HRM: Contributing to Well-being or Ill-being at Work?

If you were to take the people out of an organisationthe measurement of employee wellbeing. Ironically they
you would be left with some stock and machinery thatfind that a health and wellbeing index is higher on the
would be of little value, and possibly some property. It isagenda of the financial and managing directors' than it
the people that make an organisation function, sois for the HR director.The current UK Labour
having the people functioning to the best of their abilityGovernment is also on the health and wellbeing
must surely be best for an organisation. Yet much ofbandwagon with its current white paper 'Choosing
what is undertaken in the field of HRM actually servesHealth' devoting a whole chapter to workplace health
to detract from people functioning at their best.and wellbeing. They claim that stress-related conditions
Evidence from studies of wellbeing in the workplaceand musculoskeletal disorders are now the
reveal some interesting findings that raise questions ascommonest reported causes of work-related sickness
to whether the current focus of HRM will adapt to theabsence, and that 3.74 million workers clock up more
evolving future workplace, or whether it will need to bethan the 48 hour limit under the Working Time
redrawn along different lines, focussing on maintainingDirective, which is 423,000 more than in 1992 when
wellbeing above all else in the workplace to enablethere was no long hours protection.Work in this area
people to be successful for their organisations.Much ofby the CIPD and The Tomorrow Project has identified
the literature on wellbeing focuses on work-life balancewhat appear to be four key characteristics that
(WLB) as potentially the most important element thatcontribute to an individual's wellbeing: autonomy,
affects people and their behaviour at work. Hence it isrelationships, the physical environment and the
the most high profile and most highly legislated area inindividual's disposition. This remodels HRM away from
consideration. However, the evidence in this area isthe traditional relations, resourcing, development and
mixed and far from conclusive.While a measure ofreward model which is functional and outcome based,
organisational health is being heralded by the likes ofto one where the individual becomes the central
Henderson Fund Management to allow investors toconcern. Does the individual have the appropriate level
make more informed decisions about the companiesof autonomy to allow them to function best? Are the
they are investing in, quite how this will be calculated, orsignificant relationships in their work enhancing rather
what its value will be are yet to be determined. Citythan detracting from their performance? Is the physical
analysts already take a keen interest in voluntary staffenvironment contributing to their productivity, or is it
turnover rates, especially in service/consultingmaking them sick? How can the work environment be
businesses where valuation is contingent on the abilitymanaged to ensure that it is a positive experience for
of a business to scale quickly and in high growthpeople, contributing to a positive rather than negative
periods. They see voluntary turnover as a good butdisposition? Arguably any activity which does not
crude indicator of employee satisfaction andcontribute to any of these four is not contributing to the
engagement. They also look to indices such as Gallupsuccess of the individual, and hence the success of
Q12 scores that measure engagement. Otherthe organisation, and the organisation should therefore
measures are emerging in the marketplace. Vielife, forquestion abandoning them. If you were to ask these
example, has a range of organisational health auditsquestions with regard to the policies and practices that
both at the whole organisation and individual employeeHRM currently employs, it would be interesting to see
level, and aim to develop the standardised metric forhow many passed the test and remained.