Gruman & Budworth (2022) → Positive psychology and HRM: building an HR
architecture to support human flourishing
Core idea → this is the lead/framework article for Theme 4. It reviews how positive
psychology entered HRM and introduces the authors' own model (PHRAME) to organise the
field.
PHRM (Positive Human Resource Management) → HR practices/systems aimed at
promoting positive work environments and human flourishing, not just performance.
Two existing approaches in the literature:
- Individual PHR practices → specific practices like strengths-based performance
management, employee voice, training for wellbeing.
- HRM-WB-IOP approach (HRM, well-being, individual/organisational performance) →
looks at whether HR systems, wellbeing and performance connect. Two competing
perspectives here:
1) Mutual gains (HR boosts wellbeing which boosts performance) versus
2) Conflicting outcomes (HR practices that drive performance actually increase
strain and hurt wellbeing). Peccei & Van De Voorde (2019)
- One of the other Week 4 readings - found most studies support mutual
gains but conflicting outcomes evidence exists too. Worth flagging this
link for the exam since it directly connects two of your four readings.
Weak vs strong PHRM
Weak PHRM treats performance as the main goal, wellbeing as just a means
Strong PHRM (the article's argument) puts wellbeing on equal footing with performance.
The PHRAME model (Positive Human Resourcefulness and Management)
PHRAME is a lens for analysing internal/employee-level fit specifically → you could argue it
operationalises the course's overarching fit argument at the individual/psychological level.
- PHR practices/systems (training, job design, work-life balance, voice mechanisms)
→
- Individual and group wellbeing (first-stage mediators — eudaimonic wellbeing, need
satisfaction, social wellbeing) →
- Individual and group mechanisms (second-stage mediators — affective, cognitive,
motivational, social processes) →
- Outcomes (individual, group, organisational → health, reputation, recruitment
attractiveness, not just performance)
- Moderated throughout by a "climate of human resourcefulness" → whether
employees perceive the organisation as genuinely caring about wellbeing vs. just
, extracting productivity. This attribution piece links back to Theme 1 material on HR
attributions if that came up.
- Reciprocal causation: relationships run both ways → wellbeing enables performance
but performance can also generate wellbeing.
Self-determination theory link
- The article ties wellbeing to satisfaction of three basic psychological needs →
autonomy, competence, relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2001)
- This is the same theoretical engine the Jiang et al. reading uses to explain
relational/inclusive HRM → a direct, citable cross-reading connection.
System strength
- Drawing on Bowen & Ostroff (2004), HR systems create a strong climate of human
resourcefulness when they are distinctive, consistent, and generate consensus
among employees about what they signal.
- This exact concept reappears in the Jiang et al. reading as one of three pillars
explaining how high-performance HRM affects thriving → another strong
cross-reading link.
"human resourcefulness" → the authors propose replacing "human resources/capital"
language because it objectifies people; resourcefulness reframes employees as generators
of resources rather than exploitable stock.
The "dark side" / balancing act
Positive practices can have a dark side
- Job enrichment can increase stress
- Social capital can cause role overload
Positive things can be overdone
- Excessive skill variety causes role conflict and anxiety
- Too much optimism causes overconfidence
Positive and negative can complement each other
- Optimism and pessimism can productively coexist
- Short-term struggle can precede long-term eudaimonic growth
Context determines whether something is positive
- Online training builds hope in normal times but overload during crises
- Mindfulness training helps under transformational leaders but can hurt under abusive
ones.
Unconscious processes can shape outcomes without anyone realising it
- Life satisfaction and psychological capital may be generated through implicit,
non-conscious mechanisms
- Most management research doesn't account for this
, Discrete emotions nuance
- The article argues research should move beyond just "positive affect vs. negative
affect" broadly and look at specific discrete emotions
- Gratitude and pride, for instance, have distinct effects on helping behavior and task
persistence that get lost if you only measure general positive affect.
Conclusion
Frames the paper as a response to Seligman's (1999) call for a focus on positive subjective
experience, positive traits, and positive institutions → ~25 years on, time to take stock and
set direction
Two main contributions highlighted:
- Need to consider higher-order levels of analysis in PHRM, especially the group level
and climate factors (→ climate of human resourcefulness)
- Need to examine a broader range of well-being variables/outcomes than the field has
typically used
PHRAME model + the special issue's articles together offered as a broad framework for
studying PHRM, with individual articles providing focused discussions of specific aspects
Self-check questions:
1) What is the difference between the "weak" and "strong" forms of PHRM, and why
does it matter for how performance and wellbeing are prioritised?
2) Explain the mutual gains perspective versus the conflicting outcomes perspective
within the HRM-WB-IOP research stream. Which does the evidence lean towards,
and what's the caveat?
3) Walk through the PHRAME model's structure: what precedes wellbeing, what follows
it, and what moderates the relationship between HR practices and wellbeing?
4) What is the "climate of human resourcefulness," and why does it matter whether
employees attribute HR practices to genuine care versus cost-cutting?
5) What three basic psychological needs does the article draw from self-determination
theory, and how do they connect wellbeing to HR practices like job design and
compensation?
6) What does "system strength" mean (per Bowen & Ostroff), and what three qualities
make an HR system "strong"?
7) Why do the authors propose "human resourcefulness" as an alternative to "human
resources" or "human capital"?
8) Give three of the five "balancing act" points the article raises about positive
phenomena having limits or complications. Why does this nuance matter for an exam
answer arguing about PHRM, rather than just describing it as beneficial?
9) Why might research on discrete emotions (like gratitude or pride) offer more insight
than research on general positive/negative affect?
10)How might "reciprocal causation" complicate a simple story of "HR practices cause
wellbeing which causes performance"?
architecture to support human flourishing
Core idea → this is the lead/framework article for Theme 4. It reviews how positive
psychology entered HRM and introduces the authors' own model (PHRAME) to organise the
field.
PHRM (Positive Human Resource Management) → HR practices/systems aimed at
promoting positive work environments and human flourishing, not just performance.
Two existing approaches in the literature:
- Individual PHR practices → specific practices like strengths-based performance
management, employee voice, training for wellbeing.
- HRM-WB-IOP approach (HRM, well-being, individual/organisational performance) →
looks at whether HR systems, wellbeing and performance connect. Two competing
perspectives here:
1) Mutual gains (HR boosts wellbeing which boosts performance) versus
2) Conflicting outcomes (HR practices that drive performance actually increase
strain and hurt wellbeing). Peccei & Van De Voorde (2019)
- One of the other Week 4 readings - found most studies support mutual
gains but conflicting outcomes evidence exists too. Worth flagging this
link for the exam since it directly connects two of your four readings.
Weak vs strong PHRM
Weak PHRM treats performance as the main goal, wellbeing as just a means
Strong PHRM (the article's argument) puts wellbeing on equal footing with performance.
The PHRAME model (Positive Human Resourcefulness and Management)
PHRAME is a lens for analysing internal/employee-level fit specifically → you could argue it
operationalises the course's overarching fit argument at the individual/psychological level.
- PHR practices/systems (training, job design, work-life balance, voice mechanisms)
→
- Individual and group wellbeing (first-stage mediators — eudaimonic wellbeing, need
satisfaction, social wellbeing) →
- Individual and group mechanisms (second-stage mediators — affective, cognitive,
motivational, social processes) →
- Outcomes (individual, group, organisational → health, reputation, recruitment
attractiveness, not just performance)
- Moderated throughout by a "climate of human resourcefulness" → whether
employees perceive the organisation as genuinely caring about wellbeing vs. just
, extracting productivity. This attribution piece links back to Theme 1 material on HR
attributions if that came up.
- Reciprocal causation: relationships run both ways → wellbeing enables performance
but performance can also generate wellbeing.
Self-determination theory link
- The article ties wellbeing to satisfaction of three basic psychological needs →
autonomy, competence, relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2001)
- This is the same theoretical engine the Jiang et al. reading uses to explain
relational/inclusive HRM → a direct, citable cross-reading connection.
System strength
- Drawing on Bowen & Ostroff (2004), HR systems create a strong climate of human
resourcefulness when they are distinctive, consistent, and generate consensus
among employees about what they signal.
- This exact concept reappears in the Jiang et al. reading as one of three pillars
explaining how high-performance HRM affects thriving → another strong
cross-reading link.
"human resourcefulness" → the authors propose replacing "human resources/capital"
language because it objectifies people; resourcefulness reframes employees as generators
of resources rather than exploitable stock.
The "dark side" / balancing act
Positive practices can have a dark side
- Job enrichment can increase stress
- Social capital can cause role overload
Positive things can be overdone
- Excessive skill variety causes role conflict and anxiety
- Too much optimism causes overconfidence
Positive and negative can complement each other
- Optimism and pessimism can productively coexist
- Short-term struggle can precede long-term eudaimonic growth
Context determines whether something is positive
- Online training builds hope in normal times but overload during crises
- Mindfulness training helps under transformational leaders but can hurt under abusive
ones.
Unconscious processes can shape outcomes without anyone realising it
- Life satisfaction and psychological capital may be generated through implicit,
non-conscious mechanisms
- Most management research doesn't account for this
, Discrete emotions nuance
- The article argues research should move beyond just "positive affect vs. negative
affect" broadly and look at specific discrete emotions
- Gratitude and pride, for instance, have distinct effects on helping behavior and task
persistence that get lost if you only measure general positive affect.
Conclusion
Frames the paper as a response to Seligman's (1999) call for a focus on positive subjective
experience, positive traits, and positive institutions → ~25 years on, time to take stock and
set direction
Two main contributions highlighted:
- Need to consider higher-order levels of analysis in PHRM, especially the group level
and climate factors (→ climate of human resourcefulness)
- Need to examine a broader range of well-being variables/outcomes than the field has
typically used
PHRAME model + the special issue's articles together offered as a broad framework for
studying PHRM, with individual articles providing focused discussions of specific aspects
Self-check questions:
1) What is the difference between the "weak" and "strong" forms of PHRM, and why
does it matter for how performance and wellbeing are prioritised?
2) Explain the mutual gains perspective versus the conflicting outcomes perspective
within the HRM-WB-IOP research stream. Which does the evidence lean towards,
and what's the caveat?
3) Walk through the PHRAME model's structure: what precedes wellbeing, what follows
it, and what moderates the relationship between HR practices and wellbeing?
4) What is the "climate of human resourcefulness," and why does it matter whether
employees attribute HR practices to genuine care versus cost-cutting?
5) What three basic psychological needs does the article draw from self-determination
theory, and how do they connect wellbeing to HR practices like job design and
compensation?
6) What does "system strength" mean (per Bowen & Ostroff), and what three qualities
make an HR system "strong"?
7) Why do the authors propose "human resourcefulness" as an alternative to "human
resources" or "human capital"?
8) Give three of the five "balancing act" points the article raises about positive
phenomena having limits or complications. Why does this nuance matter for an exam
answer arguing about PHRM, rather than just describing it as beneficial?
9) Why might research on discrete emotions (like gratitude or pride) offer more insight
than research on general positive/negative affect?
10)How might "reciprocal causation" complicate a simple story of "HR practices cause
wellbeing which causes performance"?
