Pulse surveys, well-being apps and HR dashboards have become standard tools in many organisations. They promise better insights, faster follow-up and more sustainable workplaces. Despite these ambitions, many organisations struggle to see meaningful improvements in employee well-being.
According to Nazneen Rony, the issue is rarely the technology itself, but rather how it is used and experienced in everyday work.
“Many organisations have good intentions, but fail to fully understand what employees actually need. Without that understanding, even well-designed initiatives risk having the opposite effect,” she says.
On April 13 2026, Nazneen Rony defended her doctoral thesis at the Department of Business Administration, School of Business, Economics and Law at the University of Gothenburg. Her dissertation is the first in a series of upcoming PhD defences within CGHRM this spring.
Her research highlights a recurring pattern: well-being initiatives are often designed based on assumptions rather than on a deep understanding of employees’ day-to-day realities. While organisations collect increasing amounts of data about employee experiences, that data does not automatically translate into meaningful change.
“Organisations have become very good at measuring well-being. But measurement alone does not create improvement. We also need to understand the context behind the numbers and act on it,” she explains.
A gap between intention and experience
A central contribution of her research is the identification of what she calls a “well-being paradox” – the idea that increased use of digital tools does not necessarily lead to higher levels of well-being or job satisfaction. In some cases, the opposite may occur.
“When organisations rely heavily on digital tools, they may unintentionally shift responsibility for well-being onto the individual. For example, through apps that encourage self-management of stress or recovery. This can change how employees perceive organisational support,” she says.
The result is a shift from collective responsibility to individual responsibility. While digital tools can provide guidance or reminders, they cannot replace human interaction, empathy or supportive leadership.
“A notification suggesting a break is not the same as a manager who understands your workload and takes action. When care becomes standardised or automated, it risks being perceived as symbolic rather than genuine.”
Over time, this can affect trust and engagement within the organisation.
Beyond tools: a human-centred approach
Nazneen Rony emphasises that her research is not a critique of digitalisation itself. Instead, it points to the need for a more human-centred approach to digital HRM.
Digital maturity, she argues, should not be understood as the implementation of advanced systems alone. Rather, it is a socio-technical achievement, where technology supports organisational goals while human relationships sustain employees.
“When organisations manage to balance technological efficiency with human connection, they are more likely to create sustainable outcomes. It is not about choosing between technology and people, but about making them work together.”
The role of HR
Her findings also underline the importance of HR as a strategic bridge between management intentions and employee experiences.
Rather than focusing primarily on data collection and reporting, HR functions need to ensure that insights are translated into tangible changes in the work environment. This may involve adjusting workloads, clarifying priorities or supporting managers in their day-to-day leadership.
“It is not enough to monitor how employees feel. Organisations need to create the conditions for them to feel better. That requires continuous dialogue and a willingness to act on what is being shared.”
Congratulations, Nazneen!
