Burnout and Well-being at Work: Exploring Psychological Mechanisms Through Stress Appraisal Perspective

Abstract

Background

Escalating workplace stress has made employee well-being a global concern, necessitating the identification of factors and underlying mechanisms that impair psychological health. Against this backdrop, examining burnout as a potential workplace stressor and its implications for employee well-being is both timely and crucial.

Purpose

Building upon the Stress Appraisal Theory, this study endeavoured to assess the impact of burnout on employee well-being at work in terms of their work engagement and job satisfaction. The relationship between these variables has been elucidated through the lens of a moderated mediation framework of psychological capital (PsyCap) and psychological distress. Specifically, the contribution of psychological distress in mediating the relationship between burnout and employee workplace well-being was ascertained. Further, the function of PsyCap in alleviating the influence of burnout on the workplace well-being of employees was examined.

Methods

This study proposed a moderated mediation model exploring the underlying and intervening mechanisms of the association between burnout and employee workplace well-being, with reference to psychological distress and PsyCap. The model was tested among 439 human service professionals using a two-step approach to structural equation modelling.

Results

The findings revealed that burnout results in poor workplace well-being of employees in terms of work disengagement and job dissatisfaction through an indirect relationship via psychological distress. Further, it was found that PsyCap has moderated this indirect relationship such that employees with high PsyCap suffer less from the repercussions of burnout and subsequent psychological distress.

Conclusion

The study highlights the role of personal factors in a comprehensible model of burnout and well-being. Insights about such factors and their latent processes are indispensable for designing effective mental health interventions at work.

Keywords

Burnout well-being psychological mechanisms stress appraisal perspective

Introduction

Mental health and workplace well-being have gained global prominence, with the World Health Organization,^{1, 2} identifying the promotion of a psychologically healthy workforce as a public health priority. Defined broadly, well-being encompasses a person’s overall appraisal of life satisfaction combined with emotional experiences across the spectrum from depression to joy.^{3, 4} It captures how people are satisfied with the quality of their relationships, positive emotional experiences, the degree to which they flourish and a comprehensive sense of life contentment.^{5, 6} Workplace well-being is that aspect of an employee’s well-being that stems mainly from work.^{7, 8} It integrates consideration of physical and mental fitness, addressing the social and psychological domains of three interconnected factors: workplace, workforce and the work people do (Schmidt & Marson, 2012, as cited in).⁹ For this study, workplace well-being is operationalised using two key constructs: job satisfaction and employee engagement at work. Job satisfaction involves an employee’s feeling of contentment or discontentment with a job.¹⁰ As a constructive counterpart of burnout,^{11, 12} work engagement captures positive, motivational, and deeply satisfying work experience that is manifested through vigour, dedication and absorption. Work engagement is demonstrated by a person’s strong psychological investment in an activity.¹³

Although work can instil a sense of personal identity and purpose in life and the workplace can serve as a source of productivity and a wellspring of joy and happiness, a substantial amount of literature repeatedly points out that overwhelming work demands and persistent work stress can yield adverse consequences for both employees and their employing organisations.^{1, 8} Against this backdrop, the steady escalation of work-related stress has made employee well-being a global concern with international agencies, including the World Health Organization,² have mandated to protect employee well-being against the psychosocial risk factors that undermine mental health at work. However, addressing these challenges requires a clear and systematic understanding of such phenomena and calls for identifying psychosocial risk factors at work, such as workplace stressors and their underlying psychological mechanisms through which they can harm employee psychological health.^14–16 Within this context, burnout has gained particular attention as a pervasive and consequential workplace stressor.^17–19 Thus, this research aims to examine the association between burnout and employee well-being, conceptualised through work engagement and job satisfaction. Beyond establishing a direct association, the research investigates the in-depth psychological processes through which burnout may influence these outcomes. In particular, it investigates whether psychological distress functions as a mediating mechanism linking burnout to diminished engagement and satisfaction. In addition to the knowledge of stress contributing pathways, recognising the role of protective factors that may shield the employees from the direct and indirect influence of burnout is also crucial for protecting mental health at the workplace and the success of workplace well-being initiatives.^{14, 20} The personal psychological strengths of an employee deserve special mention in this regard, which may limit the ill impact of workplace stressors on the psychological health of the employees.^{21, 22} Building upon the recommendations from the previous literature, this study seeks to ascertain whether the personal psychological resource of psychological capital (PsyCap), acting as a moderator, alters the strength of the direct and mediated relationship of burnout with well-being. Overall, through the integration of mediating and moderating processes within a single framework, the present study advances a comprehensive theoretical model embedded in the theory of Stress Appraisal,^23–25 and previous empirical literature.

Theoretical Framework

This section explains the explanatory and buffering mechanisms describing the association between burnout and employee well-being through the lens of theoretical perspectives, including stress appraisal theory and corresponding empirical literature underpinning the development of the theoretical framework of this study.

Burnout and Well-being at Work

Long-term exposure to demanding and stress-laden work conditions can gradually drain cognitive and emotional reserves, resulting in persistent exhaustion, psychological detachment from work and decreased professional efficacy.^{18, 19} The repercussions are especially salient in the psychological domain, where prolonged stress impairs mental health, reduces engagement and constrains overall functioning.^{1, 16} Sustained emotional fatigue, psychological withdrawal from professional role, lack of motivation and diminished perceptions of work competence or personal accomplishment are typical symptoms.^{11, 20} These core features are often accompanied by heightened anxiety, impaired concentration and inability to cope with stress,²⁶ leading to depression, emotional volatility, poor mental health and reduced professional efficacy.²⁷ Extant literature consistently underscores burnout as one of the most detrimental workplace stressors with far-reaching and potentially severe implications for employees.^{28, 29}

H₁: Burnout is associated with poor workplace well-being of employees.

Psychological Distress as a Mediator

Cognitive Appraisal Approach

Lazarus,^{24, 25} advanced a cognitive view of stress, known as the transactional model of stress, suggesting that stress arises from an individual’s interpretation of an event rather than the event itself.³⁰ At the core of this theory lie the mechanisms of appraisal and cognitive processing. Cognitive appraising refers to judging how personally meaningful a situation is for one’s well-being, through a twofold evaluation of its potential harm/threat and one’s response to it.²⁵ The first stage, termed primary appraisal, determines whether an event holds any relevance, is beneficial or threatening to one’s well-being.³¹ An encounter results in consequent subjective stress only when it is perceived as personally harmful. This implies that the psychological impact of any stressor depends more on the subjective interpretation than on merely exposure to the stressor itself.^{18, 32} Such cognitive appraisals are also shaped by individual differences. As burnout is a form of stressor at work and psychological distress results from appraisal of such behaviours as personally harmful,^{26, 27} linking the stress theoretical perspective to the present study, we may assume that psychological distress determines the severity of negative well-being outcomes.

Drawing on this proposition, earlier literature has reported that encountering a stress-inducing event contributes to an individual’s subjective perceptions of being victimised.³³ Thus, burnout significantly predicts psychological distress, anxiety and depressive symptoms.^{26, 34–36} Psychological distress has been consistently linked with job dissatisfaction and reduced work engagement.^37–39 Based on the aforementioned literature, this study proposes the following hypotheses to be tested:

H₂: Burnout is positively related to psychological distress.

H₃: Psychological distress decreases the well-being of employees, resulting in job dissatisfaction and work disengagement.

H₄: Psychological distress mediates the negative association between burnout and employee well-being.

Psychological Capital as a Moderator

PsyCap has gathered increasing attention as a personal psychological resource in organisational research. It represents a developable psychological construct characterised by confidence in one’s abilities (self-efficacy), positive attribution about present and future (optimism), sustained goal-directed motivation (hope) and the ability to bounce back in adversity (resilience).^{40, 41}

Transactional Model of Stress and Coping

In addition to the primary appraisal of the stress assessment, the transactional theory of stress,²³ also elucidates the second step of the cognitive appraisal process called the secondary appraisal. In this stage, Lazarus and Folkman²⁵ envisioned a central role for resources. According to this perspective, after the evaluation of an event as personally threatening, an individual must estimate the availability of resources that help in dealing with stress. Thus, when a situation is interpreted as threatening or challenging, the process of secondary appraisal involves evaluating one’s available resources and competence to effectively cope with it. The severity of stress will be less if the personal resources are perceived as adequate or abundant, while there will be more distress in a situation of perceived resource-deficit.³⁰ Thus, the key premise of this stress theory is that the cognitive appraisal processes, both primary and secondary, play an underlying role in the linkage between stressor and the subsequent individual’s reactions.⁴² The present study extends the stress theoretical perspective by forwarding PsyCap as a personal resource that helps mitigate not only the negative effects of perceived stress, in the form of burnout, on well-being but also in minimising the possibility of perceiving exposure to burnout as personally harmful.

H₅: PsyCap mitigates the positive association between burnout and psychological distress.

Further, though perceiving oneself as a victim in a stress-laden environment is inherently subjective,⁴³ individuals differ in how they interpret stressful experiences, and thus, the consequences of stress vary from person to person.^{44, 45} Some people are strong enough to perceive the negative situation as personally threatening. A possible explanation for the differential stress reactions is the availability of internal psychological buffers that shield individuals from adverse consequences. In line with this, PsyCap, comprising hope, optimism, self-efficacy and resilience, is one such protective factor that serves as a psychological safeguard that mitigates the likelihood of interpreting a stressful situation as personally threatening.^{29, 46, 47} While literature advocating the importance of PsyCap in the linkage between burnout, psychological distress and well-being is scanty,⁴⁸ research in the related areas has established the role of personal factors, such as locus of control, neuroticism, self-confidence, resilience, optimism, extraversion, positive and negative affectivity, on the linkage between stressful events and perceived distress.^{49, 50} Given that PsyCap is associated with such adaptive traits as internal locus of control, positive affect, self-efficacy, optimism and openness, while inversely related to low neuroticism and negative affectivity,⁴⁶ one may reasonably propose that PsyCap may attenuate the link between psychological distress and well-being. PsyCap, acting as an intrapersonal psychological strength, helps in buffering the deleterious impact of occupational stressors.⁵¹ Resilience, hope, and self-efficacy have been mentioned by previous literature to mitigate the influence of workplace stressors on psychological and workplace health of the employees, with employees high on PsyCap exhibiting higher psychological adjustment in the face of stress and a reduced likelihood of leaving their jobs.⁵² Individuals with elevated levels of PsyCap experience positive emotions, exhibit more confidence, possess effective coping abilities and show signs of healthy psychological functioning.⁵³ Thus, building upon the relevant available research, a buffering role of PsyCap in the association between psychological distress and the subsequent negative consequences may be hypothesised.

H₆: PsyCap buffers the negative association between psychological distress and well-being.

Based on this rationale, it may be proposed that the indirect link between burnout and employees’ workplace well-being, operating via psychological distress, varies as a function of PsyCap. Specifically, the detrimental pathway from burnout and poor well-being at work via distress is expected to be more pronounced among individuals with low levels of PsyCap, while this relationship may be attenuated among those with elevated PsyCap.

H₇: PsyCap moderates the indirect link between burnout and workplace well-being mediated via distress.

The proposed linkages among burnout, workplace well-being, psychological distress and PsyCap are illustrated in Figure 1. The hypothesised direct, indirect and interaction effects will be examined concurrently in a moderated mediation analytical framework.⁵⁴

Figure 1.

Conceptual Framework of Proposed Model.

Methodology

Sample

The sample of the present study consisted of 439 employees (Table 1) working in various public and private organisations of the human services sector (such as education, health and social services) of Jammu & Kashmir. A stratified random sampling technique was employed to obtain representation from multiple professional groups. The population was divided into three strata based on profession (nurses, teachers, social workers). Participants were selected randomly from each group by using computer-generated random numbers. Proportional distribution of participants across the three groups produced a total sample of 439 individuals, helping to improve sample diversity and reduce selection bias.

Table 1.

Demographic Characteristics of Participants (N = 439)

Variable	Category	N	%
Gender	Male	167	38.0
Gender	Female	272	62.0
Age group (years)	21–40 years	258	58.8
Age group (years)	41–60 years	181	41.2
Profession	Nurses	169	38.5
	Teachers	66	15.0
	Social workers	204	46.5

Measures

Maslach Burnout Inventory-Human Services Survey

Burnout was measured using the 22-item Maslach Burnout Inventory-Human Services Survey (MBI-HSS).⁵⁵ The scale assesses emotional exhaustion, cynicism and personal accomplishment. Greater scores on ‘emotional exhaustion and cynicism, together with lower scores on personal accomplishment, indicate higher burnout’.

General Health Questionnaire

Mental health status was assessed with the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12).⁵⁶ This 12-item screening tool evaluates psychological distress and overall well-being. Items were reverse-scored so that higher totals reflected better employee well-being.

Utrecht Work Engagement Scale

Work engagement was examined using the nine-item Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9).⁵⁷ The instrument measures vigour, dedication and absorption, with higher scores representing stronger engagement at work.

Michigan Organisational Assessment Questionnaire

Job satisfaction was assessed using the three-item Michigan Organisational Assessment Questionnaire (MOAQ).⁵⁸ This brief measure captures overall job evaluation; higher scores denote greater satisfaction.

PsyCap Questionnaire

PsyCap was evaluated with the 12-item PsyCap Questionnaire (PCQ).⁴⁰ Rated on a six-point Likert scale, the instrument measures ‘self-efficacy (1–3), hope (4–7), resilience (8–10) and optimism (11–12)’. Higher scores indicate stronger PsyCap.

Statistical Analyses

IBM SPSS Statistics 20.0 (IBM Corp., 2011)⁵⁹ and AMOS 18⁶⁰ were used for statistical analysis of data. A two-stage procedure of structural equation modelling (SEM) was employed following the methodological recommendations advocated by Anderson and Gerbing.⁶¹ In stage one, confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were conducted while a structural model was specified in stage two for evaluating the significance of hypothesised theoretical paths. Accordingly, the proposed moderated mediation model was tested using the PROCESS macro developed for SPSS.⁵⁴

Results

Model Fitness

CFAs were conducted to test the adequacy of the measurement model. The final CFA model established an acceptable and parsimonious fit to the data (χ²/df = 3.39, p < .01). While the χ² value reached statistical significance, the remaining fit indices demonstrated satisfactory model fit (CFI = 0.91, TLI = 0.92, RMR = 0.07, RMSEA = 0.08), which were consistent with recommended criteria. These findings suggest that the proposed measurement model provides an adequate fit to the data.

Hypotheses Testing

In accordance with the analytical procedures outlined by Hayes⁵⁴ a mediation analysis was carried out to examine the direct and mediated associations between burnout, psychological distress and workplace well-being of employees. Results showed that burnout has a positive association with psychological distress (b = 0.59, p < .001) that was further linked with the well-being of employees (b = 0.69, p < .001), supporting H₂ and H₃, respectively. A significant indirect association was demonstrated between burnout and well-being (b = 0.42; 95% BCa CI = 0.59–0.31), consistent with the fourth study hypothesis (H₄). This signifies an indirect association between burnout and well-being through psychological distress. Thus, the relationship between burnout and well-being decreased substantially from b = −0.64 (p < .001), primarily supporting H₁, to b = −0.04 (p > .05) when controlled for psychological distress, the mediator.

Table 2 shows two multiple regression models specified for testing the moderation hypotheses (H₅ and H₆).

Table 2.

Moderation Effects of PsyCap.

Predictor	b	SE	95% CL
Predictor	b	SE	Lower Limit	Upper Limit
Model 1 (DV = Psychological Distress)
Burnout	0.61**	0.04	0.72	0.51
PsyCap	−0.73**	0.04	–0.86	−0.64
Burnout×PsyCap	−0.35**	0.03	−0.41	−0.29
Model 2 (DV = Workplace Well-being)
Psychological distress	−0.33**	0.05	−0.46	−0.29
PsyCap	0.41**	0.04	0.35	0.51
Psychological distress×PsyCap	0.26**	0.03	0.17	0.34

Note: **p < .001.

As depicted in Table 2, psychological distress was predicted by burnout and PsyCap. Besides, the main effects, the interaction effect between burnout and PsyCap was demonstrated as statistically significant (Model 1). Figure 2 displays the nature of interaction, supporting hypothesis (H₅), indicating that PsyCap mitigates the positive association between burnout and psychological distress. Thus, at increased levels of PsyCap, burnout has a low positive impact on psychological distress.

Figure 2.

Moderating Impact of PsyCap on the Positive Linkage Between Burnout and Psychological Distress.

As reported in Model 2 (see Table 2), psychological distress emerged as a significant negative predictor of employees’ workplace well-being. Further, the interaction between distress and PsyCap was found to be statistically meaningful, revealing that the association between both varies depending on employees’ levels of PsyCap. The pattern of interaction is illustrated in Figure 3. As depicted in the interaction plot, the negative association between psychological distress and workplace well-being is weakened at higher levels of PsyCap, providing support for hypothesis (H₆).

Figure 3.

Moderating Impact of PsyCap on the Negative Association Between Psychological Distress and Workplace Well-being of Employees.

Finally, a moderated mediation analysis was performed for the examination of hypothesis (H₇), which supposed that the indirect effect of burnout on employee well-being via subsequent psychological distress varies as a function of PsyCap. In this model, PsyCap was designated as a moderator for the indirect association between burnout and well-being through psychological distress. The results were executed using the PROCESS macro for SPSS, following the methodological guidelines articulated by Hayes.⁵⁴ The findings are summarised in Table 3. Conditional indirect effects were estimated, and bias-corrected confidence intervals were estimated to determine statistical significance at different levels of the moderator.

The findings pointed out that the indirect association between burnout and well-being via psychological distress demonstrated statistical significance at most levels of PsyCap, except for the highest percentile (90th percentile), where the effect became non-meaningful. Notably, the negative indirect relationship was strongest when the levels of PsyCap were low, implying that employees with fewer psychological resources are more vulnerable to the adverse consequences of burnout emitted through distress. Contrarily, with increased PsyCap, the strength of the mediated effect progressively weakened and ultimately lost significance at higher levels. These findings indicate that PsyCap, acting as a protective resource, attenuates both the direct and indirect detrimental impact of burnout on well-being at work.

Table 3.

Conditional Indirect Effects of Burnout on Well-being at Different Levels of PsyCap.

Values of the Moderator	Indirect Effects	Bootstrapped SE	95% CL
Values of the Moderator	Indirect Effects	Bootstrapped SE	Upper Limit	Lower Limit
10th Percentile	−0.47	0.04	−0.34	−0.57
25th Percentile	−0.38	0.04	−0.28	−0.42
50th Percentile	−0.24	0.03	−0.19	−0.25
75th Percentile	−0.06	0.02	−0.04	−0.11
90th Percentile	−0.01	0.02	−0.02	−0.07

Discussion

Drawing on the Stress Appraisal theory, this study explores the psychological dynamics through which burnout may influence the psychological well-being of employees by developing and testing a moderated mediation model. It explores the possibility that psychological distress is the underlying process through which burnout negatively affects engagement and satisfaction. Additionally, the study seeks to determine whether PsyCap affects how strongly burnout and employee well-being are related. It also investigates the potential buffering function of PsyCap in reducing the adverse effects of psychological distress on employees’ overall well-being. The findings pointed towards a significant negative relationship between burnout and well-being, suggesting that increased levels of burnout are linked with poorer well-being in the workplace.

Employees experiencing burnout reported a decline in mental health and heightened psychological distress, which makes them feel disconnected from work, detachment from work responsibilities, exhibiting a diminished sense of connection to work, characterised by reduced meaningfulness, vitality and absorption.⁴⁵ Mediation analyses further indicated that psychological distress acts as an explanatory mechanism between burnout and well-being, such that increased distress is associated with poor well-being among exhausted employees. More specifically, diminished well-being—reflected in reduced job satisfaction and diminished work engagement appears to develop via an interpersonal mechanism in which sustained encounters with burnout leave employees feeling overwhelmed and negatively influenced by their workplace experiences. Over time, this persistent strain contributes to heightened levels of psychological distress.

The findings further emphasise PsyCap as a critical protective resource that weakens the pathway from burnout to subsequent distress and, in turn, buffers the harmful effects of psychological distress on workplace well-being. Employees who exhibit higher levels of resilience, optimism, hope and self-efficacy are generally better able to deal with adversity and are more likely to view stressful events as manageable rather than dangerous. The findings further indicate that the indirect impact of burnout on well-being through psychological distress varies according to the level of PsyCap. In particular, the moderating effect was stronger among employees possessing higher levels of this personal resource. As PsyCap increases, the negative association between burnout and well-being operating through psychological distress tends to weaken correspondingly. The moderated mediation analysis revealed that elevated levels of PsyCap even nullify the indirect negative linkage between burnout and well-being through psychological distress, highlighting that at the highest level of PsyCap, psychological distress does not contribute to the negative consequences of burnout on the well-being of employees. Thus, those high on PsyCap reported lower perceived strain, relatively more positive emotional experiences, and better coping skills, thereby demonstrating better psychological health and workplace adjustment.^{62, 63} Overall, PsyCap is an essential preventive psychological tool that protects workers from the negative consequences of burnout and the resulting suffering.

Implications of the Study

This study proposes an integrated framework that explains both positive psychological resources (PsyCap) and negative psychological conditions (distress) in understanding burnout and well-being simultaneously. The study focuses on helping professions, which are highly vulnerable to emotional exhaustion but remain underexplored in a combined model of psychological resources and distress. Further, the study uses an advanced statistical approach to validate the relationships between constructs, providing stronger empirical evidence regarding the structure among burnout, PsyCap, psychological distress and well-being. This study contributes to stress appraisal theory by supporting its core premise that stress affects well-being through individual appraisal and emotional processing. More importantly, the study extends the theory by incorporating PsyCap as a key for personal resources within the appraisal process. This introduces a resource-based perspective into stress appraisal theory, highlighting that appraisal is not only a cognitive evaluation but is also shaped by individuals’ positive psychological capacities.

By testing these relationships within a unified moderator mediation model using SEM, the study offers a more dynamic and context-sensitive understanding of stress processes, enriching the explanatory power of stress appraisal theory in occupational settings.

Conclusion

Anchored in Stress Appraisal Theory,²⁵ the study advances a moderated mediation framework that integrates both explanatory and buffering processes. By identifying the underlying psychological pathways through which burnout influences well-being, the model advances a more complete picture of occupational strain and informs hypothesis development grounded in empirical and theoretical evidence. In the context of primary and secondary assessment perspectives of stress theory, the conclusions about psychological distress as a mediator and PsyCap as a stress reliever may become clear. From this perspective, individuals first assess whether a situation poses a threat (primary appraisal) and then evaluate their resources and abilities to cope with it (secondary appraisal). Consistent with these concepts, PsyCap emerges as a key personal resource that can positively influence both appraisal processes. Through offering empirical support for the role of psychological distress and PsyCap within the stress appraisal framework, this research strengthens the applicability of stress theory in practical contexts and makes a meaningful contribution to the existing literature on workplace stress, personal coping resources and positive psychological constructs. Knowledge about such protective factors is indispensable for designing effective mental health interventions at work.

Footnotes

Authors Contribution

RG and PC: Conceptualisation, data collection, writing, statistical analysis and original draft preparation.

HS: Supervision, provision of resources, critical review and editing of the manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Statement of Ethics

Ethical approval was obtained from the concerned institutional authority. All participants provided informed consent prior to participation, and confidentiality was strictly maintained throughout the study.

ORCID iDs

Richa Gupta

Hariom Sharma

Priya Choudhary

References

World Health Organization. Guidelines on mental health at work . Geneva: World Health Organization; 2022. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240053052

World Health Organization. Mental health at work: Fact sheet . Geneva: WHO; 2024. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/mental-health-at-work

Diener

, Oishi

, and Tay

Advances in subjective well-being research. Nature Hum Behav 2018; 2(4): 253–260. DOI: 10.1038/s41562-018-0307-6

OECD. How’s life? 2020: measuring well-being . Paris: OECD Publishing; 2020. DOI: 10.1787/9870c393-en

Diener

editor. Assessing well-being: the collected works of Ed Diener . Springer Science & Business Media; 2009.

Diener

and Seligman

ME.

Beyond money: toward an economy of well-being. Psychol Sci Public Interest 2004; 5(1): 1–31. DOI: 10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00501001.x

Demerouti

and Bakker

AB.

Job demands-resources theory in times of crises: new propositions. Org Psychol Rev 2023; 13(3): 209–236. DOI: 10.1177/20413866221135022

Prentice

, Zeidan

, and Prentice

The role of knowledge sharing in organisational and individual wellbeing. Knowl Manage Res Pract 2025; 4: 1–3. DOI: 10.1080/14778238.2024.2446509

Kazimoto

Employee engagement and organizational performance of retail enterprises. Am J Ind Bus Manage 2016; 6: 516–525.

10.

Demir

The relationship between psychological capital and stress, anxiety, burnout, job satisfaction, and job involvement. Eurasian J Educ Res 2018; 75: 137–153. Available from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1181447

11.

Maslach

, Schaufeli

, and Leiter

MP.

Job burnout. Ann Rev Psychol 2001; 52: 397–422.

12.

Schaufeli

, Bakker

, and Van Rhenen

How changes in job demands and resources predict burnout, work engagement, and sickness absenteeism. J Organ Behav 2009; 30(7): 893–917.

13.

Rothbard

NP.

Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and family roles. Admin Sci Quart 2001; 46(4): 655–684. DOI: 10.230 7/3094827

14.

Pandya

, Khanal

, and Upadhyaya

Workplace mental health interventions in India: a rapid systematic scoping review. Front Public Health 2022; 10: 800880. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.800880

15.

Singh

and Singh

Employee engagement and organisational well-being in NBFCS: navigating stress in the digital age. In: The hybrid mind: multidisciplinary pathways in the cognitive era . 2025. p. 181. Available from: https://books.google.co.in/books?hl=en&lr=&id=V8ODEQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA181&dq=Singh+%26+Bajaj+2025+occupational+stress&ots=#v=onepage&q=Singh%20%26%20Bajaj%202025%20occupational%20stress&f=false

16.

Zhang

, Chen

, Xu

, . Hindrance stressors and turnover intentions among preschool teachers: the mediating role of work engagement and the moderating effect of meaningful work. Heliyon 2024; 10: e35366. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844024113977

17.

Leiter

, Bakker

, and Maslach

Burnout at work. Psychol Perspect 2014; 2014. https://pure.eur.nl/files/196521810/9781315849416_previewpdf.pdf

18.

Salvagioni

DAJ

, Mesas

, Melanda

, . Prospective association between burnout and road traffic accidents in teachers. Stress Health 2020; 36(5): 629–638. DOI: 10.1002/smi.2958

19.

Schaufeli

The burnout enigma solved?

Scand J Work Environ Health 2021; 47(3): 169–170. DOI: 10.5271/sjweh.3950

20.

Gonçalves

, Gaudêncio

, Paiva

, . Burnout and professional quality of life assessment in Portuguese healthcare professionals working in oncology and palliative care: a cross-sectional study. Healthcare 2024; 13(1): 26. DOI: 10.3390/healthcare13010026

21.

Gupta

and Bakhshi

Workplace bullying and organizational well-being: a moderated mediation model of psychological capital and burnout in the human services sector of India. In: Indian perspectives on workplace bullying: a decade of insights. Singapore: Springer; 2018. p. 111–146. Available from: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-13-1017-1_5

22.

Mahmoud

and Rothenberger

From burnout to well-being: a focus on resilience. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 2019; 32(6): 415–423. Available from: https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/pdf/10.1055/s-0039-1692710.pdf

23.

Lazarus

RS.

Emotion and adaptation . New York: Oxford University Press; 1991.

24.

Lazarus

RS.

Psychological stress in the workplace. In: Occupational stress . Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2020; p. 3–14. Available from: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.1201/9781003072430-2/psychological-stress-workplace-richard-lazarus

25.

Lazarus

and Folkman

Stress, appraisal, and coping . New York: Springer; 1984.

26.

, Luo

, Zhong

, . Assessing occupational burnout in psychiatric professionals using multimodal emotion recognition methods. In: Proceedings of the 2025 IEEE 5th International Conference on Human-Machine Systems (ICHMS) ; 2025. Piscataway: IEEE; 2025. pp. 59–64. DOI: 10.1109/ICHMS65439.2025.11154192

27.

Malak

, Shehadeh

, and Taamnha

The correlation of ethical climate with work engagement among Jordanian nurses in the emergency department: a cross-sectional study. Int Nurs Rev 2026; 73(1): e70155. DOI: 10.1111/inr.70155

28.

Laschinger

and Fida

A time-lagged analysis of the effect of authentic leadership on workplace bullying, burnout, and occupational turnover intentions. Eur J Work Org Psychol 2014; 23(5): 739–753. Available from: https://www.Tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1359432X.2013.804646

29.

Orgambídez

, Borrego

, Alcalde

, . Moral distress and emotional exhaustion in healthcare professionals: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Healthcare 2025; 13(4): 393. DOI: 10.3390/healthcare13040393

30.

Ciccarelli

and Meyer

GE.

Psychology: South Asian edition . India: Pearson Education; 2008.

31.

Newness

Stress and coping style: an extension to the transactional cognitive-appraisal model. Available from: https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/record/12048?ln=en

32.

Gaab

, Rohleder

, Nater

, . Psychological determinants of the cortisol stress response: the role of anticipatory cognitive appraisal. Psychoneuroendocrinology 2005; 30(6): 599–610. DOI: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2005.02.001

33.

Maidaniuc-Chirila

and Constantin

Does workplace conflict mediate the organizational climate-burnout relationship? A study on university employees. Rom J Exp Appl Psychol 2016; 7(2). DOI: 10.15303/rjeap.2016.v7i2.a3

34.

Ozamiz-Etxebarria

, Legorburu Fernandez

, Lipnicki

, . Prevalence of burnout among teachers during the COVID-19 pandemic: a meta-analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2023; 20(6): 4866. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph20064866

35.

Barello

, Palamenghi

, and Graffigna

Burnout and somatic symptoms among frontline healthcare professionals at the peak of the Italian COVID-19 pandemic. Psychiatry Res 2020; 290: 113129. DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113129

36.

Jahanaray

, Pasha

, and Jahanaray

Burnout and psychological distress across US postgraduate trainees, fellows, and students: A comprehensive meta-analysis. J Am Coll Health 2026: 1–4. DOI: 10.1080/07448481.2025.2611276

37.

Harnois

and Gabriel

Mental health and work: Impact, issues and good practices. 2000. Available from: https://ecommons.cornell.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/bde4333f-617a-474d-b58f-f2c6eefb0dcc/content

38.

O’Donohue

and Nelson

Work engagement, burn-out, and alienation: Linking new and old concepts of positive and negative work experiences. In: Proceedings of the BAM 2012 Management Research Revisited: Prospects for Theory and Practice ; 2012; Cardiff, UK. London: British Academy of Management. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/10072/53465

39.

Yildirim

, Dilekçi

, and Manap

Mediating roles of meaning in life and psychological flexibility in the relationships between occupational stress and job satisfaction, job performance, and psychological distress in teachers. Front Psychol 2024; 15: 1349726. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1349726

40.

Luthans

, Avolio

, Avey

, . Positive psychological capital: measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction. Pers Psychol 2007; 60(3): 541–572. DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00083.x

41.

Newman

, Ucbasaran

, Zhu

, . Psychological capital: a review and synthesis. J Organ Behav 2022; 43(1): 36–63. DOI: 10.1002/job.2463

42.

Goh

, Sawang

, and Oei

TPS.

The revised transactional model (RTM) of occupational stress and coping: an improved process approach. Aust N Z J Organ Psychol 2010; 3: 13–20. DOI: 10.1375/ajop.3.1.13

43.

Quinney

Who is the victim?

Criminology 1974; 10: 314–323. DOI: 10.1111/j.17459125.1972.tb00564x

44.

George

and Jones

GR.

Understanding and managing organizational behavior . 6th ed. Boston: Pearson; 2012.

45.

Bakker

and Schaufeli

WB.

Positive organizational behavior: engaged employees in flourishing organizations. J Organ Behav 2008; 29(2): 147–154. DOI: 10.1002/job.515

46.

McShane

and Von Glinow

MA.

Organizational behavior . 7th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Education; 2015.

47.

Rees

, Breen

, Cusack

, . Understanding individual resilience in the workplace: the international collaboration of workforce resilience model. Front Psychol 2015; 6: 73. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00073

48.

Sauer

PA.

Does resilience mediate the effects of bullying in nurses? [dissertation]. Greensboro (NC): University of North Carolina at Greensboro; 2013. Available from: https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncg/f/Sauer_uncg_0154D_11044.pdf

49.

Desa

, Yusooff

, Ibrahim

, . A study of the relationship and influence of personality on job stress among academic administrators at a university. Proc Soc Behav Sci 2014; 114: 355–359. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.711

50.

Grover

and Chawla

Role of employee experience and its impact on job satisfaction: a proposed theoretical model. NMIMS Manag Rev 2025; 33(2): 128–140. DOI: 10.1177/09711023251332049

51.

Rabenu

Twenty-first century workplace challenges: Perspectives and implications for relationships in new era organizations . London: Bloomsbury Publishing; 2021. Available from: https://books.google.co.in/books?hl=en&lr=&id=1SaAEQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Rabenu+%26+Yaniv,+2021)+job&ots=N_oyhAnxSO&sig=ZEWAO0vxDqUVI0JhlX0IX6fEFQU&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

52.

Avey

, Luthans

, Smith

, . Impact of positive psychological capital on employee well-being over time. J Occup Health Psychol 2010; 15(1): 17–28. DOI: 10.1037/a0016998

53.

Lipshits-Braziler

, Tatar

, Ben-Uri

, . Profiles of psychological capital and work-related well-being among school counselors during a prolonged emergency. J Couns Dev 2026; 104: 255–267. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jcad.70028

54.

Hayes

AF.

Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach . New York (NY): Guilford Press; 2013.

55.

Maslach

, Jackson

, and Leiter

MP.

MBI: Maslach burnout inventory . 3rd ed. Mountain View (CA): Consulting Psychologists Press; 1996.

56.

Goldberg

General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) . Windsor (UK): NFER-Nelson; 1992.

57.

Schaufeli

, Bakker

, and Salanova

The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: a cross-national study. Educ Psychol Meas 2006; 66(4): 701–716. DOI: 10.1177/0013164405282471

58.

Cammann

, Fichman

, Jenkins

, . Michigan organizational assessment questionnaire: job satisfaction subscale. J Vocat Behav 1979. DOI: 10.1037/t09214-000

59.

IBM Corp. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 20.0 . Armonk (NY): IBM Corp; 2011.

60.

Arbuckle

Amos 17.0 user’s guide. SPSS inc.; 2008. Available from: https://in.bgu.ac.il/computing/Documents/software/guides/Amos%2017.0%20User’s%20Guide.pdf

61.

Anderson

and Gerbing

DW.

Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol Bull 1988; 103(3): 411. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411

62.

Pérez-Marqués

, Letona-Ibañez

, Amillano

, . Effects of three personal resources interventions on employees’ burnout. Sci Rep 2023; 13(1): 21530. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-49000-9

63.

Xia

, Wang

, . Examining the relationship between nurse psychological capital and job burnout: a multilevel analysis across nurse, nurse leader, and nurse family perspectives. Hum Resour Health 2025; 23(1): 18. DOI: 10.1186/s12960-025-00986-5