Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Human Resource Management Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/hrmr

Positive psychology and human resource management: Building

an HR architecture to support human flourishing
Jamie A. Gruman a, *, Marie-Hélène Budworth b
a
Gordon S. Lang School of Business and Economics, University of Guelph, Canada
b
School of Human Resources Management, York University, Canada

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The purpose of this special issue is to review the current state of positive psychology in human
Positive HRM resource management (HRM) and encourage future research. This lead article provides a
Positive psychology framework to guide and stimulate scholarship that builds on the existing literature by identifying
gaps in our knowledge as well as opportunities for advancement of the field. The model developed
herein offers an expanded view of positive human resource management through the exploration
of the links between the individual, the group, and the organization. The articles that follow offer
unique insights into applications of positive psychology within the study and practice of HRM,
providing specific examples of how scholarship in this area may continue to develop.

In 1998, Martin Seligman, then President of the American Psychological Association, popularized the notion of positive psy­
chology, the aim of which was to mobilize a change in psychology from a focus on ameliorating disagreeable states and conditions to
additionally emphasize fostering positive qualities and “knowledge of what makes life worth living” (Seligman, 1999, p. 560; Seligman
& Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). This emphasis included studying how institutions such as workplaces cultivate positive outcomes.
Although scholarly interest in the value of positive workplaces preceded the popularization of positive psychology (e.g., Peccei, Van De
Voorde, & Veldhoven, 2013; Schneider & Bowen, 1993), the new emphasis in psychology paralleled a burgeoning interest in positivity
in organizations in general (e.g., Cameron, Dutton, & Quinn, 2003) and Human Resource Management (HRM) in particular (e.g., Van
De Voorde, Paauwe, & Van Veldhoven, 2012). The purpose of this special issue is to present a brief overview of the relationship
between positive psychology and HRM in order to provide a sense of their current confluence and to stimulate future research. Through
the articles published in this collection and the model presented herein, we offer scholars a framework as well as examples of where
and how positive scholarship can be used to inform and advance HRM.
Human Resource (HR) practices and systems that focus on promoting positive work environments conducive to human flourishing
and positive outcomes constitute Positive Human Resource Management (PHRM). There are two main approaches to the study of PHRM.
The first focuses on individual HR practices. For example, academic work on PHRM has explored issues such as authentic self-
expression during the socialization process (Cable, Gino, & Staats, 2013), focusing on strengths as part of performance manage­
ment (Budworth, Latham, & Manroop, 2015), the qualities of effective communication processes (Browning, Morris, & Lee, 2012), the
relationship between employee voice and employee engagement (Rees, Alfes, & Gatenby, 2013), performance pay and job satisfaction
(Heywood & Wei, 2006), and training to support employee well-being and performance (Lomas et al., 2017). This approach involves
the study of individual positive HR practices and their effect on positive employee outcomes such as job satisfaction, mindfulness, and

* Corresponding author at: University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada.

E-mail address: jgruman@uoguelph.ca (J.A. Gruman).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2022.100911
Received 3 March 2022; Accepted 10 March 2022
1053-4822/© 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Jamie A. Gruman, Marie-Hélène Budworth, Human Resource Management Review,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2022.100911
J.A. Gruman and M.-H. Budworth Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxx

employee engagement.
The second approach examines the relationships among HR systems, employee well-being and individual and/or organizational
performance (the HRM-WB-IOP approach; Peccei et al., 2013; Peccei & Van De Voorde, 2019; Van De Voorde et al., 2012). Positive
outcomes such as employee well-being have not always been a priority of HR researchers. Attempts to understand the black box
(Becker & Huselid, 2006) linking HR practices to performance have traditionally focused on human capital theory, the resource-based
view of the firm, or social exchange theory (Wright & Ulrich, 2017). What all these theoretical frameworks have in common is that they
focus on generating performance and largely disregard employee well-being (Boxall, Guthrie, & Paauwe, 2016; Guest, 2017). How­
ever, Boxall et al. (2016) note that in recent years HRM research has shifted from this restricted perspective and placed greater
emphasis on employees and their well-being. The relationship between HR systems and employee well-being is now an active area of
research, and well-being is considered a viable mechanism connecting HR systems to performance.
A major theme of the HRM-WB-IOP research stream is whether employees and organizations both benefit from HRM, the mutual
gains perspective, or whether HRM generates performance with no effect, or possibly an adverse effect, on employees, the conflicting
outcomes perspective (Van De Voorde et al., 2012). The logic underlying the former perspective is that HR systems foster employee
well-being which in turn generates improved performance. The logic underlying the latter perspective is that well-being and per­
formance are affected by different HR practices, and that HR systems that drive performance may do so by promoting work inten­
sification and job strain among employees (Van De Voorde et al., 2012). In a qualitative review of research on this topic published
between 2000 and 2018, Peccei and Van De Voorde (2019) reported that the majority of studies support the mutual gains perspective
but noted that there is limited research directly examining the conflicting outcomes perspective. Nonetheless, there is some evidence
that HR systems can sometimes generate conflicting outcomes (Ho & Kuvaas, 2020).
The study of individual positive HR practices and their outcomes, and research on the HRM-WB-IOP relationship, are part of the
still nascent sub-field of PHRM. Research and practice in this area would benefit from a stronger conceptual foundation and an
overarching model for synthesizing this work and facilitating discussion about it.

1. Characterizing positive human resource management

What distinguishes PHRM from other HR approaches such as strategic human resource management (SHRM)? Positive human
resource practices and systems involve enabling and cultivating organizational virtuousness (Cameron, 2003). Newstead, Macklin,
Dawkins, and Martin (2018) define virtuousness in organizations as “the human inclination to feel, think, and act in ways that express
moral excellence and contribute to the common good” (p. 446). However, virtuousness is not limited to individuals. As suggested by
Bright, Winn, and Kanov (2014), organizations themselves may be virtuous in addition to being able to amplify (or constrain) the
virtuousness of employees. As part of the structure of an organization, positive human resource practices and systems exemplify
virtuousness by embracing moral excellence and contributing to the common good, and augment virtuousness in organizations by
promoting these outcomes among employees. For example, diversity management practices that seek to surmount the career ob­
structions experienced by individuals from historically disadvantaged groups both represent virtuousness and magnify it throughout
the organization. PHRM is oriented towards building an infrastructure and promoting attitudes and behaviors that are “ennobling”,
“honorable”, “life-giving”, and cultivate strengths to help employees flourish and achieve the “highest human potential” (Cameron,
2003, p. 52). This organizational context serves to foster employee well-being in a variety of forms.
Because organizations are purpose-driven entities, the study of positivity in organizations involves a tension between instrumental
concerns with a focus on performance, and humanistic concerns with a focus on human flourishing (cf., Godfrey, 2012). For example,
Luthans (2002) presents positive organizational behavior as “the study and application of positively oriented human resource strengths
and psychological capacities that can be measured, developed, and effectively managed for performance improvement in today’s
workplace” (p. 59, italics added). Conversely, in their elucidation of positive organizational scholarship (POS), Cameron and Spreitzer
(2012) explain that “POS has a bias toward life-giving, generative, and ennobling human conditions regardless of whether they are
attached to traditional economic or political benefits” (p. 4, italics added). This tension is reconciled in PHRM with a shift in emphasis.
Although it considers employee well-being, a guiding theme of the HR-WB-IOP approach involves well-being as a precursor to
performance. PHRM thus often presents performance as the “figure” and well-being as the “ground”, making performance the main
focus and ultimate objective. This represents the weak form of PHRM (cf., Peccei et al., 2013). The strong form of PHRM refocuses this
picture, placing well-being in the foreground, on par with performance as an equally pertinent objective. A central aim of strong PHRM
(which we will refer to simply as PHRM) is to move HR research and practice beyond the traditional focus on leveraging people as
objective resources in support of organizational objectives, towards also championing people as subjective individuals and groups in
support of human flourishing. PHRM attempts to achieve an equilibrium between virtuousness and instrumentalism offering a new,
positive lens for considering HR structures, processes, and outcomes (Cameron & Spreitzer, 2012).
Balancing dual interests is a common theme in the HR literature (e.g., Patel, Messersmith, & Lepak, 2013). Just as HR systems based
on commitment and compliance can function together (Su, Wright, & Ulrich, 2018), PHRM systems oriented towards virtuousness can
operate in tandem with SHRM systems oriented towards performance objectives (Wright & Ulrich, 2017). PHR practices may also
overlap with SHRM practices. For example, career planning may promote employee optimism while simultaneously building skills that
foster high performance. Therefore, discussions of PHRM are compatible with interest in high performance, as much of the research
demonstrates. Indeed, an extensive body of literature reveals that various forms of well-being are positively associated with perfor­
mance (Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001; Newman, Ucbasaran, Zhu, & Hirst, 2014; Wright & Huang, 2012).
A main reason PHRM is associated with high performance is that it fosters resourcefulness. In their discussion of POS, Cameron and
Spreitzer (2012) note that “positivity unlocks and elevates resources in individuals, groups, and organizations, so that capabilities are

2
J.A. Gruman and M.-H. Budworth Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxx

broadened and capacity is built and strengthened” (p. 3, see also Fredrickson, 2001). Spreitzer, Myers, Kopelman, and Mayer (2021)
refer to this process as “resource unlocking”, which involves generating new resources endogenously as opposed to importing them. A
number of studies have demonstrated this “amplifying effect” (Cameron & Spreitzer, 2012, p. 3) and elevation of resources in the form
of gain spirals (Hobfoll, 2011) or ampliative cycles (Feldman & Worline, 2012) through which the cultivation of initial resources
generates other resources, unlocking a pattern of reciprocal resource intensification (e.g., Llorens, Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova,
2007; Salanova, Bakker, & Llorens, 2006; Weigl et al., 2010). These studies have included HR and well-being variables such as job
control and employee engagement (Weigl et al., 2010) underscoring the fact that HR practices can initiate a gain spiral process
fostering both well-being and resourcefulness.
There have been recent calls to reconsider the terms “human resources” and “human capital” because of their dehumanizing
connotations (Spreitzer et al., 2021). Given that PHRM generates resourcefulness among employees and organizations, we submit that
an alternative label with more positive connotations is “human resourcefulness”. This new term is as fitting and informative as the
traditional term but obviates the connotation of people as objective, exploitable resources and instead celebrates their subjective
individuality and collective potential. Below, we incorporate this new term into a model of PHRM, and relate the model to the con­
tributions offered in this virtual special issue.

2. The Positive Human Resourcefulness and Management (PHRAME) model

There currently exist a limited number of models of PHRM. Guest (2017) developed a model of “HRM, well-being and the
employment relationship, and performance” (p. 30), which specifies five sets of HR practices for promoting employee well-being.
Similarly, Salas-Vallina, Algere, and López-Cabrales (2020) developed a well-being-oriented human resource management model
comprised of six HR practices “aimed at maintaining and improving employees’ psychological, physical, and social well-being” (p.
334). In their review of the HRM-WB-IOP literature, Peccei and Van De Voorde (2019) identify eight proposed models of the re­
lationships among HRM systems, well-being, and performance. However, there are a number of limitations of the existing models and
the research on which they are based.
The first issue is that studies have included a very limited range of well-being constructs resulting in an under-specification of well-
being in existing models. Peccei and Van De Voorde (2019) note that research in the HRM-WB-IOP stream tends towards assessing
“happiness” forms of well-being and overlooks health-related forms. However, this understates the problem. The predominant well-
being measures used in the HRM-WB-IOP research stream are the attitudinal and motivational constructs of job satisfaction, orga­
nizational commitment, and engagement (Peccei & Van De Voorde, 2019). Other forms of well-being that are central to its concep­
tualization, such as positive affect, are neglected. Guest’s (2017) models better addresses this issue by conceptualizing well-being as
including psychological, physical, and social forms. In order to best capture the dynamics of PHRM an effective model should specify a
full range of well-being constructs.
Second, there is a need for more theoretical work to explain the relationship between HRM, well-being and outcomes (Peccei et al.,
2013; Peccei & Van De Voorde, 2019). Currently popular theories include the Ability, Motivation, Opportunity framework (AMO;
Appelbaum, Bailey, Berg, & Kalleberg, 2000), Job Demands-Resources model (JD-R; Bakker & Demerouti, 2007), and social exchange
theory (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Although the JD-R model has been explicitly related to the experience of well-being in the form
of employee engagement (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007), well-being is generally not central to these theoretical frameworks. Such
frameworks and associated models that include well-being as a central mediating mechanism would better serve to advance research in
this area. Additionally, this work should outline a relatively inclusive set of mechanisms through which well-being generates

Fig. 1. The Positive Human Resourcefulness and Management (PHRAME) model.

3
J.A. Gruman and M.-H. Budworth Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxx

outcomes. The article by Shahbaz & Parker (2021) in this special issue provides an example of how frameworks can be developed as a
way of understanding the relationships between HRM and well-being outcomes. They examine the specific case of mindfulness
research.
A third limitation concerns levels of analysis. Although both Guest’s (2017) model and the HR-WB-IOP models discuss individual
and organizational performance, the mechanisms proposed to mediate the relationship between HR practices/systems and perfor­
mance are largely restricted to the individual level. Peccei et al. (2013) note that social mechanism may be involved but limit their
discussion of collective job satisfaction. Given the prevalence of teamwork and collaboration that characterize the modern workplace
(Lacerenza, Marlow, Tannenbaum, & Salas, 2018) models of PHRM would benefit from including conceptualizations of well-being and
other intervening mechanisms at both the individual and group level.
Demonstrating the value of incorporating group-level mechanisms and outcomes, Huettermann and Bruch (2019) observed that
when transformational leadership climate was high, employees’ collective positive stress mindset mediated the relationship between
health-related human resource management practices and employees’ collective well-being. Similarly, Cooper, Wang, Bartram, and
Cooke (2019) found that well-being-oriented HR practices (WBHRM) were positively associated with an aggregated measure of social
climate, and that social climate mediated the relationship between WBHRM and employee resilience.
To address these limitations and advance research and practice on PHRM, we have developed the Positive Human Resourcefulness
and Management (PHRAME) model (see Fig. 1). We isolate and highlight “management” in the model based on recent work noting the
often-overlooked importance of managers in implementing and influencing employee reactions to HR policies and practices (Stef­
fensen Jr., Ellen, Wang, & Ferris, 2019). As shown in Fig. 1, the PHRAME model suggests that positive HR practices/systems generate
various forms of well-being at both the individual and group level, and that these relationships are moderated by a climate of human
resourcefulness. Well-being in turn generates positive multi-level outcomes through second-stage, sequential mediating mechanisms
that operate at the individual and group levels. The PHRAME model thus offers a relatively broad framework for conceptualizing
research and practice on PHRM. Below we consider each of the components of the model.

2.1. HR practices/systems

The first element in the PHRAME model is PHR practices and systems. Guest (2017) suggests that PHR should involve investing in
employees through practices such as training, mentoring and career support; providing engaging work by, for example, designing jobs
to afford autonomy and challenge; creating a positive work environment by promoting health, tolerance, and fairness; supporting
employee voice through practices such as extensive two-way communication and collective representation; and organizational support
through participative management, flexible scheduling, and developmental performance management. As noted by Guest (2017),
many of these practices are excluded from performance-oriented HRM systems and reflect the fact that PHR practices are not oriented
exclusively towards high performance. Instead, their defining characteristic is they are also oriented towards virtuousness and sup­
porting the well-being and growth of employees. For instance, PHR training programs can be designed with the express purpose of
promoting employee well-being in the form of psychological capital (Saks & Gruman, 2017a). Similarly, work-life balance practices
can be implemented explicitly to promote job and life satisfaction (Haar, Russo, Suñe, & Ollier-Malaterre, 2014). That said, as noted
earlier, although PHR practices are not principally directed at enhancing performance, they are compatible with HR systems that are.
HR systems that include PHRM architecture will often be similar to those based on SHRM (high-performance, high-commitment,
high-involvement) architecture (e.g., Lepak, Liao, Chung, & Harden, 2006; Posthuma, Campion, Masimova, & Campion, 2013) but will
differ in two respects. First, the principles and strategies of a PHRM system will include a focus on elevating human resourcefulness in
addition to supporting organizational strategy. Second, PHR tactics may include some practices that exemplify virtuousness without
reinforcing immediate strategic objectives. This special issue offers examples of these types of practices in the work on performance
management presented by Kubiak (2020) who argues that developmental systems rooted in positive psychology can build both
well-being and performance.

2.2. First stage mediators: individual and group well-being

The first stage of sequential mediation in the PHRAME model involves employee well-being. Numerous studies have demonstrated
a relationship between HR tactics/systems and well-being (e.g., Van De Voorde et al., 2012; Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, &
Schaufeli, 2012). However, there is no consensus about the nature of well-being in the academic literature; it is conceptualized in
numerous ways. Well-being can involve broad concepts such as happiness, flourishing, and eudaimonia, in addition to narrow concepts
such as purpose, job satisfaction, and positive affect (Wright, 2014). It can be conceptualized as a multidimensional construct
involving, for example, life satisfaction, positive affect and low levels of negative affect (Diener, 1994) or a unitary construct such as
hope (Luthans & Jensen, 2002). It can focus on psychological phenomena such as optimism (Peterson & Chang, 2003), in addition to
objective conditions such as physical health (Wright, 2014), and social conditions such as social acceptance and integration (Keyes,
2002). Well-being can also be domain specific (e.g., job satisfaction) or more general (e.g., life satisfaction; Warr, 2007).
The lack of agreement about the definition of key constructs is common in the social sciences. For example, researchers have not
achieved a consensual definition of wisdom (Walsh, 2015), employee engagement (Byrne, Peters, & Weston, 2016), or leadership
(Pfeffer, 1977) to list just a few examples. Nor is this necessarily a cause for concern. The variety of definitions provides flexibility and
precision. As Bass and Bass (2008) note with respect to leadership: “the search for the one and only proper and true definition of
leadership seems to be fruitless. Rather, the choice of an appropriate definition should depend on the methodological and substantive
aspects of leadership in which one is interested” (p. 23). The same applies to well-being. The way in which one chooses to define

4
J.A. Gruman and M.-H. Budworth Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxx

employee well-being should depend on the particular research questions being posed and the specific aspects of well-being in which
one is interested.
As suggested by Peccei and Van De Voorde (2019), different HRM practices may have dissimilar effects on different forms of well-
being. For example, Ho and Kuvaas (2020) demonstrated that at high levels of adoption, HR systems can simultaneously reduce anxiety
while compromising social well-being in the form of management relations. Relatedly, the relationship between well-being and
performance may depend on the type of well-being considered (Van De Voorde et al., 2012). Incorporating multiple forms of well-
being in the PHRAME model helps to address the well-being paradox which refers to the mixture of positive and negative findings
regarding the relationship between HR systems and well-being outcomes (Ho & Kuvaas, 2020).
This overarching theme notwithstanding, we note two specific issues. First, positive (PA) and negative (NA) affect are central
constructs in studies of well-being in general, but, as noted earlier, are often overlooked in HR research (Peccei & Van De Voorde,
2019). We therefore encourage more research exploring PA and NA as first stage mediators. However, recent research suggests that a
more thorough understanding of emotional dynamics can be achieved by moving beyond PA and NA to examine discrete positive and
negative emotions (Lerner, Li, Valdesolo, & Kassam, 2015; Shiota et al., 2017). For example, Lerner et al. (2015) note that “several
studies have shown that specific positive emotions, such as gratitude and pride, have unique effects on helping behavior and task
perseverance” (p. 806). Research on PHRM will be well served by investigating the effects of discrete emotions in addition to exploring
PA and NA broadly. Included among these discrete emotions should be those of a moral nature such as gratitude, awe, and elevation
(Haidt, 2003), which can be elicited by virtuousness.
Second, one conceptualization of well-being that offers great potential as a mechanism linking HR systems and outcomes involves
the basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Deci, Olafsen, & Ryan, 2017; Ryan & Deci, 2001). Ryan and
Deci (2001) suggest that satisfaction of these needs is fundamental to well-being, arguing that the “specification of basic needs defines
not only the minimum requirements of psychological health but also delineates prescriptively the nutriments that the social envi­
ronment must supply for people to thrive and grow psychologically” (p. 147). Martela and Sheldon (2019) suggest that psychological
need satisfaction is the common core linking eudaimonic and subjective well-being. Accordingly, satisfaction of psychological needs
may represent a particularly parsimonious issue for research on PHRM. A number of HR practices such as job design and compensation
strategies have direct implications for the satisfaction of psychological needs (Deci et al., 2017), and need satisfaction has been shown
to mediate the relationship between HR/management practices and work outcomes (Marescaux, De Winne, & Sels, 2013; Olafsen,
Halvari, Forest, & Deci, 2015).
The satisfaction of basic needs through PHR practices may produce positive effects that are not limited to the workplace. While the
PHRAME model is primarily concerned with workplace outcomes, inarguably there is spill-over to and from other domains of life.
Hyde, Casper, & Wayne (2020) in this virtual special issue outline the need to consider outcomes across domains. Hyde et al. present a
model where thriving can be understood as a resource across the work and non-work domains. Similarly, a second article in this series
examines the interplay between the work family domains for work-well-being among expatriates (Biswas, Mäkelä, & Andresen, 2021).
A key aspect of the PHRAME model is that it is multi-level and includes well-being constructs at both the individual and group
levels. Many well-being constructs that are typically conceived at the individual level can also be manifested at the collective level,
such as employee engagement (Barrick, Thurgood, Smith, & Courtright, 2015), self-efficacy (Bandura, 2000), job satisfaction (Ostroff,
1992), basic need satisfaction (Kachanoff, Wohl, Koestner, & Taylor, 2020), flow (van den Hout, Davis, & Weggeman, 2018), psy­
chological capital (Heled, Somech, & Waters, 2016), and PA (Kelly & Barsade, 2001). Group-level well-being has been shown to impact
group level outcomes such as team organizational citizenship behavior (Heled et al., 2016), team creativity (Grawitch, Munz, Elliott, &
Mathis, 2003), and group performance (Stajkovic, Lee, & Nyberg, 2009), however the results are not always consistent (e.g., Barsade &
Knight, 2015). The PHRAME model suggests that PHR practices and systems will influence individual and group-level well-being
directly, but also that individual well-being and group well-being will impact each other through social influence processes (Deutsch &
Gerard, 1955) including emotional (Barsade, 2002), cognitive (Byrne, 2015), and behavioral contagion (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999).
The work presented by van Woerkom, Meyers, & Bakker (2020) in this special issue is an example of the exploration of positive
psychology as a group level phenomenon. In their paper, they argue for the importance of considering collective strength over and
above individual level strengths.
Including a broad array of well-being constructs in the PHRAME model serves to address the criticism that research on the rela­
tionship between HR systems and outcomes has been limited to a restricted range of forms of well-being (Peccei & Van De Voorde,
2019). Additionally, the PHRAME model helps to capture the full range of PHR on well-being by including well-being constructs at the
group/team level which is a level that is often overlooked in HR systems (Jiang, Takeuchi, & Lepak, 2013).

2.3. Climate of human resourcefulness

The PHRAME model suggests that the relationship between the PHR architecture and well-being at both the individual and group
levels will be moderated by a climate of human resourcefulness, which refers to shared employee perceptions of the extent to which an
organization is motivated to invest in employee well-being. Organizations have different objectives in managing their people (Arthur,
1994). The HR architecture can therefore be interpreted in different ways by employees. A climate of human resourcefulness exists
when employees generally share a collective perception that promoting their welfare is included in organizational objectives and the
corresponding HR programs and practices.
A number of studies have demonstrated that employee attributions (Nishii, Lepak, & Schneider, 2008) of the motives underlying
HR practices and systems influence well-being and performance outcomes (Hewett, Shantz, Mundy, & Alfes, 2018). For example,
Nishii et al. (2008) found that employee attributions of their organization’s HR practices to motives that included employee well-being

5
J.A. Gruman and M.-H. Budworth Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxx

were positively associated with affective commitment and satisfaction; attributions of the motives to cost reduction and exploiting
employees were negatively associated with the same job attitudes. Job attitudes were in turn associated with customer satisfaction
through organizational citizenship behaviors. Nishii et al. (2008) concluded that employee perceptions of HR practices, and not just
the practices themselves, are key to generating desired outcomes. Similarly, Van de Voorde and Beijer (2015) observed an increase in
job strain among employees who attributed the motives for HR practices to an interest in maximizing performance. Conversely, they
found that employees who attributed the motives to an interest in employee well-being experienced less job strain and higher
commitment. In a similar vein, trust in the employer has been shown to moderate the impact of employee perceptions of HRM practices
on both well-being and performance (Alfes, Shantz, & Truss, 2012).
Employee explanations of “why” HR practices and systems are implemented (Nishii et al., 2008; Ostroff & Bowen, 2016) that
involve attributions of concern for employee well-being serve to create a climate of human resourcefulness that moderates the impact
of HR practices and systems on well-being. These attributions may help to explain the mixed findings in the HR-WB-IOP literature
(Shantz, Arevshatian, Alfes, & Bailey, 2016). Ogbonnaya and Messersmith (2019) explained the contingent nature of the relationship
between HR systems and outcomes noting that, “the attitudinal and behavioral benefits of HRM systems are realized if employees hold
positive perceptions as to why such systems are being implemented” (p. 510). The climate of human resourcefulness plays a significant
role in determining whether employees regard HR practices such as job enlargement as providing desirable resources that can enhance
well-being or imposing unwelcome demands that can undermine it (Van de Voorde & Beijer, 2015). When the climate of human
resourcefulness is high, PHR practices will be more strongly related to well-being outcomes at both the individual and group levels.
When the climate of human resourcefulness is low, PHR practices will be weakly related or not related to well-being outcomes at both
levels. Additionally, the climate of human resourcefulness will exert stronger effects when the HR system is distinct, consistent, and
there is consensus about the messages concerning the value of people and their well-being (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004; Ostroff & Bowen,
2016).
The idea of climate is explored in the Saks (2021) article within this series where he explores how HR practices can create orga­
nizational climate of care and concern. He argues that caring HR systems build climates that support employee engagement and
proposes several mechanisms that support this process.

2.4. Second stage mediators: individual and group mechanisms

The second stage of sequential mediation in the PHRAME model involves mechanisms that are activated by employee well-being. A
number of authors have suggested that positivity in various forms is associated with affective, cognitive, motivational, and social
processes (Glynn & Watkiss, 2012; Spreitzer & Cameron, 2012; Youssef & Luthans, 2013). These processes can foster a variety of
desirable outcomes in organizations and may also reinforce well-being (Youssef & Luthans, 2013). The first three mechanisms are
typically applied at the individual level. However, given evidence of collective forms of affect (Barsade & Knight, 2015), cognition
(Cannon-Bowers & Salas, 2001), and motivation (Park, Spitzmuller, & DeShon, 2013), we suggest that they may also apply at the group
level in conjunction with the final mechanism, social processes, which applies only at the group level.
Affective mechanisms operate by arousing adaptive responses to environmental circumstances (Elfenbein, 2007). The most
frequently invoked approach to understanding affective mechanisms in positive psychology is the broaden-and-build theory (Fre­
drickson, 2001) which suggests that “discrete positive emotions – including joy, interest, contentment, pride, and love – although
phenomenologically distinct, all share the ability to broaden people’s momentary thought-action repertoires and build their enduring
personal resources, ranging from physical and intellectual resources to social and psychological resources” (p. 219). Broadening effects
may be limited to low intensity emotions (Harmon-Jones, Gable, & Price, 2013), however when experiencing such positive emotions
individuals display an increased openness and wider span of attention that allows them to process more peripheral information and
leads to changes in decision making and action that, over time, generate enhanced resources (Conway, Tugade, Catalino, & Fre­
drickson, 2013).
Cognitive mechanisms function through the way employees think, interpret, and learn (Spreitzer & Cameron, 2012). As suggested
by Lyubomirsky (2001), “happy individuals experience and react to events and circumstances in relatively more positive and adaptive
ways” (p. 240). For example, happy people evaluate events more positively, ruminate less, and are less sensitive to social comparison
information (Lyubomirsky, 2001). These qualities are characteristic of dispositionally happy individuals, but similarly desirable
features characterize the experience of well-being. For example, Forgas (2002) notes that “people in a positive mood are more likely to
adopt creative, open, constructive, and inclusive thinking styles, use broader categories, show greater cognitive and behavioral
flexibility, and perform well on secondary tasks” (p. 5). Therefore, one mechanism through which well-being impacts outcomes is
through enhanced cognitive functioning.
Motivational mechanisms involve action tendencies and the agency beliefs that underlie them. Numerous forms of well-being foster
approach-oriented motives and behavior. For example, optimism is associated with confidence, persistence, and flexible, problem-
focused coping (Carver, Scheier, & Segerstrom, 2010). A related well-being construct, psychological capital, involves “the motiva­
tion and efficacy to confidently choose to take action in relation to important and challenging personal goals” (Youssef & Luthans,
2013, p. 758). Similarly, positive affect motivates effort towards tasks by signaling that such efforts are likely to be successful (Layous,
Nelson, Kurtz, & Lyubomirsky, 2017). Well-being thus motivates action towards valuable organizational outcomes.
Social mechanisms involve relationships. Well-being should foster high-quality connections among members of an organizations.
High-quality connections are characterized by vitality, felt mutuality, and positive regard (Stephens, Heaphy, & Dutton, 2012). Ste­
phens et al. (2012) explain that such connections are associated with desirable outcomes because of their three defining features:
emotional carrying capacity, which involves the expression of a greater level of emotion; tensility, which refers to resilience; and

6
J.A. Gruman and M.-H. Budworth Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxx

connectivity, which pertains to a heightened openness to novel ideas. Spreitzer and Cameron (2012) note that relationships can be
ampliative in organizations because “connections with others can unlock resources endogenous to the system” (p. 1038). Spreitzer
et al. (2021) refer to this as “capacity creating” which is a process in which social interactions generate resourcefulness through the
dynamic, collaborative creation of knowledge. High-quality connections will follow from individual and collective well-being in
addition to the individual-level mechanisms (Stephens et al., 2012).
In line with this theme, White, Marla, Henderson, Smith, & Bell (2021), in this issue, introduce a conceptual model exploring the
ways in which a minority group’s experiences has a positive influence on work outcomes. Through an examination of identity builders
(i.e., racial socialization, racial identity, bicultural life experiences, biculturalism, and resilience), they explore how a positive identity
process creates affective, cognitive, and behavioral responses.

2.5. Outcomes

The PHRAME model is not prescriptive about outcomes but incorporates outcomes at the level of the individual, group, and or­
ganization that include positive outcomes such as proficiency, adaptivity, and proactivity (Griffin, Neal, & Parker, 2007), but also
other desirable HR outcomes such as creativity, innovation, and resilience. For example, resilience, which can be a form and outcome
of well-being at the individual and group level, can also represent a positive outcome at the organizational level (Lengnick-Hall, Beck,
& Lengnick-Hall, 2011) which is achieved through the ampliative mechanisms promoted by employee well-being and associated
mechanisms.
HR systems can impact numerous outcomes (Paauwe, Wright, & Guest, 2013; Rogers & Wright, 1998). In addition to performance-
related outcomes, the PHRAME model suggests that PHR practices and systems will be associated with a broader set of outcomes such
as employee health (physical well-being), organizational reputation, and the ability to recruit attractive job candidates. For example,
prospective employees who believe that organizations regard their employees as valuable members as opposed to exploitable resources
will be more willing to seek positions at those firms (Belmi & Schroeder, 2021). These outcomes serve to reinforce a virtuous orga­
nizational culture that supports resourcefulness and helps to facilitate the achievement of performance outcomes.

2.6. Reciprocal causation

As can be noted in Fig. 1, a key feature of the PHRAME model is the specification of reciprocal relationships. The components of the
model are proposed to operate in a dynamic fashion with outputs at one stage serving as potential inputs to earlier stages. For example,
although individual well-being is presented as antecedent to individual mechanisms, these mechanisms may also play a role in
fostering well-being. Positive emotions may ultimately broaden one’s set of resources (Fredrickson, 2001), but the availability of an
expanded set of resources may, in turn, promote the experience of positive emotions (Burns et al., 2008). Similarly, well-being may be
associated with organizational performance through individual and group mechanisms, but high performance may also generate well-
being (Judge et al., 2001; Peccei et al., 2013). Additionally, PHR practices and systems may initiate a process that generates per­
formance, but performance may also play a role in the implementation of the PHR architecture (Shin & Konrad, 2017; Wright, Gardner,
Moynihan, & Allen, 2005). These mutually reinforcing, iterative relationships serve as the basis for ampliative gain spirals, and the
emergent adaptability of the system (Colbert, 2004).
The dynamics of reciprocal causation underscore the value of longitudinal research on the PHRAME model examining in­
terrelationships over time to ascertain their mutual influence. As Xanthoploulou, Daniels, and Sanz-Vergel (2020) suggest, “one key
advantage of taking a temporal perspective is that it can help to disentangle issues of causation by modeling whether changes in
presumed causes are associated with subsequent changes in presumed outcomes, and vice versa. This is particularly advantageous
because well-being can be a cause and a consequence of how the work environment is experienced (Zapf, Dormann, & Frese, 1996).”
(p. 292).

3. An important balancing act

PHRM builds on positive psychology, but clearly delineating the nature of what is “positive” and when a variable may be
considered “positive”, is challenging (Taylor, 2001). As outlined by Gruman and associates (Gruman & Choi, 2020; Gruman, Lumley, &
González-Morales, 2018), ostensibly positive phenomena, such as positive affect, may have negative aspects to them, be implemented
in excess, work in combination with other variables, be context dependent, and/or be influenced by unconscious processes. The
PHRAME model explicitly acknowledges this ambiguity and supports research into the conditional and possibly negative aspects of
seemingly positive organizational phenomena.
First, the PHRAME model acknowledges that positive phenomena may have a dark side. For example, job enrichment, implemented
as part of a PHR system designed to foster worker autonomy may also increase employee stress. Similarly, PHR systems that build
social capital can foster high quality connections and well-being, but may also deplete employees’ resources and foster role overload
(Bolino & Grant, 2016). Research is needed exploring the potential negative aspects of ostensibly positive PHR practices, and the dark
side of seemingly positive well-being and organizational outcomes.
Second, the PHRAME model recognizes that positive phenomena can be overdone. For example, designing jobs to foster skill
variety can promote positive outcomes in the form of job satisfaction, growth satisfaction, work motivation, and reduced burnout
(Humphrey, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007). However, at high levels skill variety may be excessive, requiring continuous shifts of
attention and generating role conflict that produces anxiety (Warr, 2007). Similarly, at moderate levels, optimism may be associated

7
J.A. Gruman and M.-H. Budworth Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxx

with desirable outcomes such as high affective commitment, job satisfaction, and performance (Kluemper, Little, & DeGroot, 2009),
but at high levels optimism may promote overconfidence and compromised decision making (Lovallo & Kahneman, 2003). Research is
needed exploring the forms and levels of PHR architecture that foster desirable levels of well-being and organizational outcomes.
Third, the PHRAME model recognizes that variables that are positive and/or negative may complement each other. For example,
research has demonstrated that desirable outcomes can be generated by the interaction of seemingly opposite qualities such as positive
affect and negative affect (Ong & Bergeman, 2004), and optimism and pessimism (Benyamini, 2005). Similarly, long-term growth
representing eudaimonic well-being may be preceded by short-term struggles that compromise subjective well-being. Indeed, the co-
occurrence of positive and negative experiences may be necessary for positive adjustment (Folkman & Tedlie Moskowitz, 2000).
Research is needed on how positive and negative processes and experiences at work interact in supporting various forms of workplace
well-being and organizational outcomes.
Additionally, the interplay of positive phenomena requires investigation. For example, are performance management practices that
generate employee engagement most effective when complemented with work-life balance training? Do social capital and optimism
reinforce each other in an additive or multiplicative fashion? Are they, in fact, complementary or perhaps redundant with each other in
generating outcomes? In what ways to various character strengths interact in generating well-being and organizational outcomes
(Gruman & Choi, 2020). Research is needed on the additive, synergistic and redundant effects of the components of PHR systems in
generating well-being (c.f., Saks & Gruman, 2017b). Research is also needed on how a PHR architecture can support positive phe­
nomena that operate in tandem in producing desirable outcomes.
Fourth, the PHRAME model recognizes that context plays an important role in fostering positive outcomes. For instance, offering
employees online training and development opportunities may generate hope and optimism during normal business contexts, but may
generate overload and anxiety during crises. Similarly, training programs that cultivate workplace mindfulness may enhance employee
well-being when employees work with transformational leaders, but compromise well-being when employees work with abusive
leaders (Walsh & Arnold, 2020). More research is needed on how context plays a role in establishing the positivity of PHR practices and
the outcomes they generate.
Finally, the PHRAME model acknowledges that positive outcomes may be influenced by unconscious processes. For example,
employee perceptions of an organization’s climate of human resourcefulness may be influenced by cognitive processes that occur
outside of awareness. Similarly, well-being constructs such as life satisfaction (Kim, 2004) and psychological capital (Harms &
Luthans, 2012) may be generated by, and lead to outcomes through, processes that are implicit and unconscious. Most management
research is based on the idea that organizational behavior reflects conscious decisions (George, 2009), but a full understanding of
whether and when PHR practices, systems, and well-being will generate positive outcomes requires an exploration of unconscious
processes. Research is needed in this area.

4. Conclusion

It has been almost 25 years since Seligman (1999) call for a focus on “the science of positive subjective experience, positive in­
dividual traits, and positive institutions” (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000, p.5). While a great deal of work has occurred since that
time, there is a need to reflect on what has been done and set a course for future research in HRM. With the PHRAME model and the
wide range of review articles within this virtual special issue, there is an opportunity to move forward in a coordinated manner,
building on existing knowledge.
In this special issue, we highlight the need to consider higher order levels of analysis within PHRM, particularly the group level and
factors such as climate. We propose the need to examine a broad range of well-being-related variables and expand the well-being
outcomes examined. The articles featured in this series take stock of what has been accomplished to date, offer a broad framework
for studying PHRM and present a series of clear and focused discussions of various aspects of this area of study. Together, these articles
provide an updated response to Seligman’s call and set the course for future research on the relationship between positive psychology
and human resource management.

References

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, 409–427.
Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P., & Kalleberg, A. (2000). Manufacturing advantage: Why high performance work systems pay off. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Arthur, J. B. (1994). Effects of human resource systems on manufacturing performance and turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 670–687.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309–328.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 75–78.
Barrick, M. R., Thurgood, G. R., Smith, T. A., & Courtright, S. H. (2015). Collective organizational engagement: Linking motivational antecedents, strategic
implementation, and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 58, 111–135.
Barsade, S. G. (2002). The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 644–675.
Barsade, S. G., & Knight, A. P. (2015). Group affect. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2, 21–46.
Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, & managerial applications (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.
Becker, B. E., & Huselid, M. A. (2006). Strategic human resources management: Where do we go from here? Journal of Management, 32, 898–925.
Belmi, P., & Schroeder, J. (2021). Human “resources”: Objectification at work. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120, 384–417.
Benyamini, Y. (2005). Can high optimism and high pessimism co-exist? Findings from arthritis patients coping with pain. Personality and Individual Differences, 38,
1463–1473.
Biswas, T., Mäkelä, & Andresen, M. (2021). Work and non-work-related antecedents of expatriates’ well-being: A meta-analysis. Human Resource Management Review.
Bolino, M. C., & Grant, A. M. (2016). The bright side of being prosocial at work, and the dark side, too: A review and agenda for research on other-oriented motives,
behavior, and impact in organizations. The Academy of Management Annals, 10, 599–670.

8
J.A. Gruman and M.-H. Budworth Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxx

Bowen, D., & Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding HRM-firm performance linkages: The role of the “strength” of the HRM system. Academy of Management Review, 29,
203–221.
Boxall, P., Guthrie, J. P., & Paauwe, J. (2016). Editorial introduction: Progressing our understanding of the mediating variables linking HRM, employee well-being and
organizational performance. Human Resource Management Journal, 26, 103–111.
Bright, D. S., Winn, B. A., & Kanov, J. (2014). Reconsidering virtue: Differences of perspective in virtue ethics and the positive social sciences. Journal of Business
Ethics, 119, 445–460.
Browning, L., Morris, G. H., & Lee, K. F. (2012). The role of communication in positive organizational scholarship. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.),
Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 566–578). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Budworth, M.-H., Latham, G. P., & Manroop, L. (2015). Looking forward to performance improvement: A field test of the feedforward interview for performance
management. Human Resource Management, 54, 45–54.
Burns, A. B., Brown, J. S., Sachs-Ericsson, N., Plant, E. A., Curtis, J. T., Fredrickson, B. L., & Joiner, T. E. (2008). Upward spirals of positive emotion and coping:
Replication, extension, and initial exploration of neurochemical substrates. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 360–370.
Byrne, Z. S. (2015). Understanding employee engagement: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Routledge.
Byrne, Z. S., Peters, J. M., & Weston, J. W. (2016). The struggle with employee engagement: Measures and construct clarification using fives samples. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 101, 1201–1227.
Cable, D. M., Gino, F., & Staats, B. R. (2013). Breaking them in or eliciting their best? Reframing socialization around newcomers’ authentic self-expression.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 58, 1–36.
Cameron, K. S. (2003). Organizational virtuousness and performance. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship:
Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 48–65). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Cameron, K. S., Dutton, J. E., & Quinn, R. E. (Eds.). (2003). Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler
Publishers.
Cameron, K. S., & Spreitzer, G. M. (2012). Introduction: What is positive about positive organizational scholarship. In K. S. Cameron, & G. M. Spreitzer (Eds.), The
Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship (pp. 1–14). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Salas, E. (2001). Reflections on shared cognition. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 195–202.
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Segerstrom, S. C. (2010). Optimism. Clinical Psychology Review, 30, 879–889.
Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The perception-behavior link and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76,
893–910.
Colbert, B. A. (2004). The complex resource-base view: Implications for theory and practice in strategic human resource management. Academy of Management Review,
29, 341–358.
Conway, A. M., Tugade, M. M., Catalino, L. I., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2013). The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions: Form, function, and mechanisms. In
S. A. David, I. Boniwell, & A. Conley Ayers (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of happiness (pp. 17–34). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Cooper, B., Wang, J., Bartram, T., & Cooke, F. L. (2019). Well-being-oriented human resource management practices and employee performance in the Chinese
banking sector: The role of social climate and resilience. Human Resource Management, 58, 85–97.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31, 874–900.
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, 19–43.
Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
51, 629–636.
Diener, E. (1994). Assessing subjective well-being: Progress and opportunities. Social Indicators Research, 31, 103–157.
Elfenbein, H. A. (2007). Emotion in organizations: A review and theoretical integration. The Academy of Management Annals, 1, 315–386.
Feldman, M. S., & Worline, M. (2012). Resources, resourcing, and ampliative cycles in organizations. In K. S. Cameron, & G. M. Spreitzer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook
of positive organizational scholarship (pp. 629–641). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Folkman, S., & Tedlie Moskowitz, J. (2000). Stress, positive emotion, and coping. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 115–118.
Forgas, J. P. (2002). Feeling and doing: Affective influences on interpersonal behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 13, 1–28.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotion in positive psychology. The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218–226.
George, J. M. (2009). The illusion of will in organizational behavior research: Nonconscious processes and job design. Journal of Management, 35, 1318–1339.
Glynn, M., & Watkiss, L. (2012). The generative potency of cultural symbols: Implications for positive organizational scholarship. In K. S. Cameron, & G. M. Spreitzer
(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship (pp. 617–628). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Godfrey, P. C. (2012). Strange bedfellows: Homo economicus and positive organizational scholarship. In K. S. Cameron, & G. M. Spreitzer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook
of positive organizational scholarship (pp. 979–988). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Grawitch, M. J., Munz, D. C., Elliott, E. K., & Mathis, A. (2003). Promoting creativity in temporary problems-solving groups: The effects of positive mood and
autonomy in problem definition on idea-generating performance. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 7, 200–213.
Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of
Management Journal, 50, 327–347.
Gruman, J. A., & Choi, E. (2020). Well-being at work: A balanced approach to positive organizational studies. In S. Dhiman (Ed.), The Palgrave handbook of workplace
well-being (pp. 1–40). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02470-3_84-1.
Gruman, J. A., Lumley, M. N., & González-Morales, M. G. (2018). Incorporating balance: Challenges and opportunities for positive psychology. Canadian Psychology,
59, 54–64.
Guest. (2017). Human resource management and employee well-being: Towards a new analytic framework. Human Resource Management Journal, 27, 22–38.
Haar, J. M., Russo, M., Suñe, A., & Ollier-Malaterre, A. (2014). Outcomes of work-life balance on job satisfaction, life satisfaction, and mental health: A study across
seven cultures. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 85, 361–373.
Haidt, J. (2003). The moral emotions. In R. J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 852–870).
Harmon-Jones, E., Gable, P. A., & Price, T. F. (2013). Does negative affect always narrow and positive affect always broaden the mind? Considering the influence of
motivational intensity on cognitive scope. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 301–307.
Harms, P. D., & Luthans, F. (2012). Measuring implicit psychological constructs in organizational behavior: An example using psychological capital. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 33, 589–594.
Heled, E., Somech, A., & Waters, L. (2016). Psychological capital as a team phenomenon: Mediating the relationship between learning climate and outcomes at the
individual and team levels. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 11, 303–314.
Hewett, R., Shantz, A., Mundy, J., & Alfes, K. (2018). Attribution theories in human resource management research: A review and research agenda. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 29, 87–126.
Heywood, J. S., & Wei, X. (2006). Performance pay and job satisfaction. Journal of Industrial Relations, 48, 523–540.
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, 235–253.
Hobfoll, S. E. (2011). Conservation of resource caravans and engaged settings. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84, 116–122.
van den Hout, J. J. J., Davis, O. C., & Weggeman, M. C. D. P. (2018). The conceptualization of team flow. The Journal of Psychology Interdisciplinary and Applied, 152,
388–423.
Huettermann, H., & Bruch, H. (2019). Mutual gains? Health-related HRM, collective well-being, and organizational performance. Journal of Management Studies, 56,
1045–1072.

9
J.A. Gruman and M.-H. Budworth Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxx

Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and
theoretical extension of the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1332–1356.
Hyde, S. A., Casper, W. J., & Wayne, J. H. (2020). Putting role resources to work: The cross-domain thriving model. Human Resource Management Review.
Jiang, K., Takeuchi, R., & Lepak, D. P. (2013). Where do we go from here? New perspectives on the black box in strategic human resource management research.
Journal of Management Studies, 50, 1448–1480.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction-job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological
Bulletin, 127, 376–407.
Kachanoff, F. J., Wohl, M. J. A., Koestner, R., & Taylor, D. M. (2020). Them, us, and I: How group contexts influence basic psychological needs. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 29, 47–54.
Kelly, J. R., & Barsade, S. G. (2001). Mood and emotions in small groups and work teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 99–130.
Keyes, C. L. M. (2002). The mental health continuum: From languishing to flourishing in life. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 43, 207–222.
Kim, D.-Y. (2004). The implicit life satisfaction measure. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 7, 236–262.
Kluemper, D. H., Little, L. M., & DeGroot, T. (2009). State or trait: Effects of state optimism on job-related outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 209–231.
Kubiak, E. (2020). Increasing perceived work meaningfulness by implementing psychological need-satisfying performance management practices. Human Resource
Management Review.
Lacerenza, C. N., Marlow, S. L., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Salas, E. (2018). Team development interventions: Evidence-based approaches for improving teamwork.
American Psychologist, 73, 517–531.
Layous, K., Nelson, S. K., Kurtz, J. L., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2017). What triggers prosocial effort? A positive feedback loop between positive activities, kindness, and
well-being. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12, 385–398.
Lengnick-Hall, C. A., Beck, T. E., & Lengnick-Hall, M. L. (2011). Developing a capacity for organizational resilience through strategic human resource management.
Human Resource Management Review, 21, 243–255.
Lepak, D. P., Liao, H., Chung, Y., & Harden, E. E. (2006). A conceptual review of human resource management systems in strategic human resource management
research. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 25, 217–271.
Lerner, J. S., Li, Y., Valdesolo, P., & Kassam, K. S. (2015). Emotion and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 799–823.
Llorens, S., Schaufeli, W., Bakker, A., & Salanova, M. (2007). Does a positive gain spiral of resources, efficacy beliefs, and engagement exist? Computers in Human
Behavior, 23, 825–841.
Lomas, T., Medina, J. C., Ivtzan, I., Rupprecht, S., Hart, R., & Eiroa-Orosa, F. J. (2017). The impact of mindfulness on well-being and performance in the workplace: An
inclusive systematic review of the empirical literature. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26, 492–513.
Lovallo, D., & Kahneman, D. (2003). Delusions of success: How optimism undermines executives’ decisions. Harvard Business Review, 81, 56–63.
Luthans, F. (2002). Positive organizational behavior: Developing and managing psychological strengths. Academy of Management Executive, 16, 57–72.
Luthans, F., & Jensen, S. M. (2002). Hope: A new positive strength for human resource development. Human Resource Development Review, 1, 304–322.
Lyubomirsky, S. (2001). Why are some people happier than others? The role of cognitive and motivational processes in well-being. American Psychologist, 56,
239–249.
Marescaux, E., De Winne, S., & Sels, L. (2013). HR practices and HRM outcomes: The role of basic need satisfaction. Personnel Review, 42, 4–27.
Martela, F., & Sheldon, K. M. (2019). Clarifying the concept of well-being: Psychological need satisfaction as the common core connecting eudaimonic and subjective
well-being. Review of General Psychology, 23, 458–474.
Newman, A., Ucbasaran, D., Zhu, F., & Hirst, G. (2014). Psychological capital: A review and synthesis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, S120–S138.
Newstead, T., Macklin, R., Dawkins, S., & Martin, A. (2018). What is virtue? Advancing the conceptualization of virtue to inform positive organizational inquiry.
Academy of Management Perspectives, 32, 443–457.
Nishii, L. H., Lepak, D. P., & Schneider, B. (2008). Employee attributions of the “why” of HR practices: Their effects on employee attitudes and behaviors, and
customer satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 61, 503–545.
Ogbonnaya, C., & Messersmith, J. (2019). Employee performance, well-being, and differential effects of human resource management subdimensions: Mutual gains or
conflicting outcomes? Human Resource Management Journal, 29, 509–526.
Olafsen, A. H., Halvari, H., Forest, J., & Deci, E. L. (2015). Show them the money? The role of pay, managerial need support, and justice in a self-determination theory
model of intrinsic work motivation. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 56, 447–457.
Ong, A. D., & Bergeman, C. S. (2004). The complexity of emotions in later life. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 59B, 117–122.
Ostroff, C. (1992). The relationship between satisfaction, attitudes, and performance: An organizational level analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 963–974.
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,
196–214.
Paauwe, J., Wright, P., & Guest, D. (2013). In J. Paauwe, D. E. Guest, & P. M. Wright (Eds.), HRM & performance: Achievements & challenges (pp. 1–13). West Sussex,
UK: Wiley.
Park, G., Spitzmuller, M., & DeShon, R. P. (2013). Advancing our understanding of team motivation: Integrating conceptual approaches and content areas. Journal of
Management, 39, 1339–1379.
Patel, P. C., Messersmith, J. G., & Lepak, D. P. (2013). Walking the tightrope: An assessment of the relationship between high-performance work systems and
organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 1420–1442.
Peccei, R., & Van De Voorde, K. (2019). Human resource management – Well-being – Performance research revisited: Past, present, and future. Human Resource
Management Journal, 29, 539–563.
Peccei, R., Van De Voorde, K., & Veldhoven, 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. 15–45). West Sussex, UK: Wiley.
Peterson, C., & Chang, E. C. (2003). Optimism and flourishing. In C. L. M. Keyes, & J. Haidt (Eds.), Flourishing: Positive psychology and the life well-lived (pp. 55–79).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Pfeffer, J. (1977). The ambiguity of leadership. Academy of Management Review, 2, 104–112.
Posthuma, R. A., Campion, M. C., Masimova, M., & Campion, M. A. (2013). A high performance work practices taxonomy: Integrating the literature and directing
future research. Journal of Management, 39, 1184–1220.
Rees, C., Alfes, K., & Gatenby, M. (2013). Employee voice and engagement: connections and consequences. The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
24, 2780–2798.
Rogers, E. W., & Wright, P. M. (1998). Measuring organizational performance in strategic human resource management: Problems, prospects, and performance
information markets. Human Resource Management Review, 8, 311–331.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52,
141–166.
Saks, A. M. (2021). Caring human resources management and employee engagement. Human Resource Management Review.
Saks, A. M., & Gruman, J. A. (2017a). Implications of positive organizational behavior and psychological capital for learning and training effectiveness. In K. G. Brown
(Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of workplace training and employee development (pp. 441–470). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Saks, A. M., & Gruman, J. A. (2017b). Human resource management and employee engagement. In P. Sparrow, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), A research agenda for human
resource management (pp. 95–113). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Salanova, M., Bakker, A. B., & Llorens, S. (2006). Flow at work: Evidence for an upward spiral of personal and organizational resources. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7,
1–22.
Salas-Vallina, A., Algere, J., & López-Cabrales, A. (2020). The challenge of increasing employees’ well-being and performance: How human resource management
practices and engaging leadership work together toward reaching this goal. Human Resource Management, 60, 333–347.

10
J.A. Gruman and M.-H. Budworth Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxx

Schneider, B., & Bowen, D. E. (1993). The service organization: Human resources management is crucial. Organizational Dynamics, 21, 39–52.
Seligman, M. E. P. (1999). The President’s address. American Psychologist, 54, 559–562.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 5–14.
Shahbaz, W., & Parker, J. (2021). Workplace mindfulness: an integrative review of antecedents, mediators, and moderators. Human Resource Management Review.
Shantz, A., Arevshatian, L., Alfes, K., & Bailey, C. (2016). The effect of HRM attributions on emotional exhaustion and the mediating effect of job involvement and
work overload. Human Resource Management Journal, 26, 172–191.
Shin, D., & Konrad, A. M. (2017). Causality between high-performance work systems and organizational performance. Journal of Management, 43, 973–997.
Shiota, M. N., Campos, B., Oveis, C., Hertenstein, M. J., Simon-Thomas, E., & Keltner, D. (2017). Beyond happiness: Building a science of discrete positive emotions.
American Psychologist, 72, 617–643.
Spreitzer, G., Myers, C. G., Kopelman, S., & Mayer, D. M. (2021). The conceptual and empirical value of a positive lens: An invitation to organizational scholars to
develop novel research questions. Academy of Management Perspectives, 35, 517–534.
Spreitzer, G. M., & Cameron, K. C. (2012). A path forward: Assessing progress and exploring core questions for the future of positive organizational scholarship. In
K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 1034–1048). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-
Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Stajkovic, A. D., Lee, D., & Nyberg, A. J. (2009). Collective efficacy, group potency, and group performance: Meta-analyses of their relationships, and test of a
mediation model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 814–828.
Steffensen, D. S., Jr., Ellen, B. P. I. I. I., Wang, G., & Ferris, G. R. (2019). Putting the “management” back in human resource management: A review and agenda for
future research. Journal of Management, 45, 2387–2418.
Stephens, J. P., Heaphy, E., & Dutton, J. E. (2012). High-quality connections. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship:
Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 385–399). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Su, Z., Wright, P. M., & Ulrich, M. D. (2018). Going beyond the SHRM paradigm: Examining four approaches to governing employees. Journal of Management, 44,
1598–1619.
Taylor, E. (2001). Positive psychology and humanistic psychology: A reply to Seilgman. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 41, 13–29.
Van de Voorde, K., & Beijer, S. (2015). The role of employee HR attributions in the relationship between high-performance work systems and employee outcomes.
Human Resource Management Journal, 25, 62–78.
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, 391–407.
van Woerkom, M., Meyers, M. C., & Bakker, A. (2020). Considering strengths use in organizations as a multilevel construct. Human Resource Management Review.
Walsh, M. M., & Arnold, K. A. (2020). The bright and dark sides of employee mindfulness: Leadership style and employee well-being. Stress and Health, 36, 287–298.
Walsh, R. (2015). What is wisdom? Cross-cultural and cross-disciplinary syntheses. Review of General Psychology, 19, 278–293.
Warr, P. (2007). Work, happiness, and unhappiness. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Weigl, M., Hornung, S., Parker, S. K., Petru, R., Glaser, J., & Angerer, P. (2010). Work engagement accumulation of task, social, and personal resources: A three-wave
structural equation model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77, 140–153.
White, Marla, L., Henderson, D. F., Smith, S. G., & Bell, M. P. (2021). A new look at an old problem: A positive psychology lens on discrimination – Identity builders
and work-related outcomes. Human Resource Management Review.
Wright, P. M., Gardner, T. M., Moynihan, L. M., & Allen, M. (2005). The relationship between practices and firm performance: Examining causal order. Personnel
Psychology, 58, 409–446.
Wright, P. M., & Ulrich, M. D. (2017). A road well traveled: The past, present, and future journey of strategic human resource management. Annual Review of
Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 45–65.
Wright, T. A. (2014). Putting your best “face” forward: The role of emotion-based well-being in organizational research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35,
1153–1168.
Wright, T. A., & Huang, C. (2012). The many benefits of employee well-being in organizational research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 1188–1192.
Xanthoploulou, D., Daniels, K., & Sanz-Vergel, I. (2020). The temporal perspective on well-being at work: Lessons learned and future trends. In Y. Griep, &
S. D. Hansen (Eds.), Handbook on the temporal dynamics of organizational behavior (pp. 290–303). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2012). A diary study on the happy worker: How job resources relate to positive emotions and
personal resources. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 21, 489–517.
Youssef, C. M., & Luthans, F. (2013). Managing psychological capital in organizations: Cognitive, affective, conative, and social mechanisms of happiness. In
S. A. David, I. Boniwell, & A. Conley Ayers (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of happiness (pp. 751–766). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Zapf, D., Dormann, C., & Frese, M. (1996). Longitudinal studies in organizational stress research: A review of the literature with reference to methodological issues.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1, 145–169.

11