Content uploaded by Yejun John Zhang
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Yejun John Zhang on Mar 02, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
High commitment work systems and employee well-being: The
roles of workplace friendship and task interdependence
Yejun Zhang
1
| Jian-Min (James) Sun
2
| Margaret A. Shaffer
3
| Cai-Hui (Veronica) Lin
4
1
Department of Management, Robert
C. Vackar College of Business and
Entrepreneurship, University of Texas Rio
Grande Valley, Edinburg, Texas, USA
2
School of Labor and Human Resources,
Renmin University of China, Beijing, China
3
Division of Management and International
Business, Michael F. Price College of Business,
University of Oklahoma, Norman,
Oklahoma, USA
4
UQ Business School, The University of
Queensland, Saint Lucia, Queensland, Australia
Correspondence
Jian-Min (James) Sun, School of Labor and
Human Resources, Renmin University of
China, Beijing, China.
Email: chinajms@126.com
Funding information
Jian-Min (James) Sun's work on this article was
supported in part by National Natural Science
Foundation of China, Grant/Award Number:
71272158
Abstract
Human resource (HR) practices are potent in shaping workplace social relationships,
which play a crucial role in employees' well-being. While the role of formal relation-
ships (i.e., relationships based on prescribed work roles) has received relatively more
research attention, little is known about the nexus between HR practices, informal
relationships at work and employee well-being. Drawing on social interdependence
theory, we conducted two studies to investigate how high commitment work systems
(HCWS) affect employee well-being through workplace friendship, beyond the
effects of formal interpersonal relationships. In Study 1, using time-lagged data from
a sample of 253 full-time employees, we found that workplace friendship, a type of
informal relationship at work, mediated the relationship between HCWS and
employee well-being. In addition, task interdependence strengthened the relationship
between HCWS and workplace friendship as well as the indirect effect of HCWS on
employee well-being. In Study 2, we replicated these findings and extended them to
multiple forms of well-being using multilevel data collected at three time points from
310 employees in 61 organizations. Theoretical and practical implications of the find-
ings as well as future research directions are discussed.
KEYWORDS
high commitment work systems, social interdependence theory, task interdependence, well-
being, workplace friendship
As organizations increasingly rely on people to gain and maintain com-
petitive advantage, human resources (HRs) have become pivotal to
organizational survival and success (Jackson et al., 2014; Jiang
et al., 2012; Wright & Ulrich, 2017). Consistent with its practical
importance, research on human resource management (HRM) has
mainly focused on the relationship between HRM and organizational
performance (Becker & Gerhart, 1996; Delaney & Huselid, 1996;
Huselid, 1995; see Jiang et al., 2012 for a meta-analytic review). Aside
from HRM's impact on organizational outcomes, increasing research
attention has been directed to employee-centered outcomes, in par-
ticular employee well-being (Guest, 2017; Jiang & Messersmith, 2018;
Van De Voorde et al., 2012). Employees are an important stakeholder
of the organization, and their well-being, whether it contributes to
organizational performance or not, is important in its own right
(Cooper et al., 2019; Jackson et al., 2014; Peccei, 2004; Peccei & Van
De Voorde, 2019b). Investigations of the relationship between HRM
and employee well-being (Fan et al., 2014; Heffernan &
Dundon, 2016; Ho & Kuvaas, 2020; Korff et al., 2017a; Okay-
Somerville & Scholarios, 2019; Wood & de Menezes, 2011; Zhang
et al., 2013) generally indicate that through proper HR systems, orga-
nizations can influence employee well-being (Guest, 2017; Jensen
et al., 2013; Kowalski & Loretto, 2017).
However, research on the relationship between HRM and
employee well-being has not always been conclusive (Grant
et al., 2007; Van De Voorde et al., 2012). Some studies have found
that HRM is positively related to employee well-being
(Appelbaum, 2002; Appelbaum et al., 2000). For example, in a study
of Chinese healthcare workers, Fan et al. (2014) revealed that high
DOI: 10.1002/hrm.22093
Hum Resour Manage. 2021;1–23. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hrm © 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC. 1
performance work systems (HPWS) were effective in enhancing
employees' well-being and reducing their burnout. Further, using data
from a national survey in the United Kingdom, Okay-Somerville and
Scholarios (2019) reported that skills-oriented HR systems were posi-
tively associated with employees' job satisfaction and affective well-
being. In contrast, other studies have revealed a potential “dark side”
of HR systems. In a sample of government workers from Wales,
Jensen et al. (2013) found that HPWS was associated with employees'
anxiety and role overload, particularly when job control was low. In
addition, some studies have suggested a mix of both positive and neg-
ative consequences. Heffernan and Dundon (2016) found that while
HPWS practices were associated with a higher level of job satisfac-
tion, they also led to employees' increased work pressure. Van De
Voorde et al. (2016) theorized and reported that while
empowerment-focused HRM provided task-related resources that
enhanced employees' work engagement, it also created job demands
that hindered their work engagement. Moreover, some scholars have
theoretically elaborated on the negative effects of HPWS on
employees (Han et al., 2020), but they did not identify the potential
mediating role of social relationships.
Recognizing the mixed research findings indicating that the rela-
tionship between HR systems and employee well-being may be com-
plex, scholars have begun to consider possible intervening
mechanisms and boundary conditions. Drawing on a justice perspec-
tive, Heffernan and Dundon (2016) theorized and found that HRM
enhanced employees' perceptions of distributive, procedural, and
interactional justice, which in turn were associated with their job sat-
isfaction. Using person-environment fit theory, Boon et al. (2011)
reported that person-organization fit and person-job fit mediated the
indirect effects of HPWS practices on employee job satisfaction.
Recently, using signaling theory, Wang et al. (2021) indicated that
HPWS elevated employees' organization-based self-esteem, which
was helpful for reducing their job burnout.
As organizations have become increasingly reliant on teams to
complete tasks (O'Neill & Salas, 2018), work has become more
interdependent and interpersonal relationships are a more pivotal part
of work life (Grant & Parker, 2009). In line with this, some HR systems
also emphasize relational components including teamwork, team-
based appraisal, overarching goals, and information sharing (Xiao &
Björkman, 2006). Recognizing the significant role of positive interper-
sonal relationships at work (Ragins & Dutton, 2007), scholars have
started to probe the HRM-wellbeing link through a relational
approach by suggesting that HR practices could influence formal work
role-prescribed relationships (Gittell et al., 2010; Mossholder
et al., 2011), which might affect employee well-being. However, more
recent research suggests that formal and informal relationships serve
different functions and, thus, may have different influences on indi-
viduals (Colbert et al., 2016; Venkataramani et al., 2013). Furthermore,
Venkataramani et al. (2013) theorized that, compared to work-based
relationships that are required by workflow mandates, voluntary ties
(e.g., friendship) are established based on genuine liking and might be
better predictors of individuals' attitudes (e.g., job satisfaction), attach-
ment, and well-being. Indeed, Colbert et al. (2016) found that among
different types of workplace relationships, friendship was most
strongly associated with positive emotions at work—an important
indicator of individual well-being (Diener et al., 1999).
Expanding on the relational perspective, we consider the role of
workplace friendships rather than formal prescribed work relation-
ships as a linking mechanism between HR systems and employee
well-being. Unlike relationships imposed by formal work roles
(e.g., leader-follower relationships and coworker relationships), work-
place friendships are voluntary and informal in that there are no spe-
cific rituals or binds to guide role expectations (Clark & Reis, 1988;
Sias & Cahill, 1998). The absence of these restrictions is beneficial for
individuals' well-being because it is helpful for developing more inti-
mate relationships between friends (Amichai-Hamburger et al., 2013).
Also, formal relationships are established on social exchange norms,
suggesting that support or reciprocity should be provided based on
the reception of support from the other party; workplace friendships,
however, are formed on communal norms and a commitment to a
common target, indicating that the exchange of support is based on
needs (Hartup & Stevens, 1997). As well-being is essentially deter-
mined by needs satisfaction (Deci et al., 1996), friendship should be
more influential on well-being. Furthermore, while formal relation-
ships are intended to propel employees to contribute to the organiza-
tion as a return of these favorable relational treatments (Anand
et al., 2011), an essential purpose of friendship is to enhance
employee well-being through fulfilling individuals' need to belong
(Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Pillemer & Rothbard, 2018). Therefore,
informal relationships should be especially potent in transmitting the
effect of HR systems on employees' well-being.
To clarify the role of workplace friendship as an intervening force
linking HR systems and employee well-being, we focus on high com-
mitment work systems (HCWS), which consists of “human resource
management practices (such as employee participation, internal pro-
motion, team rewards, profit sharing, extensive training and benefits,
and job security) that signal commitment to the employees”(Xiao &
Tsui, 2007, p. 2). Given that researchers have noted that commitment
systems place their central value on employee well-being (Mossholder
et al., 2011), HCWS represents a variable that is conceptually compat-
ible with our criterion (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1981). Drawing on social
interdependence theory (SIT, Deutsch, 1949, 1962), we argue that
HCWS facilitates employee well-being through establishing promotive
interdependence among employees in the form of workplace
friendships. We also examine the role of task interdependence as a
boundary condition on the relationship between HCWS and
employee well-being. Interdependence can be differentiated between
outcome interdependence and means interdependence (Johnson &
Johnson, 1989, 2005). Outcome interdependence refers to the inter-
connectedness of group outcomes (e.g., output, rewards, feedback),
whereas means interdependence occurs when group members rely
on each other's actions to accomplish their goals (Johnson &
Johnson, 1989). HCWS generates outcome interdependence among
employees by creating shared goals and high commitment to organi-
zations (Arthur, 1994). Task interdependence, which refers to the
extent to which tasks are designed in such a way that coworkers
2ZHANG ET AL.
depend upon one another for access to critical resources and the
workflows require coordinated action (Kiggundu, 1981; Pearce &
Gregersen, 1991), is a type of means interdependence. Research indi-
cates that a fit between outcome and means interdependence could
lead to positive outcomes, whereas a misfit between the two can be
deleterious (Ortiz et al., 1996; Wageman & Baker, 1997). Based on
this, we argue that high task interdependence will interact with
HCWS to enhance the development of workplace friendships and,
consequently, employee well-being. The theoretical model is pres-
ented in Figure 1.
Our study makes several contributions to the literature. First, this
research advances the HR systems literature by examining a comple-
mentary mechanism of informal relationships (i.e., workplace friend-
ship) linking HRM and employee well-being. Second, this research
also contributes to resolving the mixed findings regarding the relation-
ship between HR systems and employee well-being by examining the
boundary condition of a critical job feature, task interdependence.
Third, our study also contributes to workplace friendship research by
expanding its nomological network to account for antecedent, contin-
gent, and outcome variables. Finally, in testing the hypotheses, our
research makes a methodological contribution to the literature by
controlling for other relational mechanisms (leader-member exchange
[LMX], Sparr & Sonnentag, 2008; team-member exchange or TMX,
Schermuly & Meyer, 2016; collective affective commitment, Gong
et al., 2010) between HCWS and well-being and triangulating our
findings by employing different measures of well-being.
1|THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND
HYPOTHESES
1.1 |Social interdependence theory
SIT (Deutsch, 1949, 1962) suggests that when interdependence
among individuals promotes goal/outcome attainment, a situation
referred to as promotive interdependence, it produces substitutability
(i.e., if one person performs an action toward a goal, a functionally
identical action is not needed for another person), positive cathexis
(i.e., individuals will invest positive emotions and feelings in one
another), and inducibility (i.e., a person is willing to be influenced by
another person because this person's actions would lower his/her
need tension). The psychological implications of this theory were later
applied to understanding group functioning, with research indicating
that there is more cooperation of efforts among individuals with pro-
motive interdependence as a way of achieving joint goals. Individuals
with promotive interdependence also have better communications
with each other. As a result, they know each other's opinions and
values better, share similar perceptions, and gain accurate perceptions
of how others view them. Due to the perceived valence of fellow
members in achieving one's own goals, individuals in promotive
interdependence have better interpersonal relationships with each
other. This theory has been used in a variety of settings to explain a
wide range of phenomena such as conflict, integrative negotiation,
social identity, psychological health, well-being, social support, and
much more (see the review by Johnson & Johnson, 2005). While SIT
originally focused on interdependence resulting from mutual goals,
which represents outcome interdependence, later developments
extended it by introducing the notion of means interdependence
(Johnson & Johnson, 1989, 1992). Researchers (Johnson &
Johnson, 2005) contend that benefits will be optimal when outcome
interdependence and means interdependence are aligned.
Drawing on the central tenets of SIT, we argue that HCWS can
foster the development of workplace friendship, which then leads to
employee well-being. As SIT delineates that optimal results will be
achieved when outcome interdependence and means interdepen-
dence are compatible, we also propose the moderating role of task
interdependence in the process between HCWS, workplace friend-
ship, and employee well-being. By adopting SIT, we extend previous
findings that HR systems influence well-being through formal work
relationships at work to show the powerful explanatory mediating
FIGURE 1 Structural equation
modeling results in Study 1. T1 =Time 1,
T2 =Time 2, 3 months after Time 1.
Unstandardized coefficients are reported.
*p< 0.05, **p< 0.01
ZHANG ET AL.3
role of an informal workplace relationship (i.e., workplace friend-
ship) between HCWS and employee well-being, beyond formal
relational work ties, and how this role is contingent on task
interdependence.
1.2 |HCWS and workplace friendship
HCWS refers to a bundle of HR practices that are intended to elicit
employee “commitment”to accomplishing organizational goals
(Arthur, 1994; Whitener, 2001). Unlike control-based work systems,
which consider employees as an expense to be minimized through
reduction of direct labor costs, HCWS emphasizes nurturing psychologi-
cal links (e.g., commitment and attachment) between employees and
the organization by investing in employees (Arthur, 1994). According to
Baron and Kreps (1999), HCWS “aims at getting more from workers by
giving more to them”(p. 189). It imparts the expectation that employees
will develop a long-term relationship with the organization and internal-
ize its welfare, and it engenders trust between the two parties (Xiao &
Björkman, 2006; Xiao & Tsui, 2007). A commitment-based work system
creates promotive interdependence among employees through creating
shared goals and a common identity (Mossholder et al., 2011; Tsui
et al., 1997). This interdependence has implications for employees' orga-
nization of efforts and their communication with and orientation toward
each other, all of which influence interpersonal relationships within the
workplace (Deutsch, 1949).
Workplace friendship is “a nonromantic, voluntary, and informal
relationship between current coworkers that is characterized by com-
munal norms and socioemotional goals”(Pillemer & Rothbard, 2018,
p. 637). It comprises voluntary mutual connections between
employees and their coworkers, which are not prescribed by organiza-
tions and are distinct from formal and designated work relationships
(Tse et al., 2008; Winstead et al., 1995). In this relationship, partici-
pants respond to one another personally as unique individuals rather
than as mere role occupants in the organization (Berman et al., 2002;
Wright, 1984). They support each other based on need and show
each other understanding and empathy (Pillemer & Rothbard, 2018).
Trust is a core feature of workplace friendship, without which the lat-
ter does not exist (Krackhardt & Stern, 1988).
We expect HCWS to facilitate the formation of friendships in the
workplace for several reasons. First, HCWS creates shared goals and
forms promotively interdependent relationships among employees.
SIT posits that common goals lead individuals in a promotively
interdependent relationship to engage in frequent and high-quality
communications as a means to achieve the goals. As a result, they
have a better understanding of each other's opinions, values, apti-
tudes, and so forth (Deutsch, 1949). HCWS practices provide oppor-
tunities for employees to be exposed to each other, resulting in
interpersonal interactions and relationships (Chiang et al., 2014;
Dahlander & McFarland, 2013). Individuals within these
interdependent work relationships may be driven to pursue relation-
ships wherein they might have a high identification with the relational
other (Sluss & Ashforth, 2007). More importantly, given the collective
commitment, shared organizational goals, and common identity
elicited by the bundled HCWS practices (Chang et al., 2014),
employees are motivated to avail themselves of the opportunities and
have frequent and high-quality communication with one another
(Deutsch, 1949). Frequent interconnections and self-disclosure are
necessary conditions for the development of intimate relationships
like workplace friendship (Krackhardt & Stern, 1988; Pillemer &
Rothbard, 2018; Sias & Cahill, 1998).
Further, HCWS facilitates the influencing process and helps main-
tain the homogeneity of its employees (Schneider, 1987). A core
assumption in SIT is that in a promotively interdependent relationship,
individuals' actions are regarded as substitutable (Deutsch, 1949), and
individuals are open to influencing others and being influenced by
others (i.e., inducibility, Deutsch, 1949). HCWS can maintain such
promotively interdependent relationships among employees (Tsui
et al., 1997). Mossholder et al. (2011) established that, when bundled
together, firms' HCWS practices create a communal sharing climate,
characterized by feelings of cohesion, mutual concern, and
interdependence, blurring the boundary between self and others
(Mossholder et al., 2011). As friendship is driven by a fundamental
tendency to form deep bonds with similar others (McPherson
et al., 2001; Pillemer & Rothbard, 2018; Sias & Cahill, 1998), the per-
ceptions of commonality generated under HCWS increase similarity
attraction and the likelihood of developing and maintaining relation-
ships for their own sake (Rioux & Penner, 2001), which is a defining
feature of voluntary relationships like workplace friendships
(Riordan & Griffeth, 1995).
While interaction opportunities and sharing common ground are
crucial for the early development of workplace friendship, the formation
of close relationships is attributed to the participants being a trusted
source of support to each other in important personal and work-related
situations (Sias & Cahill, 1998). HCWS aligns employee and organiza-
tional interests and the interests among employees (Xiao &
Björkman, 2007). Because employees under HCWS share a common
collective commitment, overarching goals, and a common identity, they
may choose to develop relationships that can provide them with emo-
tional connections (Cooper & Thatcher, 2010; Thompson &
Korsgaard, 2019). As a result, employees have positive feelings toward
group members (i.e., positive cathexis; Deutsch, 1949). They care about
others' well-being and are mindful of others' needs (Mossholder
et al., 2011), and these feelings can spill over to nonwork domains
(Yakubovich & Burg, 2019). Employees are willing to spend time and
resources for each other after work (Tse et al., 2008; Winstead
et al., 1995) and help each other on both task-related and personal mat-
ters (Mossholder et al., 2011), because in a communal sharing climate
the personal welfare of others is considered significant, even above
one's self-concerns (Fiske & Haslam, 2005). Helping behaviors meet
employees' work-related and socioemotional needs and are crucial in
the transition from casual friends to close friends (Sias & Cahill, 1998).
To sum up, under the influence of HCWS, employees share com-
mon goals and form promotively interdependent relationships. They
avail themselves of the opportunities in HCWS to interact and com-
municate with each other, which is facilitative of increased sharing of
4ZHANG ET AL.
feelings, values, and identity in general (Khazanchi et al., 2018;
Mossholder et al., 2011; Sias & Cahill, 1998). In the context of HCWS,
employees care about each other's well-being and support each other
in work- and person-related matters. Over time, their work relation-
ships are transformed and extended from formal peer relationships
into informal friendship relationships. Based on these arguments and
empirical evidence, we contend that HCWS will support employees to
develop workplace friendship. Therefore, we propose:
Hypothesis 1. HCWS is positively related to workplace
friendship.
1.3 |The mediating role of workplace friendship
We anticipate that workplace friendship is a mechanism whereby
HCWS will contribute to employee well-being. Workplace friendship
offers employees numerous benefits, including both instrumental and
socioemotional benefits. According to Lincoln and Miller (1979,
p. 196), friendship networks are “systems for making decisions, mobi-
lizing resources, concealing or transmitting information, and per-
forming other functions closely allied with work behavior and
interaction”. A qualitative study by Hamilton (2007) identified four
functions of workplace friendship: companionship, work assistance,
understanding, and emotional support, with companionship being a
primary function of workplace friendship to fulfill social and belonging
needs. Other studies also suggest workplace friendship increases
communication, trust, emotional support, and security (Pillemer &
Rothbard, 2018; Reohr, 1991; Riordan & Griffeth, 1995), which lead
to desirable work-related outcomes such as higher job performance
(Methot et al., 2016), augmented job satisfaction (Hackman &
Lawler, 1971; Markiewicz et al., 2000; Winstead et al., 1995), and
increased organizational commitment (Riordan & Griffeth, 1995).
Despite some negative effects of workplace friendship, such as dis-
traction from instrumental goals due to the primacy of social functions
of friendship and tension between informal and formal roles
(Hamilton, 2007; Pillemer & Rothbard, 2018), scholars have demon-
strated that in addition to the positive outcomes noted above, work-
place friendship has a positive influence on employee well-being
(Craig & Kuykendall, 2019).
SIT delineates that promotive social interdependence leads to positive
psychological processes and interaction patterns, and these are associated
with corresponding positive psychological health outcomes (Johnson &
Johnson, 2005). As we argued, when HCWS is in place, employees form
promotive interdependence with each other and develop workplace
friendships with their coworkers. In friendship relationships characterized
by feelings of solidarity, friends' well-being is respected (Diener
et al., 1999), instrumental and emotional support is provided to one
another, and task- and person-related needs are met (Danna &
Griffin, 1999; Ryan & Deci, 2000). As a result, employee well-being would
be enhanced. HCWS creates a workenvironmentwhereemployees
develop voluntary, informal relations with coworkers which meet their vari-
ous needs and foster their well-being. Taken together, we propose that:
Hypothesis 2. Workplace friendship mediates the posi-
tive relationship between HCWS and employee well-being.
1.4 |The moderating role of task interdependence
How an employee's task process is connected to others' reflects the
degree of their task interdependence. When task interdependence is
high, one's task process affects and/or is affected by workflows from
other jobs (Kiggundu, 1981). For instance, one will need to receive
resources such as materials, tools, or information from others to com-
plete his/her tasks. Task interdependence is a type of means
interdependence (Johnson & Johnson, 1989, 2005), which concerns the
distribution of work inputs (Wageman & Baker, 1997). It is different
from, but interconnected with outcome interdependence, which con-
cerns the distribution of work outcomes. According to SIT, when there
is fit (misfit) between means and outcome interdependence, it can lead
to positive (deleterious) outcomes such as enhanced (reduced) produc-
tivity and performance (Ortiz et al., 1996; Wageman & Baker, 1997). It
has been argued that individual and team performance benefit the most
when both outcomes and tasks are interdependent. In this study, we
extend the outcomes of this fit (misfit) to employees' informal relation-
ships at work and their wellbeing. We propose that task
interdependence may work in positive synergy with HCWS to promote
workplace friendship and employee well-being.
Employees in a job with high task interdependence must cooperate,
communicate, and share information with each other. They must also
leverage each other's resources to make progress towards their respec-
tive goals (Johnson & Johnson, 1989; Ortiz et al., 1996). Task
interdependence has been associated with increased cooperative behav-
iors like communication (Johnson, 1973) and information sharing
(Crawford & Haaland, 1972). Because in an organization with HCWS,
employees share the common organizational goals (Arthur, 1994). the use
of each other's resources advances the common goals and benefits all.
Task interdependence allows employees to access each other's expertise
without increasing their own cognitive load. This enables superior
problem-solving compared to independent individuals (Mathieu
et al., 2000). In contrast, employees with low task interdependence are
not able to leverage each other's skills and other resources due to the
design of their jobs. Yet, in an organization with HCWS, their outcomes
are interdependent through practices such as group-based appraisal and
incentives. The mismatch between task and reward structure can create
problems like free-riding (Pearsall et al., 2010; Wageman & Baker, 1997),
which undermines employees' trust in each other and results in lower
workplace friendship. Based on these arguments, we propose that:
Hypothesis 3. Task interdependence moderates the positive
relationship between HCWS and workplace friendship,such
that the relationship is stronger when task interdependence is
higher.
The theorizing behind Hypothesis 3 suggests that high task
interdependence fits HCWS better. When employees' tasks are
ZHANG ET AL.5
interdependent, HCWS practices and the shared goals and identity
they create induce cooperative behavior and develop workplace
friendship. Such augmented workplace friendship will, in turn, facili-
tate employee well-being as it provides instrumental and affective
support and meets employees' needs. In contrast, as we contended
for Hypothesis 3, when task interdependence is low, workplace
friendship is less likely to occur, given that the mismatch between task
and reward structure can lead to problems and undermine trust
among employees. Subsequently, with fewer friends in the workplace,
employee well-being is less likely to be enhanced, compared to those
who have more friends. To summarize, how tasks are structured
affects the role of HCWS in fostering employee well-being through
workplace friendship. Task interdependence holds the potential of
moderating the indirect effect of HCWS on employee well-being,
thereby demonstrating a pattern of moderated mediation:
Hypothesis 4. Task interdependence moderates the posi-
tive indirect relationship between HCWS and employee well-
being,via workplace friendship,such that the positive indirect
relationship is stronger when task interdependence is higher.
2|OVERVIEW OF STUDIES
To test these ideas, we conducted two interlocking studies. In Study 1,
we established preliminary support for the indirect influences of
workplace friendship and task interdependence on the relationship
between HCWS and employee well-being. In Study 2, we replicated
and extended these findings to include controlled formal workplace
relationships as mediating mechanisms as well as multiple measures of
well-being using multilevel (i.e., organizational and individual) data col-
lected at three time points.
3|STUDY 1 METHOD
3.1 |Data collection and sample
We recruited the participants using the professional networks of the
research team. To represent a wide array of occupations, participants
were recruited in various ways: (1) emails sent to the department
alumni database of a university in northern China, (2) communications
with professional contacts of the research team, and (3) research
recruitment postings on Chinese social media. In these emails, commu-
nications, or postings, we described the purpose and the processes of
the study. We also informed them that to be eligible for the study,
participants had to work full-time (at least 32 h/week) and be at least
18 years old. Through these recruitment channels, we obtained agree-
ment from an initial sample of 400 eligible employees. We sent con-
sent letters and information about the study for participants to read
before they officially agreed to participate. Then, an email link to the
Time 1 survey was sent to these participants. They were guaranteed
that their responses were anonymous and confidential. A total of
321 (81% response rate) employees completed Time 1 surveys mea-
suring demographics, HCWS, task interdependence, and workplace
friendship. At Time 2 (3 months later), we contacted the participants
again and asked them to complete the Time 2 survey with questions
about their well-being. Again, an email link containing the survey with
the survey questions were sent to these participants. The final mat-
ched sample was 253 employees (63% response rate). Among the par-
ticipants, 98.8% have bachelor's or above degrees, 5.5% were married,
and 63% perceived that their income was better than their friends.
3.2 |Measures
The surveys were in Chinese, and all measures have been validated in
the Chinese context as noted later. Unless indicated otherwise, all
measures were scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from
1=strongly disagree to 5 =strongly agree. Descriptive statistics, corre-
lations, and Cronbach alphas are presented in Table 1.
3.2.1 | High commitment work systems
We assessed HCWS at the individual level, which represents individ-
uals' perceptions and experiences of an organization's HR practices.
According to some scholars, intended HR practices serve as signals of
the organization sending messages about what attitudes and behav-
iors are expected from the organization (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004;
Ehrnrooth & Björkman, 2012). However, intended HR practices can
be different from the practices experienced or perceived by
employees (Khilji & Wang, 2006; Nishii et al., 2008). Thus, numerous
studies have focused on individual employees' perceptions of HR
practices and the implications for individual work-related outcomes
(Alfes et al., 2012; Boon et al., 2011; Ehrnrooth & Björkman, 2012;
Kooij et al., 2010, 2013; Korff et al., 2017a, 2017b; Kuvaas, 2008;
Nishii et al., 2008; Piening et al., 2014; Whitener, 2001).
At Time 1, we measured HCWS using Xiao and Björkman's (2006)
15-item scale, which was developed and validated in the Chinese context.
Participants were asked “to what extent do the following items best
describe the HR practices in your company (1 =not at all, 5 =entirely).”
Asampleitemis“Appraisal of team performance rather than individual
performance.”Xiao and Björkman's (2006) factor analysis results of survey
responses from 126 HR managers in China confirmed a one-factor struc-
ture of HCWS. This unidimensional measure has been widely adopted in
other studies in the Chinese context (Hom & Xiao, 2011; Lv & Xu, 2018).
Our confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) results showed that the single-fac-
tor structure was supported (comparative fit index (CFI) =0.93, root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA) =0.06, standardized root mean
square residual (SRMR) =0.05). Following previous research, we adopted
an additive approach and created a score for HCWS by averaging all the
items (Chang et al., 2014; Chuang et al., 2016; Collins & Smith, 2006;
Datta et al., 2005; Kehoe & Wright, 2013; Liao et al., 2009; Messersmith
et al., 2011; Sun et al., 2007; Takeuchi et al., 2009; Xiao & Tsui, 2007).
The Cronbach's αwas .87.
6ZHANG ET AL.
3.2.2 | Workplace friendship
At Time 1, we measured workplace friendship with the 6-item work-
place friendship prevalence scale developed by Nielsen et al. (2000). It
showed adequate validity in the Chinese context (Liu et al., 2013;
Mao, 2006). Sample items include “I have formed strong friendships
at work”and “I socialize with coworkers outside of the workplace.”
The Cronbach's αwas .79.
3.2.3 | Task interdependence
At Time 1, we measured task interdependence using Campion
et al.'s (1993) 3-item scale. It has been validated in the Chinese con-
text (Wei & Wu, 2013). A sample item is “I cannot accomplish my
tasks without information or materials from other colleagues.”The
Cronbach's αwas .78.
3.2.4 | Employee well-being
At Time 2, we assessed employee well-being with Cummins
et al.'s (2003) 10-item Personal Well-being Index (PWI) scale. It has
been validated in the Chinese context (Smyth et al., 2010). Responses
were on an 11-point scale ranging from 1 =strongly disagree to
11 =strongly agree. Participants were asked “how satisfied are you
with the following aspects of your life.”Sample items include “Your
standard of living”and “Your personal relationships.”The Cronbach's
αwas .92.
3.2.5 | Control variables
We controlled for education, marital status, and relative income, as
they may influence employee well-being (Diener et al., 1999): educa-
tion may be associated with well-being as it allows employees to make
progress toward their goals or to adapt to changes (Witter
et al., 1984); marriage may affect well-being as it provides affective
companionship and emotional support (Kim & McKenry, 2002); rela-
tive income may contribute to well-being by satisfying individuals'
financial needs and providing resources that can help them achieve
their goals (Diener et al., 1993). The dummy categories of these vari-
ables are listed in the notes for Table 2. We followed Becker (2005)
and retained the results with controls as some of the path estimates
were significant, although the pattern of the results did not change
after removing these controls.
3.3 |Results
We conducted a set of CFAs with Mplus 7.0 (Muthén &
Muthén, 2012) to examine the construct validity of the multi-item
latent variables: HCWS, task interdependence, workplace friendship,
and employee well-being. Given that the ratio of sample size to esti-
mated parameters was below the recommended value of 5 (Bentler &
Chou, 1987), we created parcels prior to conducting the analyses
using the method suggested by Landis et al. (2000). Specifically, we
first ran an exploratory factor analysis wherein a single-factor solution
was specified. Then, we assigned the item with the highest factor
loading to the first parcel, the item with the second highest loading to
the second parcel, and so forth until all items were assigned to form
three balanced parcels. As a result, we created three parcels for
HCWS and employee well-being, respectively. First, we tested a four-
factor model wherein all four variables were included. The four-factor
model (HCWS, task interdependence, workplace friendship, and
employee well-being) yielded good fit indices: χ
2
[84] =172.50,
CFI =0.96, Tucker-lewis index (TLI) =0.94, RMSEA =0.07, SRMR =0.05.
Second, we tested a three-factor model in which HCWS and task
interdependence were combined into a “grand”organizational
contextual factor. The results revealed that the three-factor model did
not fit the data well (χ
2
[87] =379.25, CFI =0.85, TLI =0.82,
RMSEA =0.12, SRMR =0.09) and was significantly worse than the
TABLE 1 Means, SDs, reliabilities, and correlations in Study 1
Mean SD 1 2 3 4567
1. Education (T1) 3.04 0.59 —
2. Marital status (T1) 0.06 0.23 0.04 —
3. Relative income (T1) 3.23 1.00 0.18** 0.06 —
4. HCWS (T1) 3.08 0.67 0.05 0.05 0.15* (0.87)
5. Workplace friendship (T1) 3.76 0.61 0.12 0.03 0.06 0.43** (0.79)
6. Task interdependence (T1) 3.74 0.65 0.03 0.03 0.10 0.41** 0.52** (0.78)
7. Employee well-being (T2) 7.01 1.61 0.28** 0.05 0.30** 0.25** 0.29** 0.31** (0.92)
Note:N=253 employees. Reliabilities are shown in parentheses on the diagonal. Education: 1 =high school, 2 =associate college, 3 =college/university,
4=master, and 5 =doctor. Marital status: 0 =unmarried, 1 =married. Relative income: My income is: 1 =top 20%, 2 =21%–40%, 3 =41%–60%,
4=61%–80%, and 5 =81%–100%, among all my friends.
Abbreviations: HCWS, high commitment work system; T1, Time 1; T2, Time 2, 3 months after Time 1.
*
p< 0.05.
**
p< 0.01.
ZHANG ET AL.7
four-factor model (Δχ
2
[Δdf =3] =206.75, p< 0.01). We also tested
another three-factor model where workplace friendship and well-
being merged into one factor. The results indicated that this model
yielded a poorer fit than the four-factor model: χ
2
[87] =600.13,
CFI =0.74, TLI =0.69, RMSEA =0.15, SRMR =0.17, Δχ
2
[Δdf =3] =427.63, p< 0.01. To assess common method bias
(Podsakoff et al., 2003), we tested a model that consisted of an addi-
tional unmeasured method factor. The result suggested that this
model had a worse fit than the four-factor model: χ
2
[74] =275.74,
CFI =0.90, TLI =0.85, RMSEA =0.10, SRMR =0.46, Δχ
2
[Δdf =10] =103.24, p< 0.01. In summary, these CFA results
supported the construct validity of these variables.
Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics, reliabilities, and correla-
tions among the variables. We tested our hypotheses using structural
equation modeling (SEM) analyses in Mplus 7. Because of the low sam-
ple size to parameters ratio, we used the same parcels for variables in
the CFA in our SEM analyses. Hypothesis 1 predicted that HCWS
would be positively related to workplace friendship. To test this, we
examined a direct effect model in which workplace friendship was
predicted by HCWS and control variables (i.e., education, marital status,
and relative income). The results showed that HCWS was positively and
significantly related to workplace friendship (b=0.39, p<0.05).
To test the mediating effects of workplace friendship
(i.e., Hypothesis 2), we followed the bootstrapping method suggested
by Preacher and Hayes (2008). To find the model that can best delin-
eate the relationships among the variables, we tested both partial and
full mediation models. First, we estimated a partial mediation model in
which workplace friendship was predicted by HCWS and controls,
and employee well-being was predicted by HCWS, workplace friend-
ship and controls. The model yielded a good fit to the data: χ
2
[10] =39.61, CFI =0.97, TLI =0.92, RMSEA =0.11, SRMR =0.02.
In this model, the path from HCWS to employee well-being was not
significant (b=0.30, n.s.), providing preliminary support for the full
TABLE 2 Sample characteristics in Study 2
Variable and category Percentage or average
Sex
Male 43.20%
Female 56.80%
Age 33.36 years
Marital status
Unmarried 22.30%
Married 77.70%
Working hours 39.49 h/week
Education
High school 3.90%
Associate college 9.70%
College/university 77.10%
Master 9.00%
Doctor 0.30%
Parental status
No kids 32.60%
With kids 67.40%
Number of kids
0 32.60%
1 53.90%
2 13.20%
3 0.30%
Income 128.08 (thousand RMB/year)
Relative income among friends
Top 20% 4.50%
21%–40% 20.30%
41%–60% 56.50%
61%–80% 17.10%
81%–100% 1.60%
Organizational tenure 7.48 years
Job level
Employees (nonmanagers) 34.80%
Entry-level managers 33.90%
Middle-level managers 28.10%
Senior-level managers 3.20%
Sectors
Research & Development 19.40%
Administration 20.60%
Finance 9.40%
Marketing 20.30%
Production 15.80%
Human resources 6.50%
Others 8.10%
Firm size
Under 49 employees 8.10%
50–99 employees 6.80%
100–249 employees 33.20%
TABLE 2 (Continued)
Variable and category Percentage or average
250–499 employees 4.20%
500–999 employees 24.80%
1000 employees and above 22.90%
Firm type
Public 11.30%
Private 62.90%
State-owned 25.80%
Industry
Education 21.30%
Finance 12.30%
Information technology 20.30%
Manufacturing 22.90%
Healthcare 11.60%
Retail 11.60%
8ZHANG ET AL.
mediation model. Second, we estimated a full mediation model in
which HCWS was not linked with employee well-being. The results
showed that this model had a good fit to the data: χ
2
[11] =43.33,
CFI =0.96, TLI =0.92, RMSEA =0.11, SRMR =0.03, and had no sig-
nificant difference with the partial mediation model (Δχ
2
[Δdf =1] =3.72, n.s.). In summary, because no significant difference
exists in model fit between two models, the path from HCWS to
employee well-being was not significant in the partial mediation
model, and the full mediation model was more parsimonious, we
tested Hypothesis 2 based on the full mediation model. We obtained
bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals (CIs) using 5000 boot-
strap samples. The results showed that the indirect effect of HCWS
on employee well-being via workplace friendship was positive and sig-
nificant (indirect effect =0.27, 95% CI =[0.09, 0.50]). Therefore,
Hypothesis 2 was supported.
To assess the moderation hypothesis(i.e.,Hypothesis3)andthemod-
erated mediation hypothesis (i.e., Hypothesis 4), we tested a moderated
(full) mediation model. The estimates for the coefficients are shown in
Figure 1. To improve the interpretation of the results (Cohen et al., 2003;
Dalal & Zickar, 2012), HCWS and task interdependence were centered to
create products. The moderated mediation model displayed a good fit to
the data: χ
2
[17] =62.14, CFI =0.95, TLI =0.91, RMSEA =0.10,
SRMR =0.05. The results showed that the interaction term
(i.e., HCWS task interdependence) was positively related to workplace
friendship (b=0.05, p< 0.05), supporting Hypothesis 3. We conducted
simple slope tests to further examine the interaction effects. The results
showed that the relationship between HCWS and workplace friendship
was significant and positive for people with high task interdependence
(1 SD above the mean, b=0.19, p< 0.01) and the relationship was not
significant for those low in task interdependence (1 SD below the mean,
b=0.08, n.s.). We further plotted the interaction between HCWS and
task interdependence (see Figure 2). Hence, Hypothesis 3 was supported.
To test Hypothesis 4, we also examined the 95% CIs with 5000 boo-
tstrapping samples. According to the procedures suggested by Edwards
and Lambert (2007), moderated mediation is supported if the indirect
effect of HCWS on employee well-being via workplace friendship varies
significantly across low and high levels of task interdependence (Preacher
et al., 2007). We examined the conditional indirect effect at two levels of
task interdependence (1 SD below the mean and 1 SD above the mean).
The results revealed that the indirect effect was positive and significant
when task interdependence was high (indirect effect =0.13, 95%
CI =[0.05, 23]) while the indirect effect was not significant when task
interdependence was low (indirect effect =0.05, 95% CI =[0.02, 20]).
The difference of the indirect effects was 0.07 (95% CI =[0.01, 20]).
Thus, Hypothesis 4 was supported.
3.4 |Limitations of Study 1
Although Study 1 provides preliminary support for our hypotheses,
there are a few limitations. First, we measured the independent vari-
ables and mediator at the same time point. Second, the measure of
well-being in this study focused on employees' general life satisfac-
tion, without including their job satisfaction and affective states.
Hence, our measurement is narrow in its scope (Diener, 2000). Third,
we conceptualized and modeled HCWS at the individual level, which
enabled us to capture the variability in individual experiences and per-
ceptions but did not reveal systematic variance across organizations.
In Study 2, we address these limitations.
4|STUDY 2 METHOD
4.1 |Data collection and sample
Using the professional networks of the research team, we contacted
employees in different organizations in various industries in China. We
asked the contacted employees to invite at least two of their colleagues
to participate in our study. To be eligible for the study, we ensured that
at least three individuals from each organization agreed to participate.
Then, we sent these participants surveys in sealed envelopes. They were
guaranteed that their responses were confidential. In the first survey, they
were asked to answer questions on their demographics, information
about their firms, HCWS, and task interdependence. At Time 1, we
received completed surveys from 601 employees in 132 organizations. At
Time2(1monthafterTime1),wesenttheseemployeesthesecondsur-
vey in sealed envelopes. A total of 411 employees from 70 organizations
returned their surveys. In this survey, they assessed workplace friendship,
affective commitment, LMX, and TMX. At Time 3 (1 month after Time 2),
we sent them the final survey. A total of 310 employees from 61 organi-
zations completed the final survey (response rate =51.6%). In this final
survey, they were asked to provide ratings on their job satisfaction, posi-
tive affect (PA), negative affect (NA), life satisfaction, and PWI. Sample
characteristics are displayed in Table 2.
4.2 |Measures
Unless otherwise noted, all measures were scored on a 5-point scale
and have been validated in the Chinese context. Descriptive statistics,
correlations, and Cronbach αare presented in Table 3.
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Low HCWS Hi
g
h HCWS
Workplace Friendship
Low TI
High TI
FIGURE 2 The interactive effect of HCWS and task
interdependence on workplace friendship in Study 1. HCWS, high
commitment work systems; TI, task interdependence
ZHANG ET AL.9
HCWS (Time 1), task interdependence (Time 1), and workplace
friendship (Time 2) were measured using the same scales in Study 1.
Our CFA results showed that the single-factor structure of HCWS
was again supported (CFI =0.95, RMSEA =0.04, SRMR =0.04).
4.2.1 | Employee well-being
At Time 3, we measured employees' work-related well-being (i.e., job
satisfaction) and general well-being. To assess job satisfaction, we
used Cammann et al.'s (1979) three-item scale. A sample item was “All
in all, I am satisfied with my job.”We measured general well-being in
two ways. First, as in Study 1, we measured it with Cummins
et al.'s (2003) 10-item, 11-point PWI scale. Second, following Diener
et al.'s (1999) conceptualization of general well-being, we assessed it
using the scales of PA (Thompson, 2007, e.g., “upset,”“nervous”) and
NA (Thompson, 2007, e.g., “inspired,”“active”), and life satisfaction
(Diener et al., 1985; Pavot & Diener, 1993, e.g., “I am satisfied with
my life”).
4.2.2 | Control variables
We conducted Study 1 to seek preliminary support for the relationships
among the main variables in our theoretical model. In Study 2, we were
able to include a wider set of control variables in a lengthier survey. We
tested the hypotheses using identical controls as in Study 1 and the pat-
terns of the results did not change. In addition to the control variables
included in Study 1 (education, marital status, and relative income), we
controlled for sex, age, working hours, parental status, number of kids,
income, job level, organizational tenure, sector, industry, firm type, and
firm size as these variables may affect the theoretical relationships in
our model. Research has shown that women tend to report higher
levels of well-being than men as they may experience more frequent
PA (Wood et al., 1989). People across different age groups may demon-
strate differentiated levels of well-being due to factors such as health,
vigor, and energy (Horley & Lavery, 1995). Individuals who work longer
(Hughes & Parkes, 2007) or have more kids (Kroll, 2011) may experi-
ence more stress and thus report lower levels of well-being. In addition,
workplace friendship may be more likely formed in peer workers who
share similarities in job level (Mao, 2006), work experience including
organizational tenure and work context such as functional sectors
(Sias & Cahill, 1998). Consistent with the findings that the functioning
of HR systems depends on elements of the systems such as firm type,
firm size, and industry (Chadwick et al., 2015), we controlled these fac-
tors as well. The dummy categories of these variables are listed in the
notes for Table 3.
Moreover, for the reasons we mentioned earlier, we accounted
for other formal work relationships as potential alternative underlying
mechanisms by controlling for LMX (Chen & Tjosvold, 2006), TMX
(Seers et al., 1995), and collective affective commitment (Meyer
et al., 1993). Again, the pattern of the results did not change without
these controls. The tested model is presented in Figure 3.
4.3 |Analytical strategy
Given the cross-level nature of our model, we used multilevel model-
ing to test our hypotheses in Mplus 7. Specifically, HCWS is a level-2
variable, whereas all the remaining theoretical variables in the model
are level-1 variables. Before testing the hypotheses, we calculated
ICC1 and ICC2 (Bliese, 2000; Klein & Kozlowski, 2000) and R
wg(J)
(James et al., 1993) to determine whether it was appropriate to aggre-
gate HCWS to the organizational-level and conduct multilevel ana-
lyses. The ICC1 for HCWS was 0.15 and ICC2 was 0.47. The R
wg(J)
values ranged from 0.82 to 0.97, with an average of 0.93. The results
supported the aggregation of HCWS and the use of multilevel ana-
lyses. To decompose the organizational-level and individual-level vari-
ances, workplace friendship was group-mean centered at the
individual-level and grand-mean centered at the organizational level
(Enders & Tofighi, 2007; Peccei & Van De Voorde, 2019a). In addition,
all control variables and HCWS were grand-mean centered (Enders &
Tofighi, 2007; Korff et al., 2017a). Following previous practices (Korff
et al., 2017a) and recommendations of Peccei and Van De
Voorde (2019a) and Preacher et al. (2016), we considered task
interdependence at both levels to disentangle the within- and
between-organization variances (Hofmann & Gavin, 1998). Before
testing the hypotheses, we conducted multilevel CFA. Because the
ratio of sample size to parameters was low, like in Study 1, we created
parcels for the latent variables measured with at least five items using
the method recommended by Landis et al. (2000). We modeled nine
level-1 variables (task interdependence, workplace friendship, LMX,
TMX, job satisfaction, PA, NA, life satisfaction, and PWI) and two
level-2 variables (HCWS and collective affective commitment). The
results revealed that this 11-factor model provided good fit: χ
2
[220] =422.13, CFI =0.97, TLI =0.96, RMSEA =0.07, SRMR
within
=0.04, SRMR
between
=0.04. This model was also better than all
alternative models tested, supporting our modeling strategy.
4.4 |Results
Table 3 presents the descriptive statistics, reliabilities, and correlations
among the variables in Study 2. The results of multilevel analyses are
presented in Table 4 and Figure 4. Hypothesis 1 predicted that HCWS
would be positively related to workplace friendship. As shown in
Model 2 in Table 4, this hypothesis was supported, as HCWS was
positively related to workplace friendship (γ=0.44, p< 0.01) after
controlling for all the organizational-level and individual-level
variables.
Hypothesis 2 suggested that workplace friendship would mediate
the relationship between HCWS and employee well-being. To
account for alternative mechanisms that link HCWS and employee
wellbeing, we controlled for the organizational-level mediator of col-
lective affective commitment and two individual-level mediators of
LMX and TMX. As shown in Models 4–8 in Table 4, the results dem-
onstrated that workplace friendship was positively related to all the
five criteria of well-being: job satisfaction (γ=0.46, p< 0.01), PA
10 ZHANG ET AL.
TABLE 3 Means, SDs, reliabilities, and correlations in Study 2
12345678 9
1. Sex
2. Age 0.25**
3. Marital status 0.15** 0.48**
4. Working hours 0.11 0.04 0.05
5. Education 0.10 0.17** 0.00 0.01
6. Parental status 0.12* 0.46** 0.72** 0.03 0.08
7. Number of kids 0.12* 0.38** 0.61** 0.01 0.09 0.86**
8. Income 0.12* 0.04 0.21** 0.11* 0.37** 0.12* 0.11
9. Relative income 0.10 0.08 0.13* 0.01 0.03 0.11 0.03 0.11*
10. Job level 0.18** 0.16** 0.35** 0.07 0.13* 0.31** 0.30** 0.33** 0.14*
11. Org tenure 0.24** 0.78** 0.37** 0.08 0.12* 0.33** 0.26** 0.00 0.02
12. Sector 1 0.15** 0.09 0.01 0.00 0.23** 0.06 0.07 0.04 0.01
13. Sector 2 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.03
14. Sector 3 0.21** 0.08 0.09 0.12* 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.01 0.05
15. Sector 4 0.00 0.12* 0.02 0.07 0.04 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.04
16. Sector 5 0.16** 0.21** 0.08 0.06 0.14* 0.09 0.04 0.11* 0.07
17. Sector 6 0.01 0.08 0.08 0.05 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.09 0.08
18. Sector 7 0.12* 0.03 0.18** 0.02 0.14* 0.17** 0.15** 0.04 0.11
19. Firm size 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.01
20. Firm type 1 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.07 0.09 0.08
21. Firm type 2 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.08 0.04 0.11
22. Firm type 3 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.06
23. Industry 1 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.07 0.09
24. Industry 2 0.07 0.10 0.06 0.07 0.12* 0.08 0.09 0.05 0.09
25. Industry 3 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.10 0.13*
26. Industry 4 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.07 0.04 0.02
27. Industry 5 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.12* 0.00 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.04
28. Industry 6 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.11 0.08 0.12* 0.03 0.00
29. HCWS (T1) 0.04 0.00 0.10 0.09 0.11 0.12* 0.05 0.13* 0.12*
30. WF (T2) 0.07 0.09 0.10 0.05 0.03 0.10 0.08 0.04 0.01
31. TI (T1) 0.04 0.04 0.10 0.05 0.16** 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.00
32. Col. AC (T2) 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.13*
33. LMX (T2) 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.00
34. TMX (T2) 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.00 0.02 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.03
(Continues)
ZHANG ET AL.11
TABLE 3 (Continued)
12345678 9
35. Job sat (T3) 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.14* 0.01 0.00 0.08 0.09
36. PA (T3) 0.04 0.00 0.08 0.04 0.07 0.04 0.00 0.11* 0.03
37. NA (T3) 0.03 0.04 0.09 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.11 0.03
38. LS (T3) 0.05 0.08 0.16** 0.18** 0.13* 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.18**
39. PWI (T3) 0.08 0.03 0.01 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.02 0.01
Mean 0.57 33.36 0.78 39.49 2.92 0.67 0.81 128.08 2.91
SD 0.50 7.54 0.42 10.41 0.59 0.47 0.66 97.75 0.78
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
10. Job level
11. Org tenure 0.08
12. Sector 1 0.00 0.07
13. Sector 2 0.09 0.03 0.25**
14. Sector 3 0.00 0.05 0.16** 0.16**
15. Sector 4 0.13* 0.16** 0.25** 0.26** 0.16**
16. Sector 5 0.13* 0.20** 0.21** 0.22** 0.14* 0.22**
17. Sector 6 0.05 0.02 0.13* 0.13* 0.08 0.13* 0.11*
18. Sector 7 0.20** 0.01 0.15* 0.15** 0.10 0.15** 0.13* 0.08
19. Firm size 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.09 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.00
20. Firm type 1 0.10 0.08 0.03 0.08 0.03 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.45**
21. Firm type 2 0.09 0.10 0.06 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.09 0.03 0.01 0.47**
22. Firm type 3 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.07 0.04 0.31** 0.21** 0.77**
23. Industry 1 0.15** 0.11 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.20** 0.69** 0.68** 0.25**
24. Industry 2 0.04 0.05 0.09 0.02 0.09 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.47** 0.13* 0.02 0.07 0.19**
25. Industry 3 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.02 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.18** 0.39** 0.30** 0.26** 0.19**
26. Industry 4 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.04 0.11 0.04 0.52** 0.19** 0.42** 0.32** 0.28** 0.20** 0.28**
27. Industry 5 0.13* 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.08 0.12* 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.23** 0.13* 0.28** 0.21** 0.19** 0.14* 0.18**
28. Industry 6 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.13* 0.09 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.23** 0.13* 0.47** 0.62** 0.19** 0.14* 0.18**
29. HCWS (T1) 0.16** 0.07 0.10 0.15** 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.01 0.19** 0.01 0.08 0.18** 0.14* 0.11* 0.01 0.01
30. WF (T2) 0.16** 0.12* 0.10 0.08 0.13* 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.09 0.03 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.08 0.00 0.05
31. TI (T1) 0.17** 0.08 0.11 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.11 0.04 0.04 0.09 0.07 0.02 0.01 0.02
32. Col. AC (T2) 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.21** 0.25** 0.12* 0.27** 0.14* 0.02
33. LMX (T2) 0.10 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.08 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.12* 0.15** 0.08 0.11 0.06 0.06
34. TMX (T2) 0.12* 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.09 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.01 0.06 0.08 0.01 0.07 0.04
12 ZHANG ET AL.
TABLE 3 (Continued)
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
35. Job sat (T3) 0.10 0.05 0.09 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.05 0.09 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.12*
36. PA (T3) 0.13* 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.10 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.05
37. NA (T3) 0.01 0.00 0.09 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.13* 0.07 0.07 0.03 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.05
38. LS (T3) 0.15** 0.07 0.17** 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.26** 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.04 0.09 0.03 0.04
39. PWI (T3) 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.06 0.03 0.07 0.01 0.08 0.02 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.03 0.08 0.08 0.04
Mean 2.00 7.48 0.19 0.21 0.09 0.20 0.16 0.06 0.08 4.00 0.11 0.63 0.26 0.21 0.12 0.20
SD 0.87 6.52 0.40 0.41 0.29 0.40 0.37 0.25 0.27 1.58 0.32 0.48 0.44 0.41 0.33 0.40
26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
26. Industry 4
27. Industry 5 0.20**
28. Industry 6 0.20** 0.13*
29. HCWS (T1) 0.09 0.21** 0.15** (0.76)
30. WF (T2) 0.02 0.08 0.10 0.25** (0.75)
31. TI (T1) 0.02 0.11 0.14* 0.19** 0.48** (0.57)
32. Col. AC (T2) 0.17** 0.03 0.01 0.12* 0.01 0.04 (0.97)
33. LMX (T2) 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.13* (0.96)
34. TMX (T2) 0.02 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.04 0.05 0.09 0.18** (0.97)
35. Job sat (T3) 0.01 0.08 0.01 0.15* 0.23** 0.19** 0.09 0.17** 0.08 (0.96)
36. PA (T3) 0.10 0.02 0.07 0.11* 0.23** 0.19** 0.03 0.09 0.05 0.09 (0.88)
37. NA (T3) 0.03 0.01 0.05 0.06 0.17** 0.08 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.03 0.03 (0.96)
38. LS (T3) 0.04 0.08 0.00 0.20** 0.35** 0.24** 0.09 0.02 0.06 0.18** 0.09 0.09 (0.95)
39. PWI (T3) 0.05 0.09 0.06 0.17** 0.18** 0.17** 0.05 0.01 0.02 0.14* 0.01 0.01 0.16** (0.98)
Mean 0.23 0.12 0.12 3.42 3.90 4.12 3.09 3.00 2.98 3.73 3.36 2.29 4.14 6.77
SD 0.42 0.32 0.32 0.27 0.58 0.55 0.45 1.03 0.96 1.27 0.88 1.18 1.59 2.74
Note:N=310 employees in 61 organizations. Reliabilities are shown in parentheses on the diagonal. All control variables were measured at Time 1. Sex: 0 =male, 1 =female. Marital status: 0 =unmarried,
1=married. Education: 1 =high school, 2 =associate college, 3 =college/university, 4 =master, and 5 =doctor. Parental status: 0 =no kids, 1 =with kids. Relative income: my income is: 1 =top 20%,
2=21%–40%, 3 =41%–60%, 4 =61%–80%, and 5 =81%–100%, among all my friends. Job level: 1 =employees (nonmanagers), 1 =entry-level managers, 2 =middle-level managers, 3 =senior-level
managers. Sector: 1 =research & development, 2 =administration, 3 =finance, 4 =marketing, 5 =production, 6 =HR, 7 =others. Firm size: 1 =under 49 employees, 2 =50–99 employees, 3 =100–249
employees, 4 =250–499 employees, 5 =500–999 employees, 6 =1000 employees and above. Firm type: 1 =public, 2 =private, 3 =state-owned. Industry: 1 =education, 2 =finance, 3 =IT,
4=manufacturing, 5 =healthcare, 6 =retail. Aggregated scores of HCWS and collective commitment are assigned to individuals.
Abbreviations: Col. AC, collective affective commitment; HCWS, high commitment work system; Job sat, job satisfaction; LMX, leader-member exchange; LS, life satisfaction; NA, negative affect; Org
tenure, organizational tenure; PA, positive affect; PWI, personal well-being index; T1, Time 1; T2, Time 2, 1 month after Time 1; T3, Time 2, 1 month after Time 2; TI, task interdependence; TMX, team-member
exchange; WF, workplace friendship.
*
p< 0.05.
**
p< 0.01.
ZHANG ET AL.13
(γ=0.36, p< 0.01), NA (γ=0.29, p< 0.01), life satisfaction
(γ=0.96, p< 0.01), and PWI (γ=0.80, p< 0.01). Again, we obtained
95% CIs for the indirect effects. The results showed that the indirect
effects of HCWS on job satisfaction (indirect effect =0.24,
95% CI =[0.10, 0.41]), PA (indirect effect =0.19, 95% CI =[0.09,
0.30]), NA (indirect effect =0.15, 95% CI =[0.29, 0.04]), life sat-
isfaction (indirect effect =0.50, 95% CI =[0.28, 0.76]), and PWI (indi-
rect effect =0.42, 95% CI =[0.15, 0.75]) were all significant. Thus,
Hypothesis 2 was supported.
Hypothesis 3 proposed that task interdependence would
moderate the relationship between HCWS and workplace friend-
ship. As shown in Model 3 in Table 4, the interaction effect was
positively related to workplace friendship (γ=1.39, p<0.01),pro-
viding support for Hypothesis 3. We further conducted a simple
slope test to examine this interaction effect. The results of the
test indicated that HCWS was positively related to workplace
friendship when task interdependence was high (γ=1.06,
p< 0.01), but this relationship was negative when task
interdependence was low (γ=0.48, p< 0.01). We plotted this
interaction effect in Figure 5.
With regards to Hypothesis 4, which predicted that task
interdependence would moderate the indirect effect of HCWS on
employee well-being via workplace, we obtained 95% CIs for the con-
ditional indirect effects. The results revealed that the indirect effects
of HCWS on job satisfaction (indirect effect =0.49, 95% CI =[0.23,
0.76]), PA (indirect effect =0.38, 95% CI =[0.21, 0.56]), life satisfac-
tion (indirect effect =1.02, 95% CI =[0.69, 1.36]), and PWI (indirect
effect =0.85, 95% CI =[0.32, 1.39]) were positive and significant
when task interdependence was high while the indirect effects of
HCWS on job satisfaction (indirect effect =0.22, 95% CI =[0.36,
0.09]), PA (indirect effect =0.17, 95% CI =[0.26, 0.09]), life
satisfaction (indirect effect =0.45, 95% CI =[0.67, 0.27]), and
PWI (indirect effect =0.38, 95% CI =[0.67, 0.14]) were nega-
tive and significant when task interdependence was low. For NA, the
indirect effect was negative and significant (indirect effect =0.31,
95% CI =[0.53, 0.09]) when task interdependence was high, but it
was positive and significant (indirect effect =0.14, 95% CI =[0.04,
0.25]) when task interdependence was low. Thus, Hypothesis 4 was
supported.
5|DISCUSSION
Drawing on SIT, we conducted two interlocking studies to investi-
gate how HCWS is associated with enhanced employee well-being
through the formation of workplace friendship and how task
interdependence conditions this relationship. Using data collected
from 253 full-time employees attwotimepointsinStudy1,we
identified workplace friendship as an important relational mecha-
nism linking HCWS and employee well-being. This finding was repli-
cated in Study 2 using multilevel data collected from 310 employees
from 61 organizations across three time points. In both studies, we
found that the relationship between HCWS and workplace friend-
ship was positive and significant when task interdependence was
high. The slight difference is that when task interdependence was
low, this relationship was not significant in Study 1, while it was neg-
ative in Study 2. This might have occurred because, according to
SIT, when outcome interdependence and means interdependence
are misaligned (e.g., high outcome interdependence and low means
interdependence), group-based problems like free-riding might
occur (Pearsall et al., 2010; Wageman & Baker, 1997), which
weakens the promotive interdependence among employees and
undermines their trust in each other. This may lead to lower work-
place friendship. This theoretical notion is more consistent with the
findings from Study 2, which has a more rigorous and robust test of
the model.
5.1 |Theoretical implications
Our findings provide several important theoretical implications. First,
our model extends HRM research by identifying workplace friendship
as an informal relational mechanism between HCWS and employee
well-being. Although previous studies have examined the effect of HR
FIGURE 3 Theoretical model
tested in Study 2. Collective
AC, collective affective
commitment; LMX, leader-
member exchange; TMX, team-
member exchange
14 ZHANG ET AL.
TABLE 4 The results of multilevel analyses in Study 2
Variable
Workplace friendship Job satisfaction PA NA Life satisfaction PWI
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8
Intercept 3.90** (0.03) 3.90** (0.04) 3.87** (0.03) 3.73** (0.07) 3.36** (0.06) 2.30** (0.08) 4.13** (0.09) 6.77** (0.17)
Level-1 controls
Sex 0.03 (0.07) 0.01 (0.06) 0.01 (0.06) 0.23 (0.17) 0.10 (0.13) 0.01 (0.17) 0.07 (0.20) 0.57 (0.38)
Age 0.02 (0.07) 0.01 (0.05) 0.01 (0.05) 0.11 (0.16) 0.00 (0.14) 0.09 (0.21) 0.14 (0.25) 0.00 (0.30)
Marital status 0.03 (0.14) 0.02 (0.12) 0.07 (0.12) 0.06 (0.27) 0.23 (0.23) 0.31 (0.22) 0.80** (0.27) 0.63* (0.47)
Working hours 0.02 (0.05) 0.03 (0.04) 0.04 (0.04) 0.04 (0.09) 0.03 (0.06) 0.01 (0.08) 0.32 (0.07) 0.19 (0.19)
Education 0.04 (0.07) 0.04 (0.06) 0.12 (0.06) 0.13 (0.13) 0.15 (0.11) 0.08 (0.13) 0.22 (0.17) 0.15 (0.36)
Parental status 0.06 (0.23) 0.00 (0.14) 0.00 (0.11) 0.40 (0.31) 0.09 (0.22) 0.01 (0.28) 0.18 (0.38) 0.00 (0.71)
Number of kids 0.01 (0.26) 0.01 (0.08) 0.06 (0.07) 0.06 (0.17) 0.14 (0.12) 0.09 (0.16) 0.36 (0.24) 0.62 (0.45)
Income 0.01 (0.05) 0.02 (0.04) 0.01 (0.03) 0.07 (0.13) 0.18 (0.14) 0.12 (0.18) 0.12 (0.27) 0.02 (0.19)
Relative income 0.00 (0.07) 0.02 (0.05) 0.00 (0.04) 0.13 (0.09) 0.07 (0.06) 0.00 (0.09) 0.27** (0.10) 0.13 (0.24)
Job level 0.10 (0.07) 0.09* (0.04) 0.03 (0.03) 0.06 (0.10) 0.18 (0.19) 0.12 (0.24) 0.04 (0.30) 0.08 (0.24)
Organizational tenure 0.10 (0.12) 0.07 (0.05) 0.04 (0.05) 0.00 (0.13) 0.07 (0.09) 0.11 (0.12) 0.12 (0.10) 0.14 (0.29)
Sector 1 0.58** (0.09) 0.03 (0.04) 0.77** (0.22) 0.51 (0.40) 2.05** (0.38) 1.93** (0.46) 5.91** (0.58) 7.66** (1.68)
Sector 2 0.51 (0.13) 0.04 (0.07) 0.81** (0.22) 0.80* (0.39) 2.05** (0.39) 1.88** (0.42) 5.36** (0.52) 6.97** (1.57)
Sector 3 0.21 (0.26) 0.29** (0.10) 1.03** (0.21) 0.77 (0.44) 2.08** (0.41) 1.81** (0.49) 5.13** (0.57) 7.62** (1.73)
Sector 4 0.53** (0.19) 0.02 (0.05) 0.73** (0.20) 0.66 (0.36) 1.87** (0.39) 1.74** (0.46) 5.53** (0.54) 7.12** (1.72)
Sector 5 0.34* (0.14) 0.16* (0.07) 0.94** (0.19) 0.54 (0.37) 2.31** (0.42) 1.62** (0.48) 5.68** (0.56) 7.63** (1.61)
Sector 6 0.26* (0.13) 0.25* (0.11) 0.96** (0.26) 0.81* (0.41) 2.28** (0.41) 1.28** (0.49) 5.65** (0.58) 8.42** (1.73)
Sector 7 0.30 (0.19) 0.15 (0.17) 0.93** (0.22) 0.86* (0.39) 2.00** (0.43) 1.53** (0.47) 4.46** (0.66) 9.13** (1.58)
Level-2 controls
Firm size 0.01 (0.16) 0.00 (0.16) 0.01 (0.17) 0.01 (23) 0.02 (0.21) 0.02 (0.22) 0.06 (0.23) 0.00 (0.33)
Firm type 1 0.14 (2.05) 0.09 (0.17) 0.03 (0.20) 0.04 (1.19) 0.41 (0.50) 0.28 (1.30) 0.13 (0.74) 0.62 (0.63)
Firm type 2 0.12 (1.16) 0.09 (0.44) 0.06 (0.26) 0.17 (1.59) 0.28 (0.72) 0.40 (0.83) 0.07 (1.61) 0.28 (2.39)
Firm type 3 0.08 (0.18) 0.06 (0.28) 0.06 (0.27) 0.18 (1.22) 0.12 (0.59) 0.24 (1.25) 0.15 (0.86) 0.01 (0.83)
Industry 1 0.07 (0.69) 0.00 (0.18) 0.07 (1.07) 0.29 (0.78) 0.45 (0.72) 0.50 (0.74) 0.33 (0.75) 0.08 (0.57)
Industry 2 0.01 (0.67) 0.01 (0.15) 0.00 (0.82) 0.07 (0.88) 0.16 (0.55) 0.15 (0.83) 0.06 (0.48) 0.35 (0.73)
Industry 3 0.04 (0.43) 0.02 (0.06) 0.03 (1.06) 0.41 (1.26) 0.19 (1.32) 0.42 (0.92) 0.04 (0.79) 0.20 (2.43)
(Continues)
ZHANG ET AL.15
TABLE 4 (Continued)
Variable
Workplace friendship Job satisfaction PA NA Life satisfaction PWI
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8
Industry 4 0.10 (0.79) 0.05 (0.09) 0.00 (1.09) 0.15 (0.83) 0.12 (0.75) 0.29 (0.77) 0.11 (0.75) 0.54 (1.38)
Industry 5 0.17 (0.57) 0.09 (0.11) 0.06 (0.99) 0.04 (0.44) 0.29 (0.52) 0.25 (0.80) 0.10 (0.58) 0.10 (1.35)
Industry 6 0.31 (0.20) 0.22 (0.23) 0.12 (0.82) 0.45 (0.87) 0.22 (0.66) 0.44 (0.87) 0.44 (1.09) 0.30 (1.64)
Level-2 predictor
HCWS 0.44** (0.11) 0.30** (0.11) 0.39 (1.34) 0.19 (1.59) 0.76 (2.50) 0.09 (3.04) 1.00 (4.08)
Moderator
TI 0.39** (0.13)
Interaction
HCWS TI 1.39** (0.47)
Level-1 controlled mediators
LMX 0.26** (0.08) 0.05 (0.05) 0.05 (0.07) 0.03 (0.10) 0.07 (0.16)
TMX 0.00 (0.09) 0.06 (0.07) 0.04 (0.09) 0.11 (0.09) 0.18 (0.18)
Level-2 controlled mediator
Collective AC 0.21 (0.22) 0.02 (0.15) 0.21 (0.20) 0.22 (0.25) 0.19 (0.38)
Level-1 mediator
Workplace friendship 0.46** (0.12) 0.36** (0.07) 0.29** (0.10) 0.96** (0.15) 0.80** (0.25)
Note:N=310 employees in 61 organizations. Unstandardized coefficients were reported. SEs were in parentheses. Sex: 0 =male, 1 =female. Marital status: 0 =unmarried, 1 =married. Education: 1 =high
school, 2 =associate college, 3 =college/university, 4 =master, and 5 =doctor. Parental status: 0 =no kids, 1 =with kids. Relative income: my income is: 1 =top 20%, 2 =21%–40%, 3 =41%–60%,
4=61%–80%, and 5 =81%–100%, among all my friends. Job level: 1 =employees (nonmanagers), 1 =entry-level managers, 2 =middle-level managers, 3 =senior-level managers. Sector: 1 =R&D,
2=administration, 3 =finance, 4 =marketing, 5 =production, 6 =HR, 7 =others. Firm size: 1 =under 49 employees, 2 =50–99 employees, 3 =100–249 employees, 4 =250–499 employees, 5 =500–999
employees, 6 =1000 employees and above. Firm type: 1 =public, 2 =private, 3 =state-owned. Industry: 1 =education, 2 =finance, 3 =IT, 4 =manufacturing, 5 =healthcare, 6 =retail.
Abbreviations: Collective AC, collective affective commitment; HCWS, high commitment work system; Job sat, job satisfaction; LMX, leader-member exchange; LS, life satisfaction; NA, negative affect;
PA, positive affect; PWI, personal well-being index; TI, task interdependence; TMX, team-member exchange.
*
p< 0.05.
**
p< 0.01.
16 ZHANG ET AL.
practices on workplace relationships such as trust, cooperation, and
organizational support (Chuang & Liao, 2010; Collins & Smith, 2006;
Takeuchi et al., 2007), attention has been focused on formal relation-
ships, with a view to enhancing organizational performance (Van De
Voorde et al., 2012). Hence, our research goes beyond previous litera-
ture by empirically examining the role of HR practices in facilitating
voluntary and informal relationships at the workplace and how these
relationships are associated with employee well-being.
Second, this study further identified the moderating role of task
interdependence in the relationship between HCWS and workplace
friendship. Specifically, we found that the strength of the relationship
between HCWS and workplace friendship was altered by task
interdependence, such that HCWS is more facilitative in building
workplace friendship when task interdependence is higher. In con-
trast, there was no (Study 1) or negative (Study 2) relationship
observed between HCWS and workplace friendship when task
interdependence was low. The indirect effect of HCWS on employee
well-being displayed similar patterns. Prior scholars have pointed out
that findings about the relationship between HR systems and
employee well-being are mixed and inconclusive (Van De Voorde
et al., 2012), thus the boundary conditions need to be clarified
(Kowalski & Loretto, 2017). Drawing on findings in SIT research indi-
cating that outcome interdependence and means interdependence
should be aligned, we proposed and found support for this interactive
effect. When HCWS is employed together with high task
interdependence, the promotive outcome interdependence among
employees is enhanced and higher workplace friendship and
employee wellbeing follow.
Third, our research contributes to the workplace friendship litera-
ture in terms of identifying the antecedent and contingent factors
influencing the formation of workplace friendship as well as the posi-
tive outcome of well-being stemming from this informal social rela-
tionship at work. The importance of workplace friendship is
recognized by researchers and practitioners (Berman et al., 2002).
Having friends in the workplace not only provides joy and meaning,
but also facilitates one's positive behavior. However, its antecedents
with respect to the work environment and management practices in
organizations are not well understood (cf. Chen et al., 2013). Some
studies examined the effect of organizational-level factors on work-
place friendship (Mao, 2006) and the relationships between job sup-
port, role ambiguity, gender, and workplace friendship (Chen
et al., 2013); however, there is lack of understanding about the role of
HR practices in fostering workplace friendship. Our inclusion of
HCWS as the antecedent and task interdependence as the contingent
factor, as well as our examination of well-being as an outcome of
HCWS via workplace friendship, advances our incomplete knowledge
about the nomological network of workplace friendship.
Finally, there are debates about the complexities and potential
downsides of workplace friendship (Pillemer & Rothbard, 2018); our
study supported the positive side of it. Our findings demonstrated
that workplace friendship was associated with better employee
well-being. This is in alignment with the argument for the positive
effect of friendship at work (Ross, 1997) and the empirical evidence
that friendship was most strongly associated with positive emotions
at work (Colbert et al., 2016). Employees who have more opportuni-
ties to make friends at work have higher job satisfaction and organiza-
tional commitment, as well as lower absenteeism and intentions to
FIGURE 4 Path estimates in
multilevel analyses. N=310
employees in 61 organizations.
Unstandardized coefficients were
reported. SEs were in
parentheses. For the ease of
readability, the path estimates for
control variables were omitted.
*p< 0.05, ** p< 0.01. Job sat, job
satisfaction; LMX, leader-member
exchange; LS, life satisfaction;
NA, negative affect; PA, positive
affect; PWI, personal well-being
index; TMX, team-member
exchange
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Low HCWS Hi
g
h HCWS
Workplace friendship
Low TI
High TI
FIGURE 5 The interactive effect of HCWS and task
interdependence on workplace friendship in Study 2. HCWS, high
commitment work systems; TI, task interdependence
ZHANG ET AL.17
turnover (Humphrey et al., 2007; Riordan & Griffeth, 1995). However,
previous literature emphasized the positive outcomes of workplace
friendship in terms of job-related attitudes and behaviors. Our study
demonstrates that the positive effects of workplace friendship, due to
its informal and voluntary nature, go beyond employees' experiences
with work and spill over to their life domain. The indirect effect of
HCWS on employee well-being via workplace friendship further indi-
cates that formal HR practices have far-reaching effects on
employees' well-being by altering employees' social connections at
and after work.
5.2 |Practical implications
This research also provides important implications for practice. Nota-
bly, we highlight the meaningfulness and importance of examining
employee well-being as an outcome of HR systems. Understanding
the relationship as well as the boundary conditions between HCWS
and employee well-being is a key approach to retaining employees.
Organizations should be mindful that their HR practices should be tai-
lored to not only focus on maximizing the performance of their
employees; the well-being of their employees deserves substantial
attention and care. The findings of these two studies demonstrate
that implementation of commitment-based HR practices will facilitate
opportunities for employees to develop friendships.
The findings of this research may provide guidance for managers
on how to enhance the benefits of HCWS. As our results indicate that
workplace friendship is an important channel bridging HCWS and
employee well-being, managers may want to implement commitment-
based HR practices in order to provide opportunities for the establish-
ment of such close and positive relationships among employees to
promote their well-being. Organizations should be aware that these
practices of HCWS can not only enhance employees' performance
(Jiang et al., 2012) or spur employees' creativity (Chang et al., 2014),
but they can also bolster their well-being. More importantly, managers
should be aware that HCWS does not directly lead to desirable out-
comes (i.e., job satisfaction, PA, NA, life satisfaction). Instead, our find-
ings suggest that HCWS provides the opportunity for employees to
have more interactions and communications, develop shared goals,
and know each other's opinions and values, all of which help them
form deeper bonds (i.e., workplace friendship) with colleagues. If they
possess this informal and voluntary friendship, they will not only feel
satisfied at work but also have more PA and be happier in life. This is
particularly important as our findings suggest that workplace friend-
ship has explanatory power, even after controlling for the mechanisms
of LMX, TMX, and collective commitment. Hence, organizations seek-
ing to enhance the well-being of their employees by implementing
HCWS should consider its role in facilitating workplace friendship.
Another practical implication is the importance of job features in
conditioning the effect of HCWS on workplace friendship and, in turn,
employee well-being. Our findings indicate that HCWS might not fos-
ter friendships, and may even harm them, if the practices do not cor-
respond to employees' job characteristics. Thus, organizations should
take job design into account when implementing HCWS and ensure
that the design of HR systems aligns with the task structure. Specifi-
cally, organizations aiming to enhance friendships among employees
via HCWS should attempt to ensure the interdependence of their
tasks in order to solidify and convert the friendship opportunities into
deep friendship bonds. In doing so, organizations may be better able
to reap the benefits of HCWS in cultivating workplace friendships and
further enhancing employee well-being.
5.3 |Limitations and future research
Our study is not without limitations. First, our data were collected in
China, which has a collectivistic culture. As noted by prior scholars,
employees from collectivistic countries place more weight on close
relationships with colleagues than employees from individualistic cul-
tures (Sanchezburks et al., 2003). For example, research has shown
that cultural value orientations such as collectivism and power dis-
tance could influence employees' interpretations of HR practices
(Zhong et al., 2016). Thus, future research should also replicate our
model in more individualistic cultures to detect whether the model
holds in different cultural contexts. In addition, our sample in Study 1
was recruited on a voluntary basis. A limitation of such strategy is that
the sample might be biased (Landers & Behrend, 2015). Thus, future
research could improve the sampling method for samples to be more
representative.
Second, guided by SIT theory, we focused on employee well-
being, which reflects the psychological aspect of individual well-being.
However, research also shows that HR systems could also affect other
components of well-being, such as individuals' physical health (West
et al., 2006). As Grant et al. (2007) suggested, employee well-being
includes psychological, physical, and social components, and it would
be meaningful if future research could explore the relationships
between HCWS and specific dimensions of employee well-being.
Third, while the moderators and mediators we examined were
theoretically derived, there could be other moderators and mediators
that may be relevant in understanding how and when HCWS affects
employee well-being. For example, individual personality such as
extraversion or neuroticism (Hayes & Joseph, 2003) may influence the
effect of HCWS on workplace friendship and subsequent well-being.
Researchers have also used other theories to guide their discovery of
mediating variables (Boon et al., 2011; Van De Voorde et al., 2016;
Heffernan & Dundon, 2016). Therefore, future research should con-
tinue to explore other plausible moderators and mediators.
Finally, the measures for our variables were all collected from a
single source (employee self-reports). Thus, some concerns exist in
regard to common method bias. Nonetheless, the temporal separation
in both studies and the aggregation of the HCWS measure to the
organizational level in Study 2 reduced the likelihood that common
method bias was the source of our findings (Podsakoff et al., 2012;
Podsakoff et al., 2003; Spector, 2006). The CFA results further sug-
gest that our findings are not unduly influenced by common method
bias. Yet, it would be useful for future studies to replicate our results
18 ZHANG ET AL.
using more rigorous designs. For instance, one possibility is to mea-
sure workplace friendship using social network data. In addition,
because our samples were relatively small and the sample-to-
parameter ratios were low, we employed item parcels in our analyses.
Future researchers could replicate our findings by testing the model
using a larger sample without item parceling.
6|CONCLUSION
Drawing on SIT, our study improved our understanding of the rela-
tionship between HCWS and employee well-being by clarifying the
underlying mediating mechanism of workplace friendship and the
boundary condition of task interdependence. Hopefully, our findings
may serve as an impetus for future research into the well-being
related consequence of HCWS.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Jian-Min (James) Sun's work on this article was supported in part by a
research grant from the National Natural Science Foundation of China
(71272158). Cai-Hui (Veronica) Lin passed away during the final review
process for this paper. The authors are greatly indebted to her for her
insightful contributions to the paper and for her unwavering support as
a colleague and friend. She will be forever remembered, and forever
missed.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The data that support the findings of this study are available on
reasonable request from the first author.
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(4), 409–427.
Amichai-Hamburger, Y., Kingsbury, M., & Schneider, B. H. (2013). Friend-
ship: An old concept with a new meaning? Computers in Human Behav-
ior,29(1), 33–39.
Anand, S., Hu, J., Liden, R. C., & Vidyarthi, P. R. (2011). Leader-member
exchange: Recent research findings and prospects for the future. In A.
Bryman, D. Collinson, K. Grint, B. Jackson, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), The
Sage handbook of leadership: 311–325. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Appelbaum, E. (2002). The impact of new forms of work organization on
workers. In G. Murray, J. Belanger, A. Giles, & P. A. Lapointe (Eds.),
Work employment relations in the high-performance workplace (pp. 120–
148). Continuum.
Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P. B., Kalleberg, A. L., & Bailey, T. A. (2000).
Manufacturing advantage: Why high-performance work systems pay off.
Cornell University Press.
Arthur, J. B. (1994). Effects of human resource systems on manufacturing per-
formance and turnover. Academy of Management Journal,37(3), 670–687.
Baron, J. N., & Kreps, D. M. (1999). Consistent human resource practices.
California Management Review,41(3), 29–53.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for
interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation.
Psychological Bulletin,117(3), 497–529.
Becker, B., & Gerhart, B. (1996). The impact of human resource manage-
ment on organizational performance: Progress and prospects. Academy
of Management Journal,39(4), 779–801.
Becker, T. E. (2005). Potential problems in the statistical control of vari-
ables in organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommen-
dations. Organizational Research Methods,8(3), 274–289.
Bentler, P. M., & Chou, C. P. (1987). Practical issues in structural modeling.
Sociological Methods & Research,16(1), 78–117.
Berman, E. M., West, J. P., & Richter, M. N., Jr. (2002). Workplace rela-
tions: Friendship patterns and consequences (according to managers).
Public Administration Review,62(2), 217–230.
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reli-
ability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein &
S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in
organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349–
381). Jossey-Bass.
Boon, C., Den Hartog, D. N., Boselie, P., & Paauwe, J. (2011). The relation-
ship between perceptions of HR practices and employee outcomes:
Examining the role of person–organisation and person–job fit. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management,22(1), 138–162.
Bowen, D. E., & Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding HRM-firm performance
linkages: The role of the "strength"of the HRM system. Academy of
Management Review,29(2), 203–221.
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1979). The Michigan
organizational assessment questionnaire. University of Michigan.
Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between
work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for design-
ing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology,46(4), 823–847.
Chadwick, C., Super, J. F., & Kwon, K. (2015). Resource orchestration in
practice: CEO emphasis on SHRM, commitment-based HR systems,
and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal,36(3), 360–376.
Chang, S., Jia, L., Takeuchi, R., & Cai, Y. (2014). Do high-commitment work
systems affect creativity? A multilevel combinational approach to
employee creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology,99(4), 665–680.
Chen, C. Y., Mao, H. Y., Hsieh, A. T., Liu, L. L., & Yen, C. H. (2013). The rela-
tionship among interactive justice, leader–member exchange, and
workplace friendship. The Social Science Journal,50(1), 89–95.
Chen, Y. F., & Tjosvold, D. (2006). Participative leadership by American
and Chinese managers in China: The role of relationships. Journal of
Management Studies,43(8), 1727–1752.
Chiang, Y. H., Shih, H. A., & Hsu, C. C. (2014). High commitment work
system, transactive memory system, and new product performance.
Journal of Business Research,67(4), 631–640.
Chuang, C. H., Jackson, S. E., & Jiang, Y. (2016). Can knowledge-intensive
teamwork be managed? Examining the roles of HRM systems, leader-
ship, and tacit knowledge. Journal of Management,42(2), 524–554.
Chuang, C. H., & Liao, H. (2010). Strategic human resource management in
service context: Taking care of business by taking care of employees
and customers. Personnel Psychology,63(1), 153–196.
Clark, M. S., & Reis, H. T. (1988). Interpersonal processes in close relation-
ships. Annual Review of Psychology,39(1), 609–672.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple
correlation/regression analysis for the behavioral sciences. Erlbaum.
Colbert, A. E., Bono, J. E., & Purvanova, R. K. (2016). Flourishing via work-
place relationships: Moving beyond instrumental support. Academy of
Management Journal,59(4), 1199–1223.
Collins, C. J., & Smith, K. G. (2006). Knowledge exchange and combination:
The role of human resource practices in the performance of high-
technology firms. Academy of Management Journal,49(3), 544–560.
Cooper, B., Wang, J., Bartram, T., & Cooke, F. L. (2019). Well-being-
oriented human resource management practices and employee perfor-
mance in the Chinese banking sector: The role of social climate and
resilience. Human Resource Management,58(1), 85–97.
Cooper, D., & Thatcher, S. M. (2010). Identification in organizations: The
role of self-concept orientations and identification motives. Academy
of Management Review,35(4), 516–538.
Craig, L., & Kuykendall, L. (2019). Examining the role of friendship for
employee well-being. Journal of Vocational Behavior,115, 103313.
ZHANG ET AL.19
Crawford, J. L., & Haaland, G. A. (1972). Predecisional information seeking
and subsequent conformity in the social influence process. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,23(1), 112–119.
Cummins, R. A., Eckersley, R., Pallant, J., van Vugt, J., & Misajon, R. (2003).
Developing a national index of subjective wellbeing: The Australian
Unity Wellbeing Index. Social Indicators Research,64(2), 159–190.
Dahlander, L., & McFarland, D. A. (2013). Ties that last: Tie formation and
persistence in research collaborations over time. Administrative Science
Quarterly,58(1), 69–110.
Dalal, D. K., & Zickar, M. J. (2012). Some common myths about centering
predictor variables in moderated multiple regression and polynomial
regression. Organizational Research Methods,15(3), 339–362.
Danna, K., & Griffin, R. W. (1999). Health and subjective well-being in the
workplace: A review and synthesis of the literature. Journal of Manage-
ment,25(3), 357–384.
Datta, D. K., Guthrie, J. P., & Wright, P. M. (2005). Human resource man-
agement and labor productivity: Does industry matter? Academy of
Management Journal,48(1), 135–145.
Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., & Williams, G. C. (1996). Need satisfaction and the
self-regulation of learning. Learning and Individual Differences,8(3),
165–183.
Delaney, J. T., & Huselid, M. A. (1996). The impact of human resource
management practices on perceptions of organizational performance.
Academy of Management Journal,39(4), 949–969.
Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of co-operation and competition. Human
Relations,2(2), 129–152.
Deutsch, M. (1962). Cooperation and trust: Some theoretical notes. In
M. R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 275–319).
University of Nebraska Press.
Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a
proposal for a national index. American Psychologist,55(1), 34–43.
Diener, E., Sandvik, E., Seidlitz, L., & Diener, M. (1993). The relationship
between income and subjective well-being: Relative or absolute?
Social Indicators Research,28(3), 195–223.
Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-
being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin,125(2),
276–302.
Diener, E. D., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfac-
tion with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment,49(1), 71–75.
Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation
and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path
analysis. Psychological Methods,12(1), 1–22.
Ehrnrooth, M., & Björkman, I. (2012). An integrative HRM process theori-
zation: Beyond signalling effects and mutual gains. Journal of Manage-
ment Studies,49(6), 1109–1135.
Enders, C. K., & Tofighi, D. (2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-
sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological
Methods,12(2), 121–138.
Fan, D., Cui, L., Zhang, M. M., Zhu, C. J., Härtel, C. E., & Nyland, C. (2014).
Influence of high performance work systems on employee subjective
well-being and job burnout: Empirical evidence from the Chinese
healthcare sector. The International Journal of Human Resource Manage-
ment,25(7), 931–950.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1981). On construct validity: A critique of Miniard
and Cohen's paper. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,17(3),
340–350.
Fiske, A. P., & Haslam, N. (2005). The four basic social bonds. In M. W.
Baldwin (Ed.), Interpersonal cognition (pp. 267–298). New York,
Guilford Press.
Gittell, J. H., Seidner, R., & Wimbush, J. (2010). A relational model of how
high-performance work systems work. Organization Science,21(2),
490–506.
Gong, Y., Chang, S., & Cheung, S. Y. (2010). High performance work sys-
tem and collective OCB: A collective social exchange perspective.
Human Resource Management Journal,20(2), 119–137.
Grant, A. M., Christianson, M. K., & Price, R. H. (2007). Happiness, health,
or relationships? Managerial practices and employee subjective well-
being tradeoffs. Academy of Management Perspectives,21(3), 51–63.
Grant, A. M., & Parker, S. K. (2009). Redesigning work design theories: The
rise of relational and proactive perspectives. Academy of Management
Annals,3(1), 317–375.
Guest, D. E. (2017). Human resource management and employee well-
being: Towards a new analytic framework. Human Resource Manage-
ment Journal,27(1), 22–38.
Hackman, J. R., & Lawler, E. E. (1971). Employee reactions to job charac-
teristics. Journal of Applied Psychology,55(3), 259–286.
Hamilton, E. A. (2007). Firm friends: Examining functions and outcomes of
workplace friendship among law firm associates [Unpublished doctoral
dissertation]. Boston College.
Han, J., Sun, J. M., & Wang, H. L. (2020). Do high performance work sys-
tems generate negative effects? How and when? Human Resource
Management Review,30(2), 100699.
Hartup, W. W., & Stevens, N. (1997). Friendships and adaptation in the life
course. Psychological Bulletin,121(3), 355–370.
Hayes, N., & Joseph, S. (2003). Big 5 correlates of three measures of subjec-
tive well-being. Personality and Individual Differences,34(4), 723–727.
Heffernan, M., & Dundon, T. (2016). Cross-level effects of high-
performance work systems (HPWS) and employee well-being: The
mediating effect of organisational justice. Human Resource Manage-
ment Journal,26(2), 211–231.
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(3), 235–253.
Hofmann, D. A., & Gavin, M. B. (1998). Centering decisions in hierarchical
linear models: Implications for research in organizations. Journal of
Management,24(5), 623–641.
Hom, P. W., & Xiao, Z. (2011). Embedding social networks: How guanxi
ties reinforce Chinese employees' retention. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes,116(2), 188–202.
Horley, J., & Lavery, J. J. (1995). Subjective well-being and age. Social Indi-
cators Research,34(2), 275–282.
Hughes, E. L., & Parkes, K. R. (2007). Work hours and well-being: The roles
of work-time control and work–family interference. Work and Stress,
21(3), 264–278.
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 litera-
ture. Journal of Applied Psychology,92(5), 1332–1356.
Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management prac-
tices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance.
Academy of Management Journal,38(3), 635–672.
Jackson, S. E., Schuler, R. S., & Jiang, K. (2014). An aspirational framework
for strategic human resource management. Academy of Management
Annals,8(1), 1–56.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1993). rwg: An assessment of within-
group interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology,78(2), 306–309.
Jensen, J. M., Patel, P. C., & Messersmith, J. G. (2013). High-performance
work systems and job control: Consequences for anxiety, role overload,
and turnover intentions. Journal of Management,39(6), 1699–1724.
Jiang, K., Lepak, D. P., Hu, J., & Baer, J. C. (2012). How does human
resource management influence organizational outcomes? A meta-
analytic investigation of mediating mechanisms. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal,55(6), 1264–1294.
Jiang, K., & Messersmith, J. (2018). On the shoulders of giants: A meta-
review of strategic human resource management. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management,29(1), 6–33.
Johnson, D. W. (1973). Communication in conflict situations: A critical
review of the research. International Journal of Group Tensions,3(1),
46–67.
20 ZHANG ET AL.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory
and research. Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1992). Positive interdependence: Activity
manual and guide. Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2005). New developments in social
interdependence theory. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Mono-
graphs,131(4), 285–358.
Kehoe, R. R., & Wright, P. M. (2013). The impact of high-performance
human resource practices on employees' attitudes and behaviors. Jour-
nal of Management,39(2), 366–391.
Khazanchi, S., Sprinkle, T. A., Masterson, S. S., & Tong, N. (2018). A spatial
model of work relationships: The relationship-building and
relationship-straining effects of workspace design. Academy of Man-
agement Review,43(4), 590–609.
Khilji, S. E., & Wang, X. (2006). ‘Intended’and ‘implemented’HRM: The
missing linchpin in strategic human resource management research.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management,17(7), 1171–
1189.
Kiggundu, M. N. (1981). Task interdependence and the theory of job
design. Academy of Management Review,6(3), 499–508.
Kim, H. K., & McKenry, P. C. (2002). The relationship between marriage
and psychological well-being: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Family
Issues,23(8), 885–911.
Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. (2000). From micro to meso: Critical steps
in conceptualizing and conducting multilevel research. Organizational
Research Methods,3(3), 211–236.
Kooij, D. T., Guest, D. E., Clinton, M., Knight, T., Jansen, P. G., &
Dikkers, J. S. (2013). How the impact of HR practices on employee
well-being and performance changes with age. Human Resource Man-
agement Journal,23(1), 18–35.
Kooij, D. T., Jansen, P. G., Dikkers, J. S., & De Lange, A. H. (2010). The
influence of age on the associations between HR practices and both
affective commitment and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Organizational Behavior,31(8), 1111–1136.
Korff, J., Biemann, T., & Voelpel, S. C. (2017a). Human resource manage-
ment systems and work attitudes: The mediating role of future time
perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior,38(1), 45–67.
Korff, J., Biemann, T., & Voelpel, S. C. (2017b). Differentiating HR systems'
impact: Moderating effects of age on the HR system–work outcome
association. Journal of Organizational Behavior,38(3), 415–438.
Kowalski, T. H., & Loretto, W. (2017). Subjective well-being and HRM in
the changing workplace. International Journal of Human Resource Man-
agement,28(16), 2229–2255.
Krackhardt, D., & Stern, R. N. (1988). Informal networks and organizational
crises: An experimental simulation. Social Psychology Quarterly,51(2),
123–140.
Kroll, C. (2011). Different things make different people happy: Examining
social capital and subjective well-being by gender and parental status.
Social Indicators Research,104(1), 157–177.
Kuvaas, B. (2008). An exploration of how the employee–organization rela-
tionship affects the linkage between perception of developmental
human resource practices and employee outcomes. Journal of Manage-
ment Studies,45(1), 1–25.
Landers, R. N., & Behrend, T. S. (2015). An inconvenient truth: Arbitrary
distinctions between organizational, Mechanical Turk, and other con-
venience samples. Industrial and Organizational Psychology,8(2),
142–164.
Landis, R. S., Beal, D. J., & Tesluk, P. E. (2000). A comparison of approaches
to forming composite measures in structural equation models. Organi-
zational Research Methods,3(2), 186–207.
Liao, H., Toya, K., Lepak, D. P., & Hong, Y. (2009). Do they see eye to eye?
Management and employee perspectives of high-performance work
systems and influence processes on service quality. Journal of Applied
Psychology,94(2), 371–391.
Lincoln, J. R., & Miller, J. (1979). Work and friendship ties in organizations:
A comparative analysis of relation networks. Administrative Science
Quarterly,24(2), 181–199.
Liu, J., Kwan, H. K., Fu, P. P., & Mao, Y. (2013). Ethical leadership and job
performance in China: The roles of workplace friendships and
traditionality. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
86(4), 564–584.
Lv, Z., & Xu, T. (2018). Psychological contract breach, high-performance
work system and engagement: The mediated effect of person-
organization fit. The International Journal of Human Resource Manage-
ment,29(7), 1257–1284.
Mao, H. Y. (2006). The relationship between organizational level and
workplace friendship. International Journal of Human Resource Manage-
ment,17(10), 1819–1833.
Markiewicz, D., Devine, I., & Kausilas, D. (2000). Friendships of women
and men at work: Job satisfaction and resource implications. Journal of
Managerial Psychology,15(2), 161–184.
Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Cannon-
Bowers, J. A. (2000). The influence of shared mental models on team
process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,85, 273–283.
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather:
Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology,27(1),
415–444.
Messersmith, J. G., Patel, P. C., Lepak, D. P., & Gould-Williams, J. S. (2011).
Unlocking the black box: Exploring the link between high-performance
work systems and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,96(6),
1105–1118.
Methot, J. R., LePine, J. A., Podsakoff, N. P., & Christian, J. S. (2016). Are
workplace friendships a mixed blessing? Exploring tradeoffs of multi-
plex relationships and their associations with job performance. Person-
nel Psychology,69(2), 311–355.
Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organiza-
tions and occupations: Extension and test of a three-component con-
ceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology,78(4), 538–551.
Mossholder, K. W., Richardson, H. A., & Settoon, R. P. (2011). Human
resource systems and helping in organizations: A relational perspec-
tive. Academy of Management Review,36(1), 3–52.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus version 7 user's guide.
Muthén & Muthén.
Nielsen, I. K., Jex, S. M., & Adams, G. A. (2000). Development and valida-
tion of scores on a two-dimensional workplace friendship scale. Educa-
tional & Psychological Measurement,60(4), 628–643.
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(3),
503–545.
Okay-Somerville, B., & Scholarios, D. (2019). A multilevel examination of
skills-oriented human resource management and perceived skill utiliza-
tion during recession: Implications for the well-being of all workers.
Human Resource Management,58(2), 139–154.
O'Neill, T. A., & Salas, E. (2018). Creating high performance teamwork in
organizations. Human Resource Management Review,28(4), 325–331.
Ortiz, A., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1996). The effect of positive goal
and resource interdependence on individual performance. Journal of
Social Psychology,136, 243–249.
Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (1993). The affective and cognitive context of self-
reported measures of subjective well-being. Social Indicators Research,
28(1), 1–20.
Pearce, J. L., & Gregersen, H. B. (1991). Task interdependence and extra-
role behavior: A test of the mediating effects of felt responsibility.
Journal of Applied Psychology,76(6), 838–844.
Pearsall, M. J., Christian, M. S., & Ellis, A. P. (2010). Motivating
interdependent teams: Individual rewards, shared rewards, or some-
thing in between? Journal of Applied Psychology,95(1), 183–191.
ZHANG ET AL.21
Peccei, R. (2004). Human resource management and the search for the
happy workplace. Inaugural address. Erasmus Research Institute of
Management.
Peccei, R., & Van De Voorde, K. (2019a). The application of the multi-
level paradigm in human resource management outcomes research:
Taking stock and going forward. Journal of Management,45(2),
786–818.
Peccei, R., & Van De Voorde, K. (2019b). Human resource management–
well-being–performance research revisited: Past, present, and future.
Human Resource Management Journal,29(4), 539–563.
Piening, E. P., Baluch, A. M., & Ridder, H. G. (2014). Mind the intended-
implemented gap: Understanding employees' perceptions of HRM.
Human Resource Management,53(4), 545–567.
Pillemer, J., & Rothbard, N. P. (2018). Friends without benefits: Under-
standing the dark sides of workplace friendship. Academy of Manage-
ment Review,43(4), 635–660.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003).
Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the
literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88(5), 879–903.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of
method bias in social science research and recommendations on how
to control it. Annual Review of Psychology,63, 539–569.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strate-
gies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator
models. Behavior Research Methods,40(3), 879–891.
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. K., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated
mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivari-
ate Behavioral Research,42(1), 185–227.
Preacher, K. J., Zhang, Z., & Zyphur, M. J. (2016). Multilevel structural
equation models for assessing moderation within and across levels of
analysis. Psychological Methods,21(2), 189–205.
Ragins, B. R., & Dutton, J. E. (2007). Positive relationships at work: An
introduction and invitation. In J. E. Dutton & B. R. Ragins (Eds.), Explor-
ing positive relationships at work: Building a theoretical and research
foundation (pp. 3–25). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Reohr, J. R. (1991). Friendship: An exploration of structure and process.
Garland Publishing.
Riordan, C. M., & Griffeth, R. W. (1995). The opportunity for friendship in
the workplace: An underexplored construct. Journal of Business and
Psychology,10(2), 141–154.
Rioux, S. M., & Penner, L. A. (2001). The causes of organizational citizen-
ship behavior: A motivational analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,
86(6), 1306–1314.
Ross, J. A. (1997). Does friendship improve job satisfaction? Harvard Busi-
ness Review,75(2), 8–9.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The darker and brighter sides of human
existence: Basic psychological needs as a unifying concept. Psychologi-
cal Inquiry,11(4), 319–338.
Sanchezburks, J., Lee, F., Choi, I., Nisbett, R., Zhao, S., & Koo, J. (2003).
Conversing across cultures: East-west communication styles in work
and nonwork contexts. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,85(2),
363–374.
Schermuly, C. C., & Meyer, B. (2016). Good relationships at work: The
effects of Leader–Member Exchange and Team–Member Exchange on
psychological empowerment, emotional exhaustion, and depression.
Journal of Organizational Behavior,37(5), 673–691.
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology,
40(3), 437–453.
Seers, A., Petty, M. M., & Cashman, J. F. (1995). Team-member exchange
under team and traditional management: A naturally occurring quasi-
experiment. Group & Organization Management,20(1), 18–38.
Sias, P. M., & Cahill, D. J. (1998). From coworkers to friends: The develop-
ment of peer friendships in the workplace. Western Journal of Commu-
nication,62(3), 273–299.
Sluss, D. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2007). Relational identity and identification:
Defining ourselves through work relationships. Academy of Manage-
ment Review,32(1), 9–32.
Smyth, R., Nielsen, I., & Zhai, Q. (2010). Personal well-being in urban
China. Social Indicators Research,95(2), 231–251.
Sparr, J. L., & Sonnentag, S. (2008). Fairness perceptions of supervisor
feedback, LMX, and employee well-being at work. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology,17(2), 198–225.
Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or
urban legend? Organizational Research Methods,9(2), 221–232.
Sun, L. Y., Aryee, S., & Law, K. S. (2007). High-performance human
resource practices, citizenship behavior, and organizational perfor-
mance: A relational perspective. Academy of Management Journal,
50(3), 558–577.
Takeuchi, R., Chen, G., & Lepak, D. P. (2009). Through the looking glass of
a social system: Cross-level effects of high-performance work systems
on employees' attitudes. Personnel Psychology,62(1), 1–29.
Takeuchi, R., Lepak, D. P., Wang, H., & Takeuchi, K. (2007). An empirical
examination of the mechanisms mediating between high-performance
work systems and the performance of Japanese organizations. Journal
of Applied Psychology,92(4), 1069–1083.
Thompson, B. S., & Korsgaard, M. A. (2019). Relational identification and
forgiveness: Facilitating relationship resilience. Journal of Business and
Psychology,34(2), 153–167.
Thompson, E. R. (2007). Development and validation of an internationally
reliable short-form of the positive and negative affect schedule
(PANAS). Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,38(2), 227–242.
Tse, H. H. M., Dasborough, M. T., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2008). A multi-level
analysis of team climate and interpersonal exchange relationships at
work. The Leadership Quarterly,19(2), 195–211.
Tsui, A. S., Pearce, J. L., Porter, L. W., & Tripoli, A. M. (1997). Alternative
approaches to the employee-organization relationship: Does invest-
ment in employees pay off? Academy of Management Journal,40(5),
1089–1121.
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(4), 391–407.
Van De Voorde, K., Veld, M., & Van Veldhoven, M. (2016). Connecting
empowerment-focused HRM and labour productivity to work engage-
ment: The mediating role of job demands and resources. Human
Resource Management Journal,26(2), 192–210.
Venkataramani, V., Labianca, G., & Grosser, T. (2013). Positive and nega-
tive workplace relationships, social satisfaction, and organizational
attachment. Journal of Applied Psychology,98(6), 1028–1039.
Wageman, R., & Baker, G. (1997). Incentives and cooperation: The joint
effects of task and reward interdependence on group performance.
Journal of Organizational Behavior,18(2), 139–158.
Wang, H., Zhang, Y., & Wan, M. (2021). Linking high-performance work
systems and employee well-being: A multilevel examination of the
roles of organisation-based self-esteem and departmental
formalisation. Human Resource Management Journal. https://doi.org/
10.1111/1748-8583.12391
Wei, L. Q., & Wu, L. (2013). What a diverse top management team means:
Testing an integrated model. Journal of Management Studies,50(3),
389–412.
West, M. A., Guthrie, J. P., Dawson, J. F., Borrill, C. S., & Carter, M. (2006).
Reducing patient mortality in hospitals: The role of human resource
management. Journal of Organizational Behavior,27(7), 983–1002.
Whitener, E. M. (2001). Do “high commitment”human resource practices
affect employee commitment?: A cross-level analysis using hierarchical
linear modeling. Journal of Management,27(5), 515–535.
Winstead, B. A., Derlega, V. J., Montgomery, M. J., & Pilkington, C. (1995).
The quality of friendships at work and job satisfaction. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships,12(2), 199–215.
22 ZHANG ET AL.
Witter, R. A., Okun, M. A., Stock, W. A., & Haring, M. J. (1984). Education
and subjective well-being: A meta-analysis. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis,6(2), 165–173.
Wood, S., & de Menezes, L. M. (2011). High involvement management,
high-performance work systems and well-being. The International Jour-
nal of Human Resource Management,22(7), 1586–1610.
Wood, W., Rhodes, N., & Whelan, M. (1989). Sex differences in positive
well-being: A consideration of emotional style and marital status. Psy-
chological Bulletin,106(2), 249–264.
Wright, P. H. (1984). Self-referent motivation and the intrinsic quality of
friendship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,1(1), 115–130.
Wright, P. M., & Ulrich, M. D. (2017). A road well traveled: The past, pre-
sent, and future journey of strategic human resource management.
Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior,
4,45–65.
Xiao, Z., & Björkman, I. (2006). High commitment work systems in Chinese
organizations: A preliminary measure. Management & Organization
Review,2(3), 403–422.
Xiao, Z., & Tsui, A. S. (2007). When brokers may not work: The cultural
contingency of social capital in Chinese high-tech firms. Administrative
Science Quarterly,52(1), 1–31.
Yakubovich, V., & Burg, R. (2019). Friendship by assignment? From formal
interdependence to informal relations in organizations. Human Rela-
tions,72(6), 1013–1038.
Zhang, M., Zhu, C. J., Dowling, P. J., & Bartram, T. (2013). Exploring the
effects of high-performance work systems (HPWS) on the work-
related well-being of Chinese hospital employees. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management,24(16), 3196–3212.
Zhong, L., Wayne, S. J., & Liden, R. C. (2016). Job engagement, perceived
organizational support, high-performance human resource practices,
and cultural value orientations: A cross-level investigation. Journal of
Organizational Behavior,37(6), 823–844.
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Yejun Zhang is an Assistant Professor of Management in the
Robert C. Vackar College of Business & Entrepreneurship at the
University of Texas Rio Grande Valley. He received his PhD from
the University of Oklahoma. His research interests include
employee careers, human resource management systems, per-
ceived overqualification, and global work experiences.
Jian-Min (James) Sun is a professor in the School of Labor and
Human Resources at Renmin University of China, Beijing. He
earned his PhD degree from Beijing Normal University in Psychol-
ogy. His research interests include strategic human resource man-
agement, leadership, and employee well-being. His publications
have appeared in the Human Relations,Human Resource Manage-
ment Review,Journal of Organizational Behavior,Journal of Interna-
tional Business Studies,Leadership Quarterly, among others.
Margaret A. Shaffer is the Michael F. Price Chair of International
Business at the Price College of Business, the University of Okla-
homa. Her research interests are in the areas of global mobility
and the work-life interplay. Her publications have appeared in the
Academy of Management Review,Academy of Management Journal,
Journal of Applied Psychology,Personnel Psychology,Journal of Man-
agement, and Journal of International Business Studies.
Cai-Hui (Veronica) Lin was a Senior Lecturer in Management from
the UQ Business School at the University of Queensland. The
authors honor and pay tribute to her legacy in the field of human
resource management, and her work will continue to inspire us.
How to cite this article: Zhang, Y., Sun, J.-M., Shaffer, M. A., &
Lin, C.-H. (2021). High commitment work systems and
employee well-being: The roles of workplace friendship and
task interdependence. Human Resource Management,1–23.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22093
ZHANG ET AL.23
