How (Not) to Incorporate Employee Well‐Being as a Selection Criterion: Commentary on König et al. (2026)

ABSTRACT In their “Provocation Article,” König and colleagues (2026) make an important contribution by advocating for the explicit inclusion of employee well‐being as an outcome in personnel selection. We appreciate this perspective and support the view that fostering a healthy and happy workforce is a central organizational goal that should be more systematically considered in selection practices. At the same time, however, we argue that some of the proposed approaches risk unintentionally fostering discrimination against applicants with reduced well‐being or mental health and of intruding into their privacy, given that mental health information is legally protected as sensitive personal data in various jurisdictions. We therefore outline alternative pathways for integrating well‐being and mental health into selection systems while mitigating these risks. Specifically, we elaborate on two indirect pathways already noted in the provocation article: (a) the structured assessment of person–environment fit and (b) applicants' potential impact on others' well‐being and mental health in the workplace. In addition, we introduce two complementary approaches: (c) assessing how applicants interpret work situations (situation construal) as a cognitive process relevant to well‐being and mental health–related outcomes, and (d) selecting for health behaviors as a criterion instead of directly targeting well‐being and mental health itself. Together, these approaches demonstrate how employee well‐being and mental health can be incorporated as criteria in personnel selection, while safeguarding fairness and minimizing the risk of well‐being and mental health‐related discrimination and privacy intrusion.