2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.0 Introduction

There are two parts to this literature review. The first part will focus on the importance of
employee well-being as well as providing an overview of studies on employee well-being and
how organisations often support employee well-being. The second part will explore stress
and burnout and then will evaluate several theoretical models suggested by academics as
contributions towards a better understanding of the area.

2.1 The importance of employee well-being

The relationship between a person’s work, their health/well-being and performance is well
documented (Juniper, 2011; McLennan, 2017). Bakker and Demerouti (2018) state that
knowledge of well-being at work derives from thousands of studies among various
stakeholders in organisational life including employees, their supervisors, HR managers, work
teams and clients. Work is an important context for studying the well-being of individuals
because adults spend at least one third of their waking hours at work and it can provide
different sources which impact on mental health, optimal social functioning and
performances as well as taking up a large percentage of an employee’s time and effort (Harter,
Schmidt, & Keyes, 2003; Kalliath and Kalliath, 2012; Slemp and Vella Brodrick, 2014; Kun,
Balogh and Krasz, 2017; Sivapragasm and Raya, 2018). It is therefore not something that can
be overlooked and as explained by Wright and Huang (2012), Dodge, Daly, Huyton and
Sanders (2012) and Spence (2015) is an issue of global significance.

The World Health Organisation (2005) suggested that organisations should promote
employee well-being as part of good corporate practice and suggested it had a significant
impact on wider society (Sutton, Evans, Davies and Lawson, 2016). As such employee well-
being has become increasingly central to many HRM debates as employment continues to
change and become more stressful and dangerous for many (Baptiste, 2008; Spence, 2015;
Vakkayil, Torre and Giangreco, 2017).

27
If decision makers do not acknowledge the area it will continue to lead to disruption in the
workplace (Bennett, Weaver, Senft and Neeper, 2017).

A recent definition of employee well-being is suggested in Guest (2017), and this is what
was used to sense meaning of the term for the purpose of this research. Guest (2017)
suggests it involves the overall quality of how an employee experiences and functions at
work. It is also common for employee well-being to be considered as subjective and a multi-
dimensional state that encompasses many elements such as physical, material, social,
emotional, developmental and activity dimensions (Juniper, 2011). For this reason, scholars
have formed several dimensions to consider when measuring an employee’s well-being.
Grant, Christianson and Price (2007) and Guest (2017) suggest these can generally fall into
three areas which are psychological, physical and social.

Psychological well-being is hard to define clearly because the meaning often varies according
to time, place, and people (Kim and Hyun, 2021). It can be considered as a participatory life
in which an individual seeks the true meaning of life, possesses the ability to cope with
difficulties and strives to meet inner beliefs (Kim and Hyun, 2021).

Physical well-being is often associated with the impact an employee’s job could have on them
both physically and mentally and links well with studies around illnesses experienced through
employment or the impact of stress, anxiety, and work exhaustion in the workplace. It can
be considered as the condition of an individual’s body and mind typically indicating a state
free from illness, pain, and injury (Baruah and Patrick, 2014). Also, can be linked with ‘need
for recovery’ linked to an indicator associated with workplace stress (Luu, 2019).

Social well-being defined by Keyes (1998) as the quality of an individual or the employee’s
relationship with other people and communities. This aspect of well-being is often linked with
trust, social support, reciprocity, leader-member exchange, cooperation, coordination, and
integration (Appelbaum, Bailey, Berg and Kalleberg, 2000; Adler & Kwon, 2002).

28
From the many suggestions there are no singular or precise definitions as to what employee
well-being is and the concept can have differing meanings dependent on research purpose,
context, focus and discipline (Herttuala, Kokkinen and Konu, 2020). Occupations can vary and
it is implausible to take a ‘one size fits all’ approach when considering a person’s employment
and their well-being at work (Juniper, 2011). This is due to the diversification of work
experiences and exposures various occupations can have (Juniper, 2011; Romppanen and
Laitila, 2017).

2.2 Whose responsibility is well-being?

The use of many HR practices is considered as a support tool to be the means in which
employee’s perceptions, attitudes, and sense of well-being in the workplace is shaped (Peccei
2004; Van De Voorde, Paauwe and Van Veldhoven 2012; Alfes, Truss, Soane and Gatenby
2013; Guest 2017; Luu 2019). Appelbaum (2002) and Boxall and Purcell (2008) claim that
there was a need for more research to explore how the use of HR practices impacted on areas
like employee well-being and performance as it is often difficult to draw conclusions on this.
Some academics argue that HR practices and their implementation does not always work
favourably for employees, and some can trigger higher levels of stress, burnout, exhaustion,
and work intensification, which are elements that negatively affect employee physical well-
being (Grant et al., 2007; Alfes, Shantz and Truss 2012; Jackson, Schuler and Jiang 2014; Pawar
2016; Van De Voorde et al., 2012). Ender-Büyükbay, Ünler, and Bozbura (2017) hold the view
that HR practices are ultimately not designed to promote well-being but primarily to ensure
performance from employees.

When organisations adopt well-being and preventative practices the impact of these can be
influenced by many factors such as the upbringing of leaders and their personalities, the
leader’s ability to articulate employee value proposition, local business and public health
needs, industry norms as well as historical and economic contexts (Bennett, Weaver, Senft
and Neeper 2017). Many organisations in varied sectors recognise the benefits from
introducing health and well-being policies in the workplace (McLennan 2017; Pagan-Castano,
Moreno and Rojo 2020).

29
The CIPD in 2010 stated that nearly half of the organisations which took part in their absence
management survey had employee well-being strategies in place (Juniper, 2011). HR policies
are also used to ensure there is good employment practice, effective returns to work and
rehabilitation for those that need it (McLennan, 2017). They also ensure organisations adhere
to employment law including paying workers the minimum wage, overtime, providing work
breaks, health insurance and leave for medical purposes. This shows a certain level of
proactive commitment to supporting employee well-being (Department for Work and
Pensions, 2006). Typical initiatives organisations may offer include use of family friendly
policies to help employees address work life conflict better as this has grown as an issue for
many employees in recent years. These are said to improve employee productivity and help
combat high turnover rates (McLennan 2017).

2.3 Studies and approaches to employee well-being

Many early studies in HRM research tend to focus on organisational outcomes around HR and
it’s link up with employee performance (Sivapragasam and Raya, 2018). More recently
however there has been recognition around understanding employee centred outcomes of
HRM and some studies have paid particular attention to this and the trade-off which exists
between HR, employee performance and employee well-being (e.g. Guest, 2002; Renwick,
2003a; Lawson, Noblet and Rodwell, 2009; Fisher, 2010; Jiang, Lepak, Hu and Baer 2012; Van
de Voorde and Beijer, 2015; Ilies, Aw and Pluut, 2015; Latorre, Guest, Ramos and Gracia, 2016;
Kowalski and Loretto, 2017; Khoreva and Wechtler, 2018).

Harter, Schmidt and Keyes (2003) detail that research can fall into two lines when exploring
employee well-being. The first line is often associated with the study of stress and health
sometimes referred to as person–environment fit. This often argues that employee
performance and quality of life is often hindered by strain (too much challenge) or boredom
(too little challenge). The other line of study is often linked with employee’s quality of life and
performance which originates with the behavioural, cognitive and health benefits of positive
feelings and positive perceptions.

30
With this it is considered that with the presence of positive emotional states and positive
appraisals of the employee and his or her relationship in the workplace will all determine
employee’s performance and quality of life (Harter, Schmidt and Keyes, 2003).

Guest (2017) has been one of the key writers who have pressed for more attention towards
employee well-being. Guest’s earlier work in (2002) promoted the need for building in the
employee more within studies. Two ways of doing so were suggested. The first method was
by entering a HRM performance equation by measuring the effects of employee satisfaction
and well-being on organisational performance and the second through assessing the impact
of particular HR practices on employee perceptions of their own well-being (Deery, Iverson
and Walsh, 2002). By (2017) Guest found that organisations were still compromising the
employee over organisational success and performance and it is considered that this may be
something that will continue as we head towards the future.

Guest (2017) suggested an analytical framework which seeks to promote the ‘mutual gains’
approach to establishing a positive employment relationship with well-being. This framework
was used as a template for some key informant research gathering in the initial stages of data
collection (see Methodology section). Guest (2017) stated that it is becoming necessary to
try to adopt a pluralistic perspective linked to mutual gains which works to accommodate
both employers and employees. He identifies a set of five HR practices which he considers
are not practices typically linked to employee performance but have more of a focus on
instilling employee well-being and positive working relationships. These can be seen here in
figure (2).

31
Figure (2): Guest (2017) Analytical Framework

Investing in employees • Recruitment and Selection

• Training and Development
• Mentoring and Career support

Providing engaging work • Job designed to provide autonomy

and challenge
• Information provision and feedback
• Skill utilisation

Positive social and physical environment • Health and Safety

• Equal opportunities and diversity
management
• Zero tolerance for bullying and
harassment
• Required and optional social
interaction
• Fair collective rewards/high basic
pay
• Employment security/employability

Voice • Two-way communication

• Employee surveys
• Collective representation

Organisational support • Participative/supportive

management
• Involvement climate/practices
• Flexible and family friendly work
arrangements
• Developmental performance
management

Guest (2017) acknowledges that these practices are offered as a basis for research and is open
to these being confirmed, extended or amended in future studies. He also discusses how they
can vary in relation to context and notes that some practices may be more salient than others.
Guest (2017) acknowledges that organisational size, competitive environments, and non-
work well-being of individuals can all have an impact on the use of practices.

32
Investment in employees involves the use of organisation’s adoption of resources through
the job demand model, careful use of recruitment and selection, training and development
and support for career activities. This practice can also overlap with the human capital
approach but is aiming to focus more so on the gains associated with employee well-being.
The next set of practices links with providing employees with engaging work. In relation to
additional models this links with elements of Warr’s vitamin model such as opportunities for
control, skill use and variety at work.

Whilst also linking with other elements in Grote and Guest (2017) and in the Job Demands
Resource Model. The third practice links to creating a positive social and physical environment
and cross-links with Grote and Guest’s (2017) model. This can include organisation’s providing
health and safety as a priority, providing opportunities for social interaction at work, zero
tolerance for bullying and harassment, providing equal opportunities and diversity, ensuring
fair rewards, employment security. Guest (2017) outlines that most organisations will claim
that they do all of these things for their employees however it can be questionable and would
not usually be found in a HR – performance related model, hence the inclusion in his
framework. The final practice links to organisational support and practices that can be
adopted to enable this. Methods include active engagement/involvement of employees,
supportive management which essentially could explore the line management relationship
between employees and their line manager. Additional methods under this practice include
use of flexible working and family friendly working arrangements.

Guest (2017) claims that if these five HR practices are investigated and embraced in
organisation’s this could see a higher and better level of employee well-being and
employment relationships. If employee well-being is not addressed through HR practices it is
the general assumption that this will have a negative impact on employee performance as
well as their levels of well-being when at work resulting in burnout, and many other problems
associated with a critical perspective. There has been some level of criticism towards the
mutual gain perspective. In recent years many organisations have been recovering from the
global economic crisis of (2008) and now Covid 19 crisis. This has left many workplaces as
unstable environments with the main priority being recovery and survival.

33
Many organisations have threatened employee well-being by intensifying jobs and putting
restrictions on resources, similar to what is experienced with a critical perspective (Sinclair,
Sears, Probst and Zajack 2010; Demerouti, den Heuvel, Xanthopoulou, Dubelt and Gordan
2017). Ehrnrooth and Bjorkman (2012) have also criticised the mutual perspective suggesting
it is too simplistic and is an idealistic view of win-win.

Zhang, Fan and Zhu (2014) present a more balanced view suggesting that it is quite possible
for HR to positively influence an employee’s commitment and satisfaction levels but also
negatively influence their stress levels due to work intensification.
Ultimately organisations can avoid considerable costs if they do manage employee well-being
effectively and in a way that promotes it amongst their employees. It is also acknowledged
that by doing so this can result in happier and healthier employees who may be more
innovative, productive and can relate better with customers (Anderson, Llopis and Cooper,
2011).

2.4 Stress/burnout

One of the most common indicators of poor employee well-being is stress/burnout. Stress is
defined as any situation or circumstance that requires behavioural adjustment (Lazarus, 2000).
It can occur when an individual “appraises something as a source of harm, challenge, threat
or loss and it is a pervasive force that can affect many areas of an employee’s work life as well
as being hazardous to an individual’s mental and physical health” (Leon and Halbesleben,
2013, p.66). Stress can describe how a body reacts to different unfavourable environmental
conditions and these can be considered as stressors (Selye, 1956). Stress should not be
considered as totally undesirable as some level of stress is needed at times to help people
achieve goals or propel them through a challenging situation (Selye, 1956). There are two
ways to consider stress. Positive stress is considered as ‘eustress’ and can result through birth
of a new child, marriage, buying a home etc which are processes or challenges people need
to go through to get some result. The other type of stress is attached in a negative way and
can result in ‘distress’ through a person being put under unpleasant pressure to perform,
major frustrations or catastrophic events occurring (Colligan and Higgins, 2006).

34
The more life stress events a person experiences the more one can expect to see a drop or
decline in their overall level of health and well-being, and this can lead to severe
stress/burnout, anxiety and depressive disorders (Colligan and Higgins 2006). Workplace
stress, occupational stress, organisational stress or stress on the job are all expressions which
are often used to describe stress experienced by employed people (Lukic and Lazarevic, 2018).
Workplace stress is described as “the change in one’s physical or mental state in response to
workplaces that pose an appraised challenge or threat to that employee.” (Colligan and
Higgins, 2006, p. 89).

Organisations need to have awareness of stress and how to effectively manage it within the
workforce as excessive amounts of stress on employees can lead to decreased physical and
mental health and increase turnover, absenteeism, and employee compensation claims (Leon
and Halbesleben, 2013). There are a range of factors employees can be exposed to which can
lead to and create workplace stress (Colligan and Higgins 2006). These can include a toxic
work environment, negative workload, isolation, types of hours worked, role conflict, role
ambiguity, lack of autonomy, career development, barriers, difficult working relationships,
managerial bullying/harassment, and organisational climate. For an employee to experience
chronic stress they would be regularly exposed to organisational stressors sometimes
considered as the ‘niggling aspects of the work environment’ that pervade organisations
because of the structural arrangements and social life within them (Shane, 2010; Jachens,
Houdmont and Thomas, 2018).

If a person is struggling with stress, it can intensify burnout but is not the reason behind it.
Stress can be experienced through working long hours, shift work or general work loading but
it may not lead to burnout. Burnout is much more severe and directly attributed to work
contexts as described by Maslach, Schaufeli and Leiter (2001). Defining job burnout poses
challenge for science and practice and the topic is something that grabs the attention of
Doctors of Social and Occupational medicine (Weber and Reinhard, 2000). Burnout can
involve the state of physical, emotional and mental exhaustion in employees who work with
people in emotionally demanding situations (Maslach, 1982; Maslach, Schaufeli and Leiter,
2001; Ho, Sing, Fong, Auyeung, Law, Lee and Ng, 2015).

35
It can be considered as a condition of exhaustion, cynicism and reduced professional efficacy
(Maslach, 1982; Maslach, Schaufeli and Leiter, 2001; Ho et al, 2015). It can affect every aspect
of an individual’s functioning (Lacovides, Fountoulakis, Kaprinis, and Kaprinis, 2003; Ahola
and Hakanen, 2007).

Burnout can present in many ways in employees, and it is a combination of factors which
can include physical, psychological, and behavioural symptoms (Fanjoy, Harriman and
Demik, 2010). A common factor associated with burnout from Maslach’s (1982) notion is
exhaustion. This links with work overload (Murray-Gibbons and Gibbons, 2007), role
conflict, (Kuruüzüm, Anafarta, and Irmak, 2008), unrealistic personal expectations, excessive
interpersonal interactions, and the lack of effective stress coping mechanisms (Zopiatis and
Constanti, 2010). The second factor which can be associated with burnout is
depersonalisation. This is linked with, the causes of workplace stress (Perrewe, Fernandez
and Morton, 1993), excessive interpersonal interaction. (Maslach, 1982), and the nature of
job responsibilities e.g., handling customer complaints or other difficult situations (Patton
and Goddard, 2003). The third factor is associated with diminished personal
accomplishment. This is linked with lack of recognition and/or positive feedback (Jackson
and Schuler, 1983), the feeling of inadequacy and/or incompetence (Janssen, Schaufelioe
and Houkes, 1999), the provision of pseudo-authority (Zopiatis and Constanti, 2005). Gill,
Flaschner and Schachar (2006) also suggest that diminished personal accomplishment can
be caused by the unrealistic expectations at work and poor management quality. Others
state it can link with limited opportunities to participate in decision making (Miller, Zook and
Ellis, 1989), and the discrepancy between employee’s contributions and organizational
rewards and the feeling of being undervalued (Murray- Gibbons and Gibbons, 2007).

There are many differing suggestions about what can contribute to burnout however some
suggest that work – life balance is at the centre of the burnout crisis (Buscarini, Gecse and
Tiniakos, 2020). The six key drivers contributing to work life balance struggles are detailed in
the ‘areas of work life’ model. These are workload, control, reward, community, fairness,
and values (Buscarini, Gecse and Tiniakos, 2020).

36
Alongside this there are a range of personal and organisational conditions which can cause
burnout, and these are detailed in figure (3).

Figure (3): Exploring Personal and Organisational Conditions

Causes Psychological Reactions Consequences

Organisational conditions Emotional exhaustion Withdrawal
Lack of rewards
Lack of control
Lack of clarity Depersonalisation Interpersonal friction
Lack of support Declining performance
Personal Conditions Low personal accomplishment
Idealistic expectations Family problems
Personal responsibility Health suffers

Much of burnout can be created by situational factors connected to people’s work. These
can include characteristics of work, the profession, and the organisation (Boštjančič and
Koračin, 2014). Organisational conditions which can contribute to burnout include things
such as a lack of rewards, excessive and out of date policies and procedures, fast paced jobs,
and close supervision, all of which can undermine an employee’s feeling of control (Jackson
and Schuler, 1983). Having a lack of clear-cut expectations and job responsibilities
combined with conflict at work can also drain productivity and if also being presented with a
lack of support from colleagues/managers it can prevent the employee(s) experiencing
burnout with a lack of information (Jackson and Schuler, 1983). These conditions can be
behind employee burnout however they can also combine with personal conditions to the
individual which they may also be struggling with and create a severe result.

37
Some personal conditions include;

Idealistic expectations – where the individual may have unrealistic expectations with how
the organisation should work and when combined with the actual realities of the
organisation it can cause ‘reality shock.’ An employee may expect to receive rewards for
their work, have friendly and understanding colleagues or adequate resources to get the job
done when in reality they don’t get any.

Idealistic job and career goals – When organisational conditions affect performance it can
become bothersome. If an employee feels that they can do everything they can become a
natural target for burnout. Employees may do well in terms of standards but by their own
they may feel like a failure if they don’t particularly hit a particular goal by a particular age.

Personal Responsibility for Low Personal Accomplishment - employees who experience

feelings of low personal accomplishment can feel personally responsible for their failures
when this should not be the case at all in many cases.

Employees experience burnout in varied ways. This is often a process where initially the
employee can become exhausted (Boštjančič and Koračin, 2014). The person may typically
work very little, denies being chronically fatigued and tries to overcome it. In the second
stage which can be years later the employee may still feel extremely exhausted, guilty, and
stuck in their own way of working/living and establishing and maintaining relationships.
By the final stage they suffer with adrenal burnout syndrome which can present strong
feelings of depression and anxiety (Boštjančič and Koračin, 2014). When it is also
experienced in team settings it can become contagious and spread from one member to
another which has a catastrophic impact of team morale, motivation, and productivity
(Bakker & Schaufeli, 2000; Buunk, Ybema, Van der Zee, Schaufeli, & Gibbons, 2001; Bakker,
Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2003, Leiter & Maslach, 2005; Maslach and Leiter, 2008 and
Boštjančič and Koračin, 2014).

38
If an employee experiences burnout the employer may suggest it is the result of the
employee’s weakness in character or contributing factors in their personal domain and it
has nothing to do with the toxicity of the organisational culture and environment (Drayton,
2021). By adopting this attitude, it adds to distress in the individual who believes they are
weak as well as suffering with burnout, yet the organisation resolves themselves of any
blame, guilt or address any need for change (Drayton, 2021).

A major study that explored burnout was carried out in Denmark and is known as the PUMA
study. The Danish acronym stands for Project on Burnout, Motivation and Job Satisfaction
and was started in 1997. It ran over a five-year period to study burnout in human service
work (Borritz, Rugulies, Bjorner, Villadsen, Mikkelsen and Kristensen, 2006). This study
occurred as the unions representing the human service workers discovered a rise in long-
term sick leave and early retirement amongst its members and wanted to explore this
(Borritz, Rugulies, Bjorner, Villadsen, Mikkelsen and Kristensen, 2006). The theoretical
framework of PUMA in terms of determinants and consequences of burnout can be seen in
figure (4).

39