This meta-analysis investigates the relationship between Human Resource Management (HRM) systems and employee well-being, focusing on high-performance work systems (HPWS), high-involvement work systems (HIWS), and other similar HRM bundles. We contrast the "mutual gains perspective," which posits that HRM systems benefit both organizational performance and employee well-being, and the "conflicting outcomes perspective," which suggests that HRM systems prioritize organizational goals over employees’ well-being. We theorize that organizations value well-being that is work-related (e.g., job satisfaction) while employees value ell-being that is general (e.g., life satisfaction). Further, we show that the tendency to treat positive well-being (e.g., satisfaction) and negative well-being (e.g., burnout) as interchangeable is mudding the understanding of the HRM systems-well-being relationship. We develop a framework to analyze the differential impact of performance-driven versus well-being-centric HRM systems on well-being and use meta-analysis techniques to test their model. The findings indicate that HRM systems are more strongly related to work-related and positive well-being than to non-work-related and negative well-being. Additionally, post-hoc analyses reveal that females benefit less from HRM systems in terms of non-work-related and negative well-being compared to males, highlighting gender inequalities in well-being outcomes. This study contributes to the understanding of the complex relationship between HRM systems and employee well-being and offers practical implications for organizations aiming to optimize both performance and well-being.
