Conceptual and Theoretical Perspectives on the Human Resource Management–Leadership–Well‐Being Link: Reviewing 20 Years of Empirical Research

Summary

This literature review synthesises two decades of empirical work on how human resource management (HRM) and leadership interact to influence employee well‑being. The authors map the dominant theoretical lenses (notably social exchange and job resource theories), chart how researchers conceptualise the HRM–leadership–well‑being link (parallel effects, moderation, mediation), and trace temporal shifts in theory and emphasis.

Key findings: the field largely frames HRM and leadership through an exchange perspective, frequently combining social exchange theory with other frameworks; there’s a visible move towards theories that place the employee at the centre (for example, motivational theories such as self‑determination). Conceptualisations are shifting from direct to more indirect models — leadership and HRM increasingly seen as enabling each other rather than acting in isolation. The review highlights methodological and conceptual gaps and offers directions for future research.

Key Points

The review covers 20 years of empirical studies linking HRM, leadership and employee well‑being.
Social exchange theory dominates, often combined with job resources and HRM system perspectives.
There is a shift towards employee‑centred motivational theories (eg self‑determination) and multilevel thinking.
Contemporary studies increasingly model HRM and leadership as enabling each other (mediation/moderation, indirect effects) rather than only having parallel direct effects.
The authors call for more research on mechanisms, longitudinal and multisource designs, contextual boundary conditions and clearer theorisation of implementation and leader as HR sense‑giver roles.

Context and relevance

The review is important for HR academics and practitioners who want a concise map of theoretical progress and blind spots in HRM–leadership–well‑being research. It places current debates (mutual gains vs critical perspectives, implementation, telework and digital HRM) in a broader theoretical timeline and helps identify where robust causal inference and richer theory development are most needed.

Why should I read this?

Short answer: if you care about designing people practices or studying how leaders actually shape staff well‑being, this piece saves you hours. It cuts through the noise, shows which theories keep recurring, points to where results are fragile, and tells you the smart next steps for research or practice — all in one place. Totally worth a read if you want evidence‑led, actionable insight on HR and leadership that actually impacts well‑being.