work systems and subjective well-being, psychological well-being, and health well-being were stronger in high power distance and collectivist-oriented cultural contexts. (3) Industry has a significant moderating effect on the relationship between high-performing work systems and employee well-being. Compared with the production service industry, the positive correlation between perceived high performance work system and subjective well-being was stronger for employees in the health care service industry; however, the positive correlation between perceived high performance work system and health well-being was lower for employees in the health care service industry than in the production service industry.

The theoretical contributions of this study lies in: First, the relationship between high performance work system and employee well-being dimensions was clarified and found to have a “consistent effect” rather than a “contradictory effect”. Secondly, it was found that high performance work system has a positive effect on health well-being rather than a negative effect. Finally, the research results on the boundary conditions of the relationship between high-performing work systems and employee well-being were expanded, and the cross-cultural and industry research results on the relationship between the two were enriched. The findings contribute to a comprehensive understanding of the relationship between high-performing work systems and employee well-being, and enlighten the academic community to re-conceptualize and re-examine the value of high-performing work systems.

Key words: high-performance work systems, employee well-being, cultural context, industry differences, meta-analysis

中图分类号:

B849:C93

张兴贵, 胡献丹, 苏涛. (2023). 高绩效工作系统会降低员工幸福感吗?来自元分析的证据. 心理科学进展 , 31(11), 2005-2024.

ZHANG Xinggui, HU Xiandan, SU Tao. (2023). Do high performance work systems impair employee well-being? Evidence from a meta-analysis. Advances in Psychological Science, 31(11), 2005-2024.

图/表 6

参考文献 140

	(带*文献表示纳入元分析的文献)
[1]	曹曼, 席猛, 赵曙明. (2019). 高绩效工作系统对员工幸福感的影响——基于自我决定理论的跨层次模型. 南开管理评论, 22(2), 176-185.
[2]	陈笃升. (2014). 高绩效工作系统研究述评与展望: 整合内容和过程范式. 外国经济与管理, 36(5), 50-60.
[3]	程德俊, 赵勇. (2011). 高绩效工作系统对企业绩效的作用机制研究: 组织信任的中介作用. 软科学, 25(4), 96-99+105.
[4]	胡恩华, 胡京京, 单红梅, 张毛龙. (2020). 基于工会实践调节效应的高绩效工作系统归因对反生产行为的影响研究. 管理学报, 17(6), 833-842+948.
[5]	蒋建武, 赵珊. (2017). 基于高绩效工作系统影响的知识型移动工作者工作疏离感跨层研究. 管理学报, 14(3), 364-372.
[6]	李爱梅, 王笑天, 熊冠星, 李斌, 凌文辁. (2015). 工作影响员工幸福体验的“双路径模型”探讨——基于工作要求-资源模型的视角. 心理学报, 47(5), 624-636.
[7]	李敏, 邓蓉. (2010). 汽车合资企业人力资源管理和员工幸福感关系的实证研究. 软科学, 24(4), 104-108.
[8]	李霞, 盛晴, 卞靖. (2016). 以生产性服务业促进制造业升级. 宏观经济管理, 389(5), 34-36+54.
[9]	李兴. (2021). 国际格局演变与“两个一百年”奋斗目标. 人民论坛·学术前沿, 230(22), 106-113.
[10]	李燕萍, 徐嘉. (2014). 基于组织认同中介作用的集体主义对工作幸福感的多层次影响研究. 管理学报, 11(2), 198-205.
[11]	刘善仕, 刘辉健. (2005). 人力资源管理系统与企业竞争战略匹配模式研究. 外国经济与管理, 27(8), 41-46.
[12]	刘善仕, 周巧笑. (2004). 高绩效工作系统与绩效关系研究. 外国经济与管理, (7), 19-23.
[13]	施杨, 李南. (2009). 高参与工作系统与企业绩效研究综述. 科技管理研究, 29(12), 264-267.
[14]	苏涛, 陈春花, 李芷慧, 潘伟, 冯镜铭. (2019). 跨文化视角下员工工作对家庭冲突与工作态度关系的Meta研究. 管理学报, 16(11), 1650-1660.
[15]	孙健敏, 王宏蕾. (2016). 高绩效工作系统负面影响的潜在机制. 心理科学进展, 24(7), 1091-1106. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2016.01091
[16]	孙健敏, 邢璐, 尹奎, 杨烨娣. (2018). 高绩效工作系统何时带来幸福感?——核心自我评价与成就动机的作用. 首都经济贸易大学学报, 20(6), 44-53.
[17]	王佳燕, 蓝媛美, 李超平. (2022). 二元工作压力与员工创新关系的元分析. 心理科学进展, 30(4), 761-780. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2022.00761
[18]	王震, 孙健敏, 赵一君. (2012). 中国组织情境下的领导有效性: 对变革型领导、领导-部属交换和破坏型领导的元分析. 心理科学进展, 20(2), 174-190.
[19]	卫旭华. (2021). 组织与管理研究中的元分析方法. 北京: 科学出版社.
[20]	卫旭华, 王傲晨, 江楠. (2018). 团队断层前因及其对团队过程与结果影响的元分析. 南开管理评论, 21(5), 139-149+187.
[21]	魏巍, 彭纪生, 华斌. (2020). 资源保存视角下高绩效人力资源系统对员工突破式创造力的双刃剑效应. 管理评论, 32(8), 215-227.
[22]	夏杰长, 肖宇. (2019). 生产性服务业: 发展态势、存在的问题及高质量发展政策思路. 北京工商大学学报(社会科学版), 34(4), 21-34.
[23]	谢俊, 储小平, 汪林. (2012). 效忠主管与员工工作绩效的关系: 反馈寻求行为和权力距离的影响. 南开管理评论, 15(2), 31-38+58.
[24]	* 颜爱民, 胡仁泽, 徐婷. (2016). 新生代员工感知的高绩效工作系统与工作幸福感关系研究. 管理学报, 13(4), 542-550.
[25]	杨伟文, 李超平. (2021). 资质过剩感对个体绩效的作用效果及机制: 基于情绪-认知加工系统与文化情境的元分析. 心理学报, 53(5), 527-554. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2021.00527
[26]	张广胜, 杨春荻. (2022). 高绩效工作系统能为何类员工带来幸福感?——基于人本主义心理学和环境心理学视角. 工程管理科技前沿, 41(5), 65-72.
[27]	张建平, 秦传燕, 刘善仕. (2020). 寻求反馈能改善绩效吗?——反馈寻求行为与个体绩效关系的元分析. 心理科学进展, 28(4), 549-565. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2020.00549
[28]	张军伟, 肖小虹, 张亚军, 周芳芳. (2019). 高绩效工作系统对员工工作绩效与情绪衰竭的差异化影响机制. 管理评论, 31(10), 178-190.
[29]	张文勤, 孙坤康, 杨茂沁, 孙锐. (2020). 高绩效人力资源管理对员工体验的双刃剑效应: 基于人力资源管理归因的过程模型. 中国人力资源开发, 37(9), 115-129.
[30]	张兴贵, 陈玮瑜. (2017). 超越绩效: 人力资源管理视野中的员工幸福感研究. 西北师大学报(社会科学版), 54(5), 127-136.
[31]	张正堂, 李瑞. (2015). 企业高绩效工作系统的内容结构与测量. 管理世界, 260(5), 100-116.
[32]	章凯, 林丛丛. (2018). 员工幸福感的心理目标实现进程说. 管理学报, 15(6), 818-826.
[33]	赵新元, 王甲乐, Melisa, Santjoko, 林彩虹. (2020). 医院家长式领导对医护人员离职意愿影响机制的跨层次研究. 管理评论, 32(9), 193-204.
[34]	郑伯埙. (1999). 企业组织中上下属的信任关系. 社会学研究, (2), 24-39.
[35]	* 郑晓明, 余宇, 刘鑫. (2020). 高绩效工作系统对情绪劳动的影响: 一个多层次模型. 科学学与科学技术管理, 41(11), 132-145.
[36]	郑晓旭, 何煜倩, 董浩然, 周向阳, 孟慧. (2023). 领导政治技能会抑制员工的沉默行为吗?——领导信任和权力距离的作用. 心理科学, 46(2), 378-385.
[37]	邹琼, 佐斌. (2004). 人格、文化与主观幸福感的关系及整合模型述评. 心理科学进展, 12(6), 900-907.
[38]	* 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. doi: 10.1111/hrmj.2012.22.issue-4 URL
[39]	Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P. & Kalleberg, A. (2000). Manufacturing advantage: Why high performance work systems pay off. New York: Cornell University Press.
[40]	Arthur, J. B., & Boyles, T. (2007). Validating the human resource system structure: A levels-based strategic HRM approach. Human Resource Management Review, 17(1), 77-92. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2007.02.001 URL
[41]	* Babic, A., Stinglhamber, F., & Hansez, I. (2019). High- performance work systems and well-being: Mediating role of work-to-family interface. Psychologica Belgica, 59(1), 301-320. doi: 10.5334/pb.473
[42]	Bakker, A. B, & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands- resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309-328. doi: 10.1108/02683940710733115 URL
[43]	Bakker, A. B., & Oerlemans, W. (2011). Subjective well- being in organizations. In K. S.Cameron & G. M.Spreitzer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship (pp. 178-189). New York: Oxford University Press.
[44]	Bell, S. T., Villado, A. J., Lukasik, M. A., Belau, L., & Briggs, A. L. (2011). Getting specific about demographic diversity variable and team performance relationships: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 37(3), 709-743. doi: 10.1177/0149206310365001 URL
[45]	* Biétry, F., & Creusier, J. (2017). How to develop the full well-being profile among us employees? A person- centered approach. Revue de Gestion Des Ressources Humaines, 106(4), 3.
[46]	Bohnlein, P., & Baum, M. (2020). Does job crafting always lead to employee well-being and performance? Meta- analytical evidence on the moderating role of societal culture. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 33(4), 647-685.. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2020.1737177 URL
[47]	Boon, C., & Kalshoven, K. (2014). How high-commitment HRM relates to engagement and commitment: The moderating role of task proficiency. Human Resource Management, 53(3), 403-420. doi: 10.1002/hrm.2014.53.issue-3 URL
[48]	Boselie, P., Dietz, G., & Boon, C. (2005). Commonalities and contradictions in HRM and performance research. Human Resource Management Journal, 15(3), 67-94. doi: 10.1111/hrmj.2005.15.issue-3 URL
[49]	Certo, S. T., Lester, R. H., Dalton, C. M., & Dalton, D. R. (2006). Top management teams, strategy and financial performance: A meta-analytic examination. Journal of Management Studies, 43(4), 813-839. doi: 10.1111/joms.2006.43.issue-4 URL
[50]	Chaudhuri, K. (2009). A discussion on HPWS perception and employee behavior. Global Business & Management Research, 1, 27-42.
[51]	Chen, Z. X., & Aryee, S. (2007). Delegation and employee work outcomes: An examination of the cultural context of mediating processes in China. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 226-238. doi: 10.5465/amj.2007.24162389 URL
[52]	Chuang, C.-H., & Liao, H. (2010). Strategic human resource management in service context: Taking care of business by taking care of employees and customers. Personnel Psychology, 63(1), 153-196. doi: 10.1111/peps.2010.63.issue-1 URL
[53]	Clugston, M., Howell, J. P., & Dorfman, P. W. (2000). Does cultural socialization predict multiple bases and foci of commitment. Journal of Management, 26(1), 5-30. doi: 10.1177/014920630002600106 URL
[54]	Combs, J., Liu, Y., Hall, A., & Ketchen, D. (2006). How much do high-performance work practices matter? A meta- analysis of their effects on organizational performance. Personnel Psychology, 59(3), 501-528. doi: 10.1111/peps.2006.59.issue-3 URL
[55]	Dagenais Desmarais, V., & Savoie, A. (2012). What is psychological well-being, really? A grassroots approach from the organizational sciences. Journal of Happiness Studies, 13(4), 659-684. doi: 10.1007/s10902-011-9285-3 URL
[56]	Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4(1), 19-43. doi: 10.1146/orgpsych.2017.4.issue-1 URL
[57]	Dickersin, K. (1997). How important is publication bias? A synthesis of available data. AIDS Education and Prevention, 9(1), 15-21.
[58]	Drover, W., Wood, S., & Corbett, A. (2018). Towards a cognitive view of signalling theory: Individual attention and signal set interpretation. Journal of Management Studies, 55, 209-231. doi: 10.1111/joms.2018.55.issue-2 URL
[59]	Ehrnrooth, M., & Björkman, I. (2012). An integrative HRM process theorization: Beyond signalling effects and mutual gains. Journal of Management Studies, 49(6), 1109-1135. doi: 10.1111/joms.2012.49.issue-6 URL
[60]	Erdogan, B., & Liden, R. C. (2006). Collectivism as a moderator of responses to organizational justice: Implications for leader member exchange and ingratiation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(1), 1-17. doi: 10.1002/job.v27:1 URL
[61]	Erickson, K. (2004). To invest or detach? Coping strategies and workplace culture in service work. Symbolic Interaction, 27(4), 549-572. doi: 10.1525/si.2004.27.issue-4 URL
[62]	Evans, W. R., & Davis, W. D. (2005). High-performance work systems and organizational performance: The mediating role of internal social structure. Journal of Management, 31(5), 758-775. doi: 10.1177/0149206305279370 URL
[63]	* Fan, D., Cui, L., Zhang, M. M., Zhu, C. J., Härtel, C. E. J., & Nyland, C. (2014). Influence of high performance work systems on employee subjective well-being and job burnout: Empirical evidence from the Chinese healthcare sector. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(7), 931-950. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2014.876740 URL
[64]	Francesco, A. M., & Chen, Z. X. (2004). Collectivism in action: Its moderating effects on the relationship between organizational commitment and employee performance in China. Group & Organization Management, 29(4), 425-441.
[65]	Franco-Santos, M., & Doherty, N. (2017). Performance management and well-being: A close look at the changing nature of the UK higher education workplace. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28(16), 2319-2350. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2017.1334148 URL
[66]	Franke, N., & Schreier, M. (2010). Why customers value self-designed products: The importance of process effort and enjoyment. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(7), 1020-1031. doi: 10.1111/jpim.2010.27.issue-7 URL
[67]	Godard, J. (2001). Beyond the high-performance paradigm? An analysis of variation in Canadian managerial perceptions of reform programme effectiveness. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 39, 25-52. doi: 10.1111/bjir.2001.39.issue-1 URL
[68]	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. doi: 10.5465/amp.2007.26421238 URL
[69]	Gu, M., Li Tan, J.H., Amin, M., Mostafiz, M.I., & Yeoh, K. K. (2022). Revisiting the moderating role of culture between job characteristics and job satisfaction: A multilevel analysis of 33 countries. Employee Relations, 44(1), 70-93. doi: 10.1108/ER-03-2020-0099 URL
[70]	* Guerci, M., Hauff, S., & Gilardi, S. (2022). High performance work practices and their associations with health, happiness and relational well-being: Are there any tradeoffs. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 33(2), 329-359. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2019.1695647 URL
[71]	Guest, D. E. (2017). Human resource management and employee well-being: Towards a new analytic framework. Human Resource Management Journal, 27(1), 22-38. doi: 10.1111/hrmj.v27.1 URL
[72]	Hauff, S., & Richter, N. (2015). Power distance and its moderating role in the relationship between situational job characteristics and job satisfaction. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 22(1), 68-89. doi: 10.1108/CCM-11-2013-0164 URL
[73]	Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando: Academic Press.
[74]	Higgins, J., Thompson, S., Deeks, J., & Altman, D. (2002). Statistical heterogeneity in systematic reviews of clinical trials: A critical appraisal of guidelines and practice. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 7(1), 51-61.
[75]	* Ho, H., & Kuvaas, B. (2020). Human resource management systems, employee well-being, and firm performance from the mutual gains and critical perspectives: The well-being paradox. Human Resource Management, 59(3), 235-253. doi: 10.1002/hrm.v59.3 URL
[76]	Hobfoll, S. E., Halbesleben, J., Neveu, J. P., & Westman, M. (2018). Conservation of resources in the organizational context: The reality of resources and their consequences. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5(1), 103-128. doi: 10.1146/orgpsych.2018.5.issue-1 URL
[77]	Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
[78]	Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organisations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill.
[79]	Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York: McGraw-Hill.
[80]	Hu, X., & Jiang, Z. (2018). Employee-oriented HRM and voice behavior: A moderated mediation model of moral identity and trust in management. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 29(5), 746-771. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2016.1255986 URL
[81]	Huang, L.-C., Ahlstrom, D., Lee, A. Y.-P., Chen, S.-Y. & Hsieh, M.-J. (2016). High performance work systems, employee well-being, and job involvement: An empirical study. Personnel Review, 45(2), 296-314. doi: 10.1108/PR-09-2014-0201 URL
[82]	Huang, Y., Fan, D., Su, Y., & Wu, F. (2018). High- performance work systems, dual stressors and “new generation” employee in China. Asia Pacific Business Review, 24(4), 490-509. doi: 10.1080/13602381.2018.1451127 URL
[83]	Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human-resource management-practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38(3), 635-672. doi: 10.2307/256741 URL
[84]	* Jensen, J. M., Patel, P. C., & Messersmith, J. G. (2013). High performance work systems and job control: Consequences for anxiety, role overload, and turnover intentions. Journal of Management, 39(6), 1699-1724. doi: 10.1177/0149206311419663 URL
[85]	Jiang, K., Hu, J., Liu, S., & Lepak, D. P. (2015). Understanding employees’ perceptions of human resource practices: Effects of demographic dissimilarity to managers and coworkers. Human Resource Management, 56(1), 69-91. doi: 10.1002/hrm.21771 URL
[86]	Joshi, A., & Roh, H. (2009). The role of context in work team diversity research: A meta-analytic review. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 599-627. doi: 10.5465/amj.2009.41331491 URL
[87]	Kaluza, A. J., Boer, D., Buengeler, C., & van Dick, R. (2020). Leadership behaviour and leader self-reported well-being: A review, integration and meta-analytic examination. Work & Stress, 34(1), 34-56. doi: 10.1080/02678373.2019.1617369 URL
[88]	Kastanakis, M. N., & Voyer, B. G. (2014). The effect of culture on perception and cognition: A conceptual framework. Journal of Business Research, 67(4), 425-433. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.03.028 URL
[89]	Kepes, S., Banks, G. C., McDaniel, M., & Whetzel, D. L. (2012). Publication bias in the organizational sciences. Organizational Research Methods, 15(4), 624-662.
[90]	* Khoreva, V., & Wechtler, H. (2018). HRM practices and employee performance: The mediating role of well-being. Employee Relations, 40(2), 227-243. doi: 10.1108/ER-08-2017-0191 URL
[91]	Kilroy, S., Flood, P. C., Bosak, J., & Chênevert, D. (2016). Perceptions of high-involvement work practices, person- organization fit, and burnout: A time-lagged study of health care employees. Human Resource Management, 56(5), 821-835. doi: 10.1002/hrm.2017.56.issue-5 URL
[92]	* Kooij, D. T. A. M., Guest, D. E., Clinton, M., Knight, T., Jansen, P. G. W., & Dikkers, J. S. E. (2013). How the impact of HR practices on employee well-being and performance changes with age. Human Resource Management Journal, 23(1), 18-35. doi: 10.1111/hrmj.2013.23.issue-1 URL
[93]	Kuvaas, B. (2008). An exploration of how the employee- organization relationship affects the linkage between perception of developmental human resource practices and employee outcomes. Journal of Management Studies, 45(1), 1-25. doi: 10.1111/joms.2008.45.issue-1 URL
[94]	Lange, T. (2013). Scarred from the past or afraid of the future? Unemployment and job satisfaction across European labour markets. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(6), 1096-1112.
[95]	Lawler, E. E., MoHRMman, S., & Ledford, G. E. (1992). The fortune 1000 and total quality. Journal for Quality and Participation, 15(5), 6-10.
[96]	Liao, S.-H., Hu, D.-C., & Chung, H.-Y. (2009). The relationship between leader-member relations, job satisfaction and organizational commitment in international tourist hotels in Taiwan. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(8), 1810-1826. doi: 10.1080/09585190903087222 URL
[97]	Loon, M., Otaye-Ebede, L., & Stewart, J. (2019). The paradox of employee psychological well-being practices: An integrative literature review and new directions for research. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(1), 156-187. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2018.1479877 URL
[98]	Luu, T. T. (2019). Discretionary HR practices and employee well-being. Personnel Review, 49(1), 43-66. doi: 10.1108/PR-05-2018-0162 URL
[99]	Macky, K., Boxall, P. (2008). High-involvement work processes, work intensification and employee well-being: A study of New Zealand worker experiences. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 46(1), 38-55.
[100]	Madhavan, S. (2011). Cross-cultural management: Concepts and cases. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
[101]	* Mihail, D. M., & Kloutsiniotis, P. 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. doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2016.01.005 URL
[102]	Naseer, S., Donia, M. B. L., Syed, F., & Bashir, F. (2019). Too much of a good thing: The interactive effects of cultural values and core job characteristics on hindrance stressors and employee performance outcomes. Human Resource Management, 59(3), 271-289. doi: 10.1002/hrm.v59.3 URL
[103]	Newman, K. L., & Nollen, S. D. (1996). Culture and congruence: The fit between management practices and national culture. Journal International Business Studies, 27, 753-779. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490152 URL
[104]	* Ogbonnaya, C., & Messersmith, J. (2018). Employee performance, well-being, and differential effects of human resource management subdimensions: Mutual gains or conflicting outcomes. Human Resource Management Journal, 29(3), 509-526. doi: 10.1111/hrmj.v29.3 URL
[105]	Ollo-Lopez, A., Bayo-Moriones, A., & Larraza-Kintana, M. (2010). The relationship between new work practices and employee effort. Journal of Industrial Relations, 52(2), 219-235. doi: 10.1177/0022185609359446 URL
[106]	Oruh, E. S., & Dibia, C. (2020). Employee stress and the implication of high-power distance culture: Empirical evidence from Nigeria’s employment terrain. Employee Relations: The International Journal, 42(6), 1381-1400.
[107]	Orwin, R. G. (1983). A fail-safe N for effect size in meta- analysis. Journal of Educational Statistics, 8(2), 157-159.
[108]	Pagán-Castaño, E., Maseda-Moreno, A., & Santos-Rojo, C.(2020). Wellbeing in work environments. Journal of Business Research, 115, 469-474. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.12.007 URL
[109]	Peccei, R. E. (2004, January 15). Human resource management and the search for the happy workplace. ERIM Inaugural Address Series Research in Management. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1108..
[110]	Peccei, R. E., Van de Voorde, F. C., & Van Veldhoven, M. J. P. M. (2013). HRM, well-being and performance:A theoretical and empirical review. In J.Paauwe, D. E.Guest, & P. M.Wright (Eds.), HRM & Performance: Achievements & Challenges (pp. 15-46). Wiley.
[111]	Peccei, R., & Van De Voorde, K. (2019). Human resource management-well-being-performance research revisited: Past, present, and future. Human Resource Management Journal, 29(4), 539-563. doi: 10.1111/hrmj.v29.4 URL
[112]	* Qi, W., Enhua, H., Jiandong, S., & Hongmei, S. (2021). Double-edged sword effect of high-performance work system on employee well-being—Moderating effect of union practice. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 619345-619345. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.619345 URL
[113]	Rabl, T., Jayasinghe, M., Gerhart, B., & Kühlmann, T. M. (2014). A meta-analysis of country differences in the high-performance work system-business performance relationship: The roles of national culture and managerial discretion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(6), 1011-1041. doi: 10.1037/a0037712 pmid: 25222523
[114]	Rauch, A., & Hatak, I. (2016). A meta-analysis of different HR-enhancing practices and performance of small and medium sized firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(5), 485-504. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2016.05.005 URL
[115]	Riordan, C. M., Vandenberg, R. J., & Richardson, H. A. (2005). Employee involvement climate and organizational effectiveness. Human Resource Management, 44(4), 471-488. doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1099-050X URL
[116]	Rode, J. C., Huang, X., & Flynn, B. (2016). A cross-cultural examination of the relationships among human resource management practices and organisational commitment: An institutional collectivism perspective. Human Resource Management Journal, 26(4), 471-489.
[117]	Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), 638-641. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638 URL
[118]	Ryff, C. D, & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality Social Psychology, 69(4), 719-727. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.69.4.719 URL
[119]	* Sadatsafavi, H., Walewski, J., & Shepley, M. M. (2015). The influence of facility design and human resource management on health care professionals. Health Care Management Review, 40(2), 126-138. doi: 10.1097/HMR.0000000000000012 pmid: 24566248
[120]	Sakuraya, A., Imamura, K., Watanabe, K., Asai, Y., Ando, E., Eguchi, H., … Kawakami, N. (2020). What kind of intervention is effective for improving subjective well- being among workers? A systematic review and meta- analysis of randomized controlled trials. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.528656.
[121]	* Salas-Vallina, A., Pasamar, S., & Donate, M.J. (2021). Well-being in times of ill-being: How AMO HRM practices improve organizational citizenship behaviour through work-related well-being and service leadership. Employee Relations, 43(4), 911-935. doi: 10.1108/ER-05-2020-0236 URL
[122]	Sanders, K., Yang, H., & Li, X. (2019). Quality enhancement or cost reduction? The influence of high-performance work systems and power distance orientation on employee human resource attributions. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 32(21), 4463-4490. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2019.1675740 URL
[123]	Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). The balance of give and take: Toward a social exchange model of burnout. The International Review of Social Psychology, 19(1), 87-131.
[124]	Shore, L.M., Tetrick, L.E., Lynch, P., & Barksdale, K. (2006). Social and economic exchanges: Construct development and validation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(4), 837-867.
[125]	Slemp, G. R., & Vella-Brodrick, D. A. (2013). Optimising employee mental health: The relationship between intrinsic need satisfaction, job crafting, and employee well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(4), 957-977.
[126]	Sun, L.-Y., Aryee, S., & Law, K. S. (2007). High- performance human resource practices, citizenship behavior, and organizational performance: A relational perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 558-577.
[127]	* Takeuchi, R., Chen, G., & Lepak, D. P. (2009). Through the looking glass of a social system: Cross-level effects of high-performance work systems on employees’ attitudes. Personnel Psychology, 62(1), 1-29. doi: 10.1111/peps.2009.62.issue-1 URL
[128]	Thoits, P. A., & Hewitt, L. N. (2001). Volunteer work and well-being. Journal of Health & Social Behavior, 42(2), 115-131.
[129]	Truss, C. (2001). Complexities and controversies in linking HRM with organizational outcomes. Journal of Management Studies, 38(8), 1121-1149. doi: 10.1111/joms.2001.38.issue-8 URL
[130]	Tzabbar, D., Tzafrir, S., & Baruch, Y. (2017). A bridge over troubled water: Replication, integration and extension of the relationship between HRM practices and organizational performance using moderating meta-analysis. Human Resource Management Review, 27(1), 134-148. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.08.002 URL
[131]	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. doi: 10.1111/ijmr.2012.14.issue-4 URL
[132]	Vo, A., & Bartram, T. (2012). The adoption, character and impact of strategic human resource management: A case study of two large metropolitan Vietnamese public hospitals. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(18), 3758-3775. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2012.665069 URL
[133]	Wagner, J. A. (1995). Studies of individualism-collectivism: Effects on cooperation in groups. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 152-172.
[134]	Wright, P. M., & Boswell, W. R. (2002). Desegregating HRM: A review and synthesis of micro and macro human resource management research. Journal of Management, 28(3), 247-276.
[135]	Wright, P. M., & McMahan, G. C. (1992). Theoretical perspectives for strategic human resource management. Journal of Management, 18(2), 295-320.
[136]	* Xia, J., Zhang, M. M., Zhu, J. C., Fan, D., & Samaratunge, R. (2019). HRM reforms and job-related well-being of academics. Personnel Review, 49(2), 597-619. doi: 10.1108/PR-05-2018-0188 URL
[137]	* Young, S., Bartram, T., Stanton, P., & Leggat, S. G. (2010). High performance work systems and employee well-being. Journal of Health Organization and Management, 24(2), 182-199. doi: 10.1108/14777261011047345 URL
[138]	* Zhang, B., & Morris, J. L. (2013). High-performance work systems and organizational performance: Testing the mediation role of employee outcomes using evidence from PR China. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(1), 68-90. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2013.781524 URL
[139]	* Zhang, M., Zhu, C. J., Dowling, P. J., & Bartram, T. (2013). Exploring the effects of high-performance work systems (HPWS) on the work-related well-being of Chinese hospital employees. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(16), 3196-3212. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2013.775026 URL
[140]	Zhong, L., Wayne, S. J., & Liden, R. C. (2015). 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. doi: 10.1002/job.v37.6 URL

HPWPs与员工幸福感	Fail-safe N	5k+10	k	Q	df(Q)	I²	Tau²	标准差	方差	Tau
主观幸福感	9614	160	30	2668.10	29	98.913	0.09	0.05	0.00	0.30
工作满意度	3725	150	28	2012.22	27	98.658	0.08	0.05	0.00	0.28
积极情感	1840	35	5	126.96	4	96.849	0.05	0.04	0.00	0.23
消极情感	546	40	6	486.64	5	98.973	0.07	0.06	0.00	0.26
心理幸福感	6810	80	14	168.01	13	92.262	0.02	0.01	0.00	0.15
工作投入/敬业度	6810	80	14	168.01	13	92.262	0.02	0.01	0.00	0.15
关系幸福感	5989	100	18	3417.56	17	99.503	0.27	0.19	0.04	0.52
信任	2699	45	7	349.75	6	98.284	0.23	0.15	0.02	0.48
组织支持感	1902	50	8	897.50	7	99.220	0.43	0.26	0.07	0.66
人际关系	1010	30	4	605.44	3	99.504	0.10	0.10	0.01	0.32
健康幸福感	3342	105	19	713.36	18	97.477	0.06	0.02	0.00	0.23
工作压力	12	35	5	194.84	4	97.947	0.06	0.05	0.00	0.24
工作倦怠	666	30	4	27.11	3	88.934	0.01	0.01	0.00	0.09
情绪耗竭	82	40	6	98.29	5	94.913	0.07	0.05	0.00	0.26

HPWPs与员工幸福感	Fail-safe N	5k+10	k	Q	df(Q)	I²	Tau²	标准差	方差	Tau
主观幸福感	9614	160	30	2668.10	29	98.913	0.09	0.05	0.00	0.30
工作满意度	3725	150	28	2012.22	27	98.658	0.08	0.05	0.00	0.28
积极情感	1840	35	5	126.96	4	96.849	0.05	0.04	0.00	0.23
消极情感	546	40	6	486.64	5	98.973	0.07	0.06	0.00	0.26
心理幸福感	6810	80	14	168.01	13	92.262	0.02	0.01	0.00	0.15
工作投入/敬业度	6810	80	14	168.01	13	92.262	0.02	0.01	0.00	0.15
关系幸福感	5989	100	18	3417.56	17	99.503	0.27	0.19	0.04	0.52
信任	2699	45	7	349.75	6	98.284	0.23	0.15	0.02	0.48
组织支持感	1902	50	8	897.50	7	99.220	0.43	0.26	0.07	0.66
人际关系	1010	30	4	605.44	3	99.504	0.10	0.10	0.01	0.32
健康幸福感	3342	105	19	713.36	18	97.477	0.06	0.02	0.00	0.23
工作压力	12	35	5	194.84	4	97.947	0.06	0.05	0.00	0.24
工作倦怠	666	30	4	27.11	3	88.934	0.01	0.01	0.00	0.09
情绪耗竭	82	40	6	98.29	5	94.913	0.07	0.05	0.00	0.26

HPWPs与员工幸福感	模型	k	N	r	ρ	95% CI		Z	P
HPWPs与员工幸福感	模型	k	N	r	ρ	95%LL	95%UL	Z	P
主观幸福感	随机	30	36472	0.42	0.50	0.42	0.58	9.91	0.000
工作满意度	随机	28	33392	0.47	0.55	0.47	0.62	11.47	0.000
积极情感	随机	5	3308	0.51	0.61	0.47	0.73	6.80	0.000
消极情感	随机	6	18380	-0.22	-0.25	-0.44	-0.04	-2.32	0.020
心理幸福感	随机	14	7892	0.43	0.49	0.43	0.55	12.77	0.000
工作投入/敬业度	随机	14	7892	0.43	0.49	0.43	0.55	12.77	0.000
关系幸福感	随机	18	22089	0.48	0.58	0.40	0.72	5.36	0.000
信任	随机	7	1924	0.58	0.70	0.47	0.84	4.74	0.000
组织支持感	随机	8	2488	0.45	0.53	0.13	0.78	2.50	0.012
人际关系	随机	4	17728	0.30	0.38	0.09	0.62	2.49	0.013
健康幸福感	随机	19	14019	0.20	0.23	0.12	0.33	4.22	0.000
工作压力	随机	5	4532	-0.07	-0.07	-0.28	0.15	-0.61	0.544
工作倦怠	随机	4	4964	-0.32	-0.37	-0.45	-0.28	-7.80	0.000
情绪耗竭	随机	6	1750	-0.14	-0.16	-0.36	0.05	-1.53	0.127

HPWPs与员工幸福感	模型	k	N	r	ρ	95% CI		Z	P
HPWPs与员工幸福感	模型	k	N	r	ρ	95%LL	95%UL	Z	P
主观幸福感	随机	30	36472	0.42	0.50	0.42	0.58	9.91	0.000
工作满意度	随机	28	33392	0.47	0.55	0.47	0.62	11.47	0.000
积极情感	随机	5	3308	0.51	0.61	0.47	0.73	6.80	0.000
消极情感	随机	6	18380	-0.22	-0.25	-0.44	-0.04	-2.32	0.020
心理幸福感	随机	14	7892	0.43	0.49	0.43	0.55	12.77	0.000
工作投入/敬业度	随机	14	7892	0.43	0.49	0.43	0.55	12.77	0.000
关系幸福感	随机	18	22089	0.48	0.58	0.40	0.72	5.36	0.000
信任	随机	7	1924	0.58	0.70	0.47	0.84	4.74	0.000
组织支持感	随机	8	2488	0.45	0.53	0.13	0.78	2.50	0.012
人际关系	随机	4	17728	0.30	0.38	0.09	0.62	2.49	0.013
健康幸福感	随机	19	14019	0.20	0.23	0.12	0.33	4.22	0.000
工作压力	随机	5	4532	-0.07	-0.07	-0.28	0.15	-0.61	0.544
工作倦怠	随机	4	4964	-0.32	-0.37	-0.45	-0.28	-7.80	0.000
情绪耗竭	随机	6	1750	-0.14	-0.16	-0.36	0.05	-1.53	0.127

调节因素	HPWPs与幸福感	类别	k	N	r	ρ	95% CI		Z	P	Q_B	df(Q)	p
调节因素	HPWPs与幸福感	类别	k	N	r	ρ	95%LL	95%UL	Z	P	Q_B	df(Q)	p
文化差异	主观幸福感	低权力距离	10	25374	0.28	0.34	0.20	0.46	4.81	0.000	10.02	1	0.002
		高权力距离	19	10427	0.48	0.56	0.49	0.63	12.20	0.000	10.02	1	0.002
		集体主义	18	8780	0.47	0.55	0.47	0.63	10.28	0.000	5.28	1	0.022
		个人主义	11	27021	0.32	0.38	0.24	0.50	5.05	0.000	5.28	1	0.022
		短期导向	9	4135	0.40	0.46	0.30	0.60	5.13	0.000	0.24	1	0.622
		长期导向	20	31666	0.43	0.51	0.41	0.59	8.60	0.000	0.24	1	0.622
	心理幸福感	低权力距离	6	5119	0.37	0.42	0.32	0.51	7.76	0.000	4.67	1	0.031
		高权力距离	8	2773	0.47	0.55	0.47	0.61	11.81	0.000	4.67	1	0.031
		集体主义	6	2310	0.46	0.54	0.45	0.62	9.78	0.000	1.98	1	0.160
		个人主义	8	5582	0.40	0.46	0.37	0.53	9.32	0.000	1.98	1	0.160
		短期导向	4	1196	0.40	0.44	0.31	0.56	5.78	0.000	0.80	1	0.371
		长期导向	10	6696	0.44	0.51	0.43	0.58	11.02	0.000	0.80	1	0.371
	关系幸福感	低权力距离	9	18411	0.48	0.57	0.30	0.76	3.74	0.000	0.02	1	0.876
		高权力距离	9	3678	0.48	0.60	0.33	0.77	3.97	0.000	0.02	1	0.876
		集体主义	8	3464	0.52	0.64	0.38	0.80	4.20	0.000	0.43	1	0.511
		个人主义	10	18625	0.45	0.53	0.27	0.72	3.71	0.000	0.43	1	0.511
		短期导向	6	2213	0.45	0.54	0.19	0.77	2.88	0.004	0.10	1	0.747
		长期导向	12	19876	0.49	0.60	0.38	0.76	4.62	0.000	0.10	1	0.747
	健康幸福感	低权力距离	7	5574	0.15	0.17	0.02	0.32	2.18	0.030	0.91	1	0.341
		高权力距离	12	8445	0.22	0.26	0.15	0.37	4.39	0.000	0.91	1	0.341
		集体主义	11	8231	0.26	0.30	0.19	0.41	5.23	0.000	4.37	1	0.037
		个人主义	8	5788	0.11	0.12	−0.02	0.25	1.72	0.085	4.37	1	0.037
		短期导向	6	4404	0.11	0.12	−0.10	0.32	1.05	0.292	1.97	1	0.161
		长期导向	13	9615	0.24	0.28	0.18	0.37	5.29	0.000	1.97	1	0.161