Human Resource Management Review 34 (2024) 100998

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Human Resource Management Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/hrmr

Mental health and well-being at work: A systematic review of

literature and directions for future research
Afaf Khalid *, Jawad Syed
Suleman Dawood School of Business, Lahore University of Management Sciences, Lahore, Pakistan

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Despite an increasing interest in mental health at workplace in recent years, there is limited
Mental health understanding of antecedents and consequences of employees’ mental health and well-being.
Multilevel factors Drawing on a review of 341 studies, this paper identifies the antecedents and consequences of
Well-being
mental health and well-being of employed workforce at three interconnected levels, i.e., macro-,
Workplace
meso- and micro-levels, to develop a holistic understanding of the phenomenon. The antecedents
at each level are classified as inhibitors or facilitators according to adverse or positive influence
on mental well-being of employees. The findings guide future research by revealing and syn­
thesizing the under-researched factors and outcomes of employees’ mental health and well-being.

1. Introduction

Mental health is broadly described as a state of well-being where an individual recognizes their capabilities to cope with normal
stresses of life, work effectively and contribute to the society (WHO, 2001). It is a significant issue for employees, workplaces, and
societies and the fifth most significant cause of disability in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
countries (Cottini & Lucifora, 2013). Around one in every five working age adults has mental health problems (Co-operation, O. f. E.,
and Development, 2012) and about 27% of the adult population is reported to have experienced at least some form of mental disorder
(WHO, 2017; Woods, Macklin, Dawkins, & Martin, 2019).
A major portion of an employee’s life is spent at work. Thus, their employers are expected to care for their mental health and well-
being (Garg, 2017; Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002). Mentally sound and healthy employees are likely to be more energetic,
dependable, and productive than unhealthy employees. They generally exhibit a greater sense of control and participation and can
handle stressful situations better (Day, 2005). The relevance of mental health at work goes beyond individual well-being, as it
significantly affects coworkers and employers (Harvey et al., 2017).
Mental health challenges are usually perceived to be a burden on employees, their families, and broader communities (Cottini &
Lucifora, 2013). Economic cost of mental illness includes healthcare cost (direct cost) and the cost imposed on the family, caregivers,
and community (indirect cost), as well as the opportunity cost of the forgone output (Bubonya, Cobb-Clark, & Wooden, 2017).
In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, there is increased scholarly attention on mental health of employees, and organi­
zations are paying attention to well-being programs that incorporate mental health support (Cameron et al., 2020; Edwards & Harraf,
2020). Scholars are increasingly interested in understanding the antecedents of mental health and well-being (Spell & Arnold, 2007).
Exploring the stressors that affect employees’ mental health is essential to better understand the phenomenon and develop

* Corresponding author at: Suleman Dawood School of Business, Lahore University of Management Sciences, Lahore, Pakistan.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A. Khalid), [email protected] (J. Syed).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2023.100998
Received 17 May 2022; Received in revised form 21 August 2023; Accepted 13 September 2023
Available online 26 September 2023
1053-4822/© 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
A. Khalid and J. Syed Human Resource Management Review 34 (2024) 100998

organizational interventions to address the adverse effects of deteriorated mental health. While there have been efforts to examine the
antecedents and consequences of mental well-being of employees (e.g., Einarsen & Nielsen, 2015; Warszewska-Makuch, Bedyńska, &
Żołnierczyk-Zreda, 2015), the evidence is disjointed. Kinicki, McKee, and Wade (1996) note that literature presents a fragmented
picture of constructs associated with occupational mental health. Stephan (2018) conducted a review to have a better understanding of
entrepreneur’s mental well-being but not the employed workforce.
There are, indeed, emerging calls to develop multilevel conceptualizations of mental health and psychosocial work environments
that link micro- (individual), meso- (organizational), and macro-level (societal) factors (Martin, Karanika-Murray, Biron, & Sanderson,
2016; Woods et al., 2019). The existing literature does not provide a holistic understanding of the factors related to employees’ mental
health. Harvey et al. (2017) presented a meta-review of reviews. However, their focus was on the work-related factors only. Since
mental health is an outcome of the interplay between individuals and their social and physical environment (Perez & Wilkerson, 1998),
it is essential to develop a multilevel understanding of mental health. Therefore, there is a need for an up to date and holistic un­
derstanding of the factors prevalent at societal, organizational, and personal levels that influence mental well-being and the outcomes
associated with it.
The present review addresses this gap by seeking to identify the factors that facilitate or inhibit mental health of employed
workforce at the three interconnected levels, i.e., macro- meso- and micro-level, as well as the consequences of positive mental health
of employees. It adopts a multilevel approach to develop a comprehensive view of antecedents and consequences of employees’ mental
health and well-being. By reviewing and synthesizing evidence from 341 empirical studies, this study seeks to gain a holistic view and
identify future research avenues by integrating what we already know about the correlates of employees’ mental well-being.
The paper is organized as follows. Initially, a background of the literature is offered. Then, the multilevel framework is explained,
which is followed by the methodology of the review. After that, the findings of the review are presented by categorizing the factors that
inhibit (stressors) or facilitate (promoters) mental health at macro-, meso- and micro-levels. The final section discusses future research
directions and provides theoretical and practical contributions.

2. Background

This section clarifies the key concepts and the main framework for the present review.

2.1. Defining mental health and well-being

According to World Health Organization (WHO, 2001, p.1), mental health is “a state of well-being in which the individual realizes
his or her own abilities, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively and fruitfully, and is able to make a
contribution to his or her community”. Mental health is a complex, multi-dimensional construct (Achille, 2003). Psychological and
psychiatric research mostly uses the term ‘mental health’, whereas organizational research refers to ‘well-being’ (Murphy, 2000). We
use both terms in our review. Various definitions of psychological well-being and mental health have emerged in the literature. Well-
being has been widely considered as psychological well-being, emotional well-being, mental health, domain satisfaction, life satis­
faction, and positive and negative affect in organizational science literature (Wright & Doherty, 1998). Mental health extends beyond
the mere absence of mental illness (Herrman, Saxena, & Moodie, 2005), and the lack of psychological distress does not necessarily
indicate the presence of psychological well-being (Chiocchio et al., 2010). It may be understood as a continuum where mental health
problems or ill-being (e.g., depression, anxiety, feeling of distress, anxiousness) lie at one end and well-being (optimal psychological
functioning and experiences, feeling of satisfaction or happiness) lie at the other end of the continuum (Ryan & Deci, 2001; Stephan,
2018). Well-being is of two main types, i.e., hedonic well-being containing life satisfaction and positive affect, and eudaimonic well-
being referring to self-realization, meaningfulness, and vitality (Ryan & Deci, 2001).

2.2. Mental health and well-being at workplace

This review focuses on the antecedents and consequences of mental health and well-being of employees, i.e., individuals involved
in paid employment. Employees generally spend a considerable part of their life at work (Murphy, 2000) and are influenced by their
workplace in multiple and sometimes conflicting ways. Work plays a positive role in enhancing their self-esteem and sense of identity;
it also plays a critical role in influencing mental disorders (Quick, Cooper, Nelson, Quick, & Gavin, 2003) because it contributes to
stress which eventually reduces overall employee well-being. Work itself is neither gratifying nor stressful. An employee’s capacity for
productive work results from a process in which psychological characteristics of an individual interact with macro cultural norms
pertaining to the workplace. (Neff, 2017). Therefore, mental health or well-being at workplace is a dynamic outcome of interactions
between individuals and their social, and physical context (Perez & Wilkerson, 1998), where work related stress arises when work
requirements and stresses exceed employee’s skills and expertise and challenge their capability to cope with them (Leka, Jain, Iavicoli,
& Di Tecco, 2015).
It is, therefore, essential to recognize the causes and effects of mental health and well-being (Spell & Arnold, 2007) so that em­
ployers could gain an in-depth understanding of the stressors and implement adequate interventions and programs to improve em­
ployees’ functioning (Elnahla & McKay, 2020).

2
A. Khalid and J. Syed Human Resource Management Review 34 (2024) 100998

2.3. Multilevel perspective

To develop a comprehensive understanding of the antecedents and consequences of mental health at workplace and to respond to
the emerging calls for the development of multilevel conceptualizations of mental health and psychosocial work environment that
connect micro-level (individual), meso-level (organizational), and macro-level (societal) factors (Martin et al., 2016; Woods et al.,
2019), examining the multilevel factors that affect psychological distress is essential. As mental health is a dynamic outcome of in­
teractions between individual and their social and physical environment (Perez & Wilkerson, 1998), an employee’s mental well-being
is affected by their personal characteristics as well as their social environment, such as social networks, family, workplace in which
they are embedded (Marchand, Demers, & Durand, 2005; Marchand, Durand, Haines, & Harvey, 2015). Hence, there is a need to adopt
a multilevel approach to investigate both situational and individual factors affecting mental health of employees (Zhou, Marchand, &
Guay, 2018).
Murphy (2000) developed a framework by identifying antecedents and outcomes at individual and organizational levels, but it does
not capture the societal factors that affect employees’ mental health. The present review adopts a multilevel framework (Syed &
Özbilgin, 2009) which allows for the recognition of objective structures and policies as well as situational and dispositional attributes
as significant contributors to mental health and well-being of employees. The multilevel perspective presented by Syed and Özbilgin
was originally adopted for a relational conceptualization of diversity management but is equally relevant to develop a holistic view of
mental health and well-being at work. It focuses on three inter-related levels of analysis which allows for a comprehensive examination
of a phenomenon. We argue that adopting a multilevel relational approach will help us gain an in-depth understanding of the factors
affecting mental health of employees and the possible linkages between them.
At the macro-level of analysis, societal, economic factors and structural conditions are relevant which influence mental health and
well-being of employees either directly or indirectly. Meso-level analysis encompasses the institutional and organizational factors,
policies, and processes that affect employee well-being. At micro-level of analysis, behavioral and dispositional characteristics facil­
itate in enhancing or deteriorating employees’ mental health and well-being.

3. Review method

This review’s objective is to identify the factors that inhibit or promote mental health and well-being of employees at the three
interconnected levels, i.e., macro- meso- and micro-level, and to identify the consequences of positive mental health of employees. A
systematic approach was adopted to develop a holistic view of the field in a transparent, structured, and organized fashion (Bouncken,
Gast, Kraus, & Bogers, 2015; Tranfield, Denyer, & Smart, 2003).
Search was carried out through Elsevier’s Scopus database as it includes a wide range of resources and is considered the most
extensive repository of peer reviewed literature (Jagtap, 2019; Mongeon & Paul-Hus, 2016). Given that Scopus and Web of Science
search results overlap by 84%, Scopus was deemed useful for this search (Gavel & Iselid, 2008). Initially, relevant articles were
identified using a range of keywords specifying mental health and well-being and its different facets, ranging from depression, anxiety,
emotional exhaustion to well-being, and satisfaction and workplace. The keywords were selected while considering the mental health
continuum including psychological well-being, eudaimonic well-being, hedonic well-being, and mental impairment (Stephan, 2018).
The complete list of keywords along with the number of search results is provided in the supplementary material in an online portal:
https://osf.io/zert2/?view_only=447569569e4543f1b3b95a966f4cacf0. The criteria used for inclusion of studies in the review was:

A. The paper is based on empirical data.

B. Paid employees as the study’s population.
C. The paper discusses the factors influencing mental health problems or their outcomes.
D. Published journal or conference paper only (not editorials, book chapters, theoretical papers etc.).
E. Published in English language.

We searched abstracts, titles, and keywords, and did not restrict the search period. To keep the results within a manageable range,
we further refined our search by limiting it to the subject area ‘business management and accounting’. The refined search produced
2650 results in April 2021. Seven articles were identified additionally through reference search.
At the second stage, the articles were analyzed for duplicates and 239 articles were removed.
At the third stage, all the 2411 items retrieved in the second stage were analyzed and sifted for the purpose of screening and the
inclusion criteria. We read the titles and abstracts carefully to gain an understanding of the paper’s scope, and the papers fulfilling the
inclusion criteria were selected. This resulted in 364 items. If there was any ambiguity about an item, it was included at this point for
further evaluation.
The papers were then analyzed in depth and coded based on their objective, research design, sample, context, and measure of
mental well-being. Out of 364 items, 23 papers were further excluded as they did not fulfill the scope of the review and full versions of a
few of them were not available through the institution’s library access.
Overall, 341 relevant items were identified which included journal publications and conference proceedings that were empirical in
nature and discussed the factors influencing mental health and well-being at workplace or the outcomes associated with it. Fig. 1
depicts the step-by-step process of article selection and screening.

3
A. Khalid and J. Syed Human Resource Management Review 34 (2024) 100998

Fig. 1. Selection flow diagram.

(Adapted from PRISMA selection flow diagram (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, & Altman, 2009)).

All the studies were grouped based on the research objective. Of the 341 studies, 46 investigated the consequences of mental well-
being of employees and the rest examined the antecedents. A few studies provided information about both. The table containing the list
of studies providing information about the antecedents of mental health of employees or the consequences of mental health has been
presented in online supplementary material (see Table B).
To synthesize the information contained in the studies, we adopted qualitative coding and abduction. Informed by a multilevel
perspective, the key factors influencing employees’ mental health and well-being and the consequences that emerged from the data
were categorized at three levels, i.e., macro (societal), meso (organizational), and micro (individual) levels. The factors influencing
mental health and well-being of employed workforce were further categorized into facilitators and inhibitors at each level. Common
clusters of antecedents were guided by social, work, and personal characteristics as well as guided by the data. To ensure the validity
and reliability of the overall process and minimize the possibility of researcher bias, inter-rater reliability was ensured by involving two
independent researchers in the coding process of 25 random papers at the pilot stage. The 85% inter-rater reliability was achieved, and
the ambiguous coding was sorted out by group discussion and agreement. The first author then coded the remaining papers. The papers
were coded with the original factor descriptions in mind to ensure construct validity. (Ur Rehman, Jajja, Khalid, & Seuring, 2020).

4. Findings

4.1. Overview of the sources

The most common research method employed in the 341 studies was quantitative, i.e., survey based, while only a tiny percentage
was based on qualitative and other methods (90% quantitative, 3.8% qualitative, 5% mixed-method, 1.2% experimental/critical
incident technique). Of the quantitative studies, 78.5% adopted cross-sectional design, 17% adopted lagged or longitudinal design and

4
A. Khalid and J. Syed Human Resource Management Review 34 (2024) 100998

3.6% adopted multisource design. Only, 1% (3 studies) of the studies adopted both lagged and multisource design. Almost all the
studies employed individual level of analysis. Among the quantitative studies, mental health was most commonly measured through
General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12).
Among the reviewed studies, Job characteristic model (Hackman & Oldham, 1976), Job Demand Control (JDC) model (Karasek Jr,
1979), Demand Control Support (DCS) model (Karasek & Theorell, 1990), Job Demands-Resources model (JD-R) (Bakker & Demer­
outi, 2007), Conservation of Resource theory (COR) (Hobfoll, 1989), Affective Events Theory (AET) (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) and
Effort Reward Imbalance (ERI) model (Siegrist, 1996; Siegrist, Siegrist, & Weber, 1986) were utilized to theorize the association of
various correlates with mental health of employees. The most common and influential models in the study of workplace mental health
and well-being were JD-R model, DCS and ERI models.
The findings from the review are depicted in Fig. 2 which shows the antecedents and consequences of mental health of employees at
macro (societal), meso (organizational) and micro (individual) level.

Fig. 2. Overview of antecedents and consequences of employees’ mental health.

*Number of studies are mentioned in the bracket.

5
A. Khalid and J. Syed Human Resource Management Review 34 (2024) 100998

The antecedents have been further grouped as inhibitors and facilitators according to whether they have adverse or favorable
impacts on employee’s mental health and well-being respectively. Inhibitors refer to the demands of the job that are the psychological,
social, or physical, in nature and necessitate physical or/and psychological effort and lead to health deterioration and inhibit mental
well-being. Facilitators are the resources including physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the job that may buffer
the effect of demands on stress strain caused by job demands and facilitate in achieving work goals or promote mental well-being
(Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). The effect was judged on the basis of frequency of studies in a given direction. For instance, if the
frequency of studies for a given factor influencing mental health and well-being in a positive direction is significantly more than the
number of studies affecting mental health and well-being in a negative direction, then that factor is considered a facilitator. Any
unexpected finding is mentioned separately.

4.2. Antecedents of mental health and well-being at workplace

Table 1 presents an overview of the antecedents identified at each level, the number of times they were examined, the relationship
with employees’ mental health and the number of studies with a strong research design, i.e., longitudinal, lagged, or experimental
design. The following synthesis of findings presents the factors that have been most frequently analyzed, and also includes the un­
expected findings.

4.2.1. Inhibitors at macro-level

Macro-level factors include societal and economic factors influencing employees’ mental health and well-being. Economic crisis
including perceived recessionary changes and unemployment and perceived employability and masculinity of the industry sector are
the macro-level factors that induce stress among employees and influence mental well-being adversely.
Economic crisis. Seven studies depicted the influence of fear of economic crisis and perceived employability on psychological
distress. People may view an economic crisis as frightening, therefore negative feelings like anxiety or fear frequently accompany it. In
an economic crisis, individuals who experience low employability may believe that they possess limited capability to cope with the
threats to their job which results in psychological distress. Also, individuals who believe that that their firm is suffering as a result of the
crisis may experience psychological distress and job dissatisfaction (Giorgi, Shoss, & Leon-Perez, 2015). Perceived recessionary changes
or recessionary actions are likely to have detrimental effect on employees’ mental health (Wood & Ogbonnaya, 2018). Where the
national framework offers better employment protection for workers, the potential consequences of perceived organizational crisis and
job deterioration on employee well-being are significantly less of a threat (Ogbonnaya, Gahan, & Eib, 2019).
Four studies examined the role of unemployment and perceived employability in affecting people’s mental health and well-being.
Individuals experiencing low employability suffer from psychological distress and deteriorated mental well-being (Giorgi et al.,
2015). However, Van der Vaart, Linde, De Beer, and Cockeran (2015) found no significant relationship between perceived employ­
ability and employee well-being.
Masculinity of the sector. Organizations where masculine values are deeply rooted and employees are expected to ‘fit in’ and their
physical safety is preferred over psychological well-being are not deemed conducive to workplace well-being (Bowen, Edwards,
Lingard, & Cattell, 2014; Olofsdotter & Randevåg, 2016; Powell, Galea, Salignac, Loosemore, & Chappell, 2018). For instance, job
demands, long working hours, and complete availability of the construction sector lead to deteriorated work life balance (Powell et al.,
2018). Individuals negotiating flexible work arrangements are considered ‘slackers’ and not fully dedicated (Watts, 2009). They tend
to work over and above their contracted hours to prove their worth and achieve the status of ‘preferred worker’ influencing their work-
life balance and, thus well-being (Paap, 2006; Watts, 2009).

4.2.2. Facilitators at macro-level

The 341 studies in the present review did not explicitly refer to macro-level factors that could help in facilitating or improving
mental health and well-being of employees. However, through further literature search, we tried to identify a few factors from review
papers that could potentially facilitate improving employees’ mental well-being.
Government support. Government can play a significant role in promoting mental health (Moodie & Jenkins, 2005). Mental health
care supported by government and provided at a community level has a significant influence on individuals’ mental health (Qian,
2012). Legislative support to protect employees from exposure to psychosocial hazards at workplace, and provision of returning to
work after the break due to mental health issues affect individual well-being in a positive way (Lippel, 2011).
Non-government support. Apart from government support, non-government organizations (NGOs) can contribute to enhancing in­
dividuals’ mental health. NGOs can facilitate by providing helplines for distressed individuals or by providing support groups (Thara &
Patel, 2010). Support groups help deal with issues like anxiety and psychological distress by providing a platform where individuals
experiencing anxiety can discuss and share information and experiences. A support mechanism to enable discussions with the people
who have been through similar experiences helps in improving psychological well-being (Morin, 2021). Hence, a network of support
groups developed and created to support individuals with mental health issues plays a vital role in enhancing mental health and well-
being (Crabtree, Haslam, Postmes, & Haslam, 2010).

4.2.3. Inhibitors at meso-level

At the meso-level, organizational and institutional factors are considered that inhibit the employees’ mental health. Out of 341
studies, 158 examined the workplace conditions and experiences that influence mental health to an extent that individual productivity
and work performance are hampered. Harmful workplace actions and interactions, job demands and working conditions,

6
 A. Khalid and J. Syed
Table 1
Overview of antecedents of employees’ mental health.
Antecedents Effect on Mental Health Total no. N (Strong Notes
of studies research
+ 0 − Other
design)

Macro Level Factors

Inhibitors
Economic Crisis 1 6 7
Masculinity of sector 2 2
Facilitators
Government Support 3 3
Non-government support 3 3
Meso Level Factors
Inhibitors
Harmful workplace action and interaction (workplace 1* 67 1** 69 16 *No association was found probably because the sample was from a male dominated
ostracism workplace discrimination, workplace workplace and research indicates that the employees who experience workplace
incivility, workplace bullying etc.) bullying are mostly females from female dominated.
**workplace incivility influences depression and negative affect in turn causes uncivil
behavior.
Job demands 1 25 26 5
Nature of work 1 13 1*+1** 16 2 *The work itself could be demanding but employee may derive meaning from it and
take pride in it (hospitality).
**jobs involving digital communication and constant connectivity have both +ve & -ve
7

aspects
Workplace conflict 22 1* 23 2 *Role stress was significantly associated with emotional exhaustion, but role ambiguity
is not significantly associated with emotional exhaustion.
Work Family Conflict 19 19 4
Organizational change 1* 3 1** 5 *No direct association between perceived acceptance and work standards and
psychological distress during organizational change process. However, the relationship
is mediated by work attitudes and behavior
**Org. change was associated with employee satisfaction if employees possess strong
post-merger identification
Facilitators

Human Resource Management Review 34 (2024) 100998

Job characteristics 23 1 1** 1*** + 1**** 29 2 *Insignificant association between autonomy and psychological well-being as
(Enriched job design, autonomy, flexible scheduling, + + 1***** autonomy in task related decision-making could be a burden.
task variety etc.) 1* **In collectivist culture, autonomy might not prove to be a resource.
***Flexible work design and employee well-being are directly correlated through
increased autonomy and improved, and is also associated negatively through
interruptions.
****Job autonomy is non-linearly associated with emotional exhaustion and the curve
is inverted
*****flexibility for the employees who have caregiving responsibilities has mixed
results.
(continued on next page)
 A. Khalid and J. Syed
Table 1 (continued )
Antecedents Effect on Mental Health Total no. N (Strong Notes
of studies research
+ 0 − Other
design)

Workplace support 98 1*+1** 100 14 * Non-linear relationship

(Training, mentoring, supervisor support, coworker ** Directive performance management affect employees differently than enabling
support, organizational support etc.) performance management activities.
Organizational justice 14 14
Work family fit 6 6 1
Workplace spirituality 25 25 6
Leadership style 17 1* 1 1 + 1** 21 3 * Insignificant association was found between authentic leadership and employee’s
psychological well-being
which was probably due to the nature of the sample which was from athletic
department.
**Transformational leadership style encourages employees to be more creative and
innovative and independent in decision making which might exert extra stress on them.
Micro Level Factors
Inhibitors
8

Personality 5 1* 6 1**+1*** 14 3 *Personality do not moderate up to great extent

**Proactively helping and reactive helping have different effects on helpers’ well-being
***Citizenship behavior is associated with role overload and negatively affects well-
being.
Gender 2 2
Facilitators
Social Capital 2 1* 3 * Positive association of structural and relation al social capital with well-being but
(Structural, relational, cognitive) insignificant effect of cognitive social capital.
Psychological capital 19 2* 21 3 *Resilient employees rely more on personal resources to face negative effects of
(optimism, self-efficacy, hope, resilience, and coping bullying which proves to be counterproductive

Human Resource Management Review 34 (2024) 100998

resource)
Religiosity 3 3
Mindfulness 2 2 1
Physical activity 1 1
Innovative behavior at work 2 2 1
*
The sum of the studies might be greater than the total number of studies as an individual study might have contained information regarding more than one factor.
A. Khalid and J. Syed Human Resource Management Review 34 (2024) 100998

psychological demands, work-family conflict, workplace conflict and organizational change are the factors that negatively influence
the mental health and well-being of employees.
Harmful workplace action and interactions at workplace including workplace ostracism, workplace incivility, workplace discrimi­
nation, workplace bullying, and psychological and physical violence has been investigated by 69 studies (see Table 1 for an overview).
While investigating the role of gender in the context of workplace incivility, De Clercq, Haq, and Azeem (2020) suggest that females are
generally frequent victims of workplace incivility, as compared to men, thus experiencing more psychological distress. In contrast,
male employees are more prone to suffer resource loss when they experience reduced dignity because of uncivil behavior at workplace
(Porath, Overbeck, & Pearson, 2008). The association between incivility and anxiety is more profound for male employees who possess
higher qualification as highly educated employees might be more sensitive to disrespectful treatment and loss of personal dignity is
caused by experience of incivility (De Clercq et al., 2020). Employees with higher emotional intelligence are expected to experience a
weaker association between workplace incivility and emotional exhaustion (Chen & Wang, 2019; Kashif, Braganca, Awang, & De Run,
2017).
Furthermore, prolonged, or continual instances of bullying may lead to severe psychological effects (Sultana & Sultana, 2017). It
affects mental health adversely when the individual experiences lack of control and effective coping strategies which leads to a sense of
helplessness (Hogh, Mikkelsen, & Hansen, 2011; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). However, Stratton, Player, Dahlheimer, Choi, and Glozier
(2020) could not find a significant association of bullying with depression or anxiety. This is probably since the sample was from a male
dominated workplace and research indicates that the majority of victims of workplace bullying are females who work in public sector
in professions like nursing or education (Verkuil, Atasayi, & Molendijk, 2015).
Several studies showed that extreme form of workplace aggression (physical and psychological aggression), including internal
aggression (coworker aggression, supervisor aggression) as well as external aggression (customer), induces negative affect (Chen,
2018; Yang & Lau, 2019). Moreover, abusive supervision leads to anxiety, depression and deteriorated mental well-being by influencing
intrinsic motivation negatively (Hussain, Abbas, Gulzar, Jibril, & Hussain, 2020). Compared to men, it has a stronger impact on women
(Zhou et al., 2018). Abusive behaviors have a trickle-down effect as abusive behavior from higher level managers affects employees at
the lower level through the abusive behavior of intermediate managers and hostile work climate further strengthens this negative
relationship (Mawritz, Mayer, Hoobler, Wayne, & Marinova, 2012).
Job demands. Excessive job demands are significantly associated with anxiety, depression, health impairment and psychological
strain (De Jonge et al., 2001; Devonish, 2014). They lead to presenteeism which then leads to emotional exhaustion and stress
(Demerouti, Le Blanc, Bakker, Schaufeli, & Hox, 2009; Teoh, Hassard, & Cox, 2020). Workload, (Shen & Gallivan, 2004) and long
working hours (Cottini & Lucifora, 2013) have unfavorable impact on mental health. While working overtime has benefits for an in­
dividual (such as increased income), longer hours disturb home or/and family life and lead to deteriorated mental well-being (Bowen
et al., 2014). However, Ryu (2016) did not find a significant association between longer working hours and employees’ job and life
satisfaction. This could be because highly motivated public sector employees do not give much weightage to working fewer hours as
compared to their counterparts in private sector (Houston, 2000).
Nature of work. Various kinds of occupations account for the variation in distress, or the nature of work could be such that em­
ployees draw meaning from work itself and take pride in the product (Dimitrov, 2012; Marchand, Demers, & Durand, 2006). For
example, mental health of prison officers, individuals involved in project-based work, jobs requiring constant connectivity with work
or emotional labor through surface acting are most likely to induce emotional exhaustion and psychological distress (Asquin, Garel, &
Picq, 2010; Büchler, ter Hoeven, & van Zoonen, 2020; Cheung, Bowen, Cattell, & Davis, 2019; Kinman, Clements, & Hart, 2016; Lings,
Durden, Lee, & Cadogan, 2014). Project-based work has contradictory results as it has also been proven that increased project
involvement is associated with higher psychological well-being and lower psychological distress as project work is considered more
rewarding than routine work which positively impacts mental well-being (Chiocchio et al., 2010).
Similarly, a career in mental health (Ragusa & Crowther, 2012) may lead to psychological distress and burnout owing to emotional
demands linked with it (Harris, Cumming, & Campbell, 2006).
Workplace conflict. Relationship, task, process, and intragroup conflict influence loneliness which is then adversely connected with
well-being (Kuriakose, Sreejesh, Wilson, & Anusree, 2019). Relationship conflict has a positive association with burnout and
depression and negative association with vigor (Tafvelin, Keisu, & Kvist, 2020). Task conflict is also significantly associated with well-
being (Sonnentag, Unger, & Nägel, 2013). Relationship conflicts during task conflicts make participants feel disrespected and thereby
increase negative affect and decreases positive affect. (Mauersberger, Hess, & Hoppe, 2019; Sonnentag et al., 2013). Process conflict is
also positively related to depression (Tafvelin et al., 2020).
Also, role conflict, role ambiguity and emotional dissonance are the psychological demands that affect the mental well-being of employees as
they are associated with emotional exhaustion (Janssen, Peeters, de Jonge, Houkes, & Tummers, 2004; Marchand et al., 2006). However,
employees with higher self-esteem experience a weaker association of role conflict and emotional dissonance with mental well-being
(Callea, Lo Presti, Mauno, & Urbini, 2019; Park & Nam, 2020). One study did not find any significant association of role ambiguity and
emotional exhaustion which was due to the inclusion of work-family conflict in the model (Boles, Johnston, & Hair Jr, 1997).
Work-family conflict (WFC) is associated with stress, emotional exhaustion, and deteriorated job satisfaction (Bhalla & Kang, 2019;
Boles et al., 1997; Janssen et al., 2004). Conflict between job demands and expectations of personal life contribute to stress (Fair­
brother & Warn, 2003). The negative influence of work family conflict was established among managerial and professional women
where high level of work to family interference was associated with lower job satisfaction and deteriorated psychological well-being
(Koyuncu, Burke, & Wolpin, 2012).
Organizational change involving recessionary actions, downsizing, internal reorganization, and mergers induce anxiety and job
insecurity among employees and affects employees in predominantly negative ways (Bryson, Barth, & Dale-Olsen, 2013; Østhus, 2007;

9
A. Khalid and J. Syed Human Resource Management Review 34 (2024) 100998

Wood, Michaelides, & Ogbonnaya, 2020). However, Van Dick, Ullrich, and Tissington (2006) suggest that employees with a stronger
post-merger identification are more likely to be satisfied and productive. Loretto, Platt, and Popham (2010) observed that workplace
change had a mixed influence on mental health and well-being of employees. Change in perceived autonomy and control depicts a
positive association with wellbeing. Increase in overtime has positive effect like increase in income, but it influences work-life balance
in a negative way and lead to deteriorated mental health. Increase in the amount of work is also associated with poor mental health.
However, during a change process, being informed about the nature of the change affects the employees positively (Loretto et al.,
2010). Therefore, change at workplace is not inherently detrimental. It depends on the kind of change an organization adopts and how
it is implemented.

4.2.4. Facilitators at meso-level

Facilitators at meso-level include the factors that promote or influence mental health and well-being in a positive way. These factors
include various job characteristics, workplace support, workplace policies and practices, organizational justice, work family fit,
employee participation, workplace spirituality, PE/ PJ fit, opportunity for learning and development, leadership style, positive stimuli
at work.
Job characteristics. 29 studies examined the positive influence of several job characteristics on employees’ mental health. Many
studies suggest that skill discretion (Lee, 2019), task variety, task identity and feedback from job (Kelloway & Barling, 1991), temporal
flexibility (Cotti, Haley, & Miller, 2014), enriched job design and higher level of autonomy and decision latitude influence employee well-
being positively (Wood, Van Veldhoven, Croon, & de Menezes, 2012). However, three studies found an unexpected association be­
tween job autonomy and psychological well-being. Lee (2019) found an insignificant association between decision authority and
psychological well-being as the degree of autonomy in decision making could be burdensome to employees. Ho (2018) suggests a
negative association between job autonomy and well-being as job autonomy refers to independence and individualism in individu­
alistic culture (Franken, 2007) which does not help in promoting mental well-being in in collectivist culture. De Jonge and Schaufeli
(1998) found non-linear (inverted U) association of autonomy with emotional.
Workplace support. Supportive workplace plays a significant role in enhancing mental well-being and reducing emotional
exhaustion of employees (Lingard & Francis, 2006). Workplace support in the form of training and mentoring, managerial coaching,
supervisor support, coworker support, and organizational support facilitates buffering the negative influence of stressors on employee’s
mental health and well-being. Psychological benefits of mentoring extend to the mentors themselves as well, as it provides a sense of
meaningfulness and confidence to mentors (Fowler & O’Gorman, 2005).
Scholars have examined the combined function of supervisor and coworker support in the form of social support in attenuating
influence of stressors and improving well-being (Millar, Culpin, Gervais, & Millear, 2014). Social support exerts a stronger influence on
well-being if the source of support is higher in the organizational hierarchy (Monnot & Beehr, 2014). However, De Jonge and Schaufeli
(1998) depict a non-linear association of social support with emotional exhaustion where emotional exhaustion increases at high levels
of social support.
Group culture, nurturing, supportive organizational culture, and a culture of open communication and mutual trust help reduce
psychological distress by reducing conflict (Dextras-Gauthier & Marchand, 2018; Kim, Kim, Newman, Ferris, & Perrewé, 2019).
Furthermore, organizations with ample opportunities for learning and growth and favorable workplace policies and practices enhance
employee satisfaction and thus mental well-being of their employees (Meeusen, Van Dam, Brown-Mahoney, Van Zundert, & Knape,
2011; Raj, Nijjer, Ongsakul, & Singh, 2019).
Organizational justice including distributive, procedural and interpersonal justice positively affects employees’ perception of
organizational support which then develops positive affect (Bajaj & Krishnan, 2016). Distributive justice, indicated by equity in
reward, influences mental health and employee well-being (Pellerin & Cloutier, 2018). This is in accordance with the Effort Reward
Imbalance (ERI) model (Siegrist, 1996) as it suggests that inequity of rewards (recognition, promotion, job security) affects employees’
mental health through the process of de-valuation. The association between under reward and depression is stronger among women
with high job authority than men in similar situation (Schieman, Taylor, Narisada, & Pudrovska, 2020).
Work-family fit is positively related with job satisfaction, mental health, and employee well-being (Jones, Hill, & Miller, 2020).
Positive work home interaction leads to experience of psychological meaningfulness and availability at work (Rothmann & Baumann,
2014). Bhalla and Kang (2019) suggest that the resources generated in one domain (originating role) foster higher performance and
positive affect in the other domain (receiving role), hence favorably influencing work-family facilitation and job satisfaction. It is
associated with lower psychological distress and positive mental health as the positive spillover provides a buffering effect against the
negative situations (Haar & Bardoel, 2008).
Workplace spirituality is positively associated with self-esteem, meaningfulness at work and well-being of employees (Pawar, 2016;
Tejeda, 2015). Spirituality at work comprises meaningful work, sense of belongingness and association with organizational values
(Aboobaker, Edward, & Zakkariya, 2019). Employees who consider their work meaningful, experience enhanced psychological well-
being through psychological capital (Kim et al., 2019). Also, congruence between work values and life values enhances psychological
well-being and reduces emotional exhaustion and burnout (Veage et al., 2014). Employees experiencing person to environment (PE) fit
experience lower level of stress and greater well-being (Lachterman & Meir, 2004). Adverse effects of high PE fit have been recorded as
employees experiencing high PE fit may avoid social support which makes it difficult for them to achieve positive well-being. Em­
ployees with low PE fit are more likely to achieve well-being through reliable social support.
Leadership style significantly influences mental health of employees. Research suggests that servant leadership style is positively
correlated with workplace positive affect (Li, Li, Tu, & Liu, 2018). Also, spiritual leadership helps alleviate symptoms of job exhaustion
through spiritual well-being (Hunsaker, 2019). Ethical leadership reduces emotional exhaustion and burnout (Jurkiewicz, 2006), and

10
A. Khalid and J. Syed Human Resource Management Review 34 (2024) 100998

authentic leadership influences employees’ well-being positively by enabling them to engage in noble, fair, and legitimate actions
(Koon & Ho, 2020). However, one study found an insignificant association between authentic leadership, job satisfaction and
employee psychological well-being which was attributed to the sample type (employees from athletic department) (Kim et al., 2019).
Empowering leadership style is found to be significantly associated with employees’ psychological well-being (Park, Kim, Yoon, &
Joo, 2017). The evidence consistently suggests that transformational leadership enhances employee well-being by engaging in
recognition of employee efforts (Zwingmann et al., 2014). However, Parveen and Adeinat (2019) found out the positive effect of
transformational leadership on job related stress among bank employees. As transformational leadership encourages employees to be
more creative and involved in independent decision making, the increased responsibilities may induce a higher level of stress.
Authoritarian and interfering leadership styles are significantly associated with anxiety, emotional exhaustion, and job dissatis­
faction among employees (Olinske & Hellman, 2017; Pyc, Meltzer, & Liu, 2017).

4.2.5. Inhibitors at micro-level

There is not much evidence of individual level factors that inhibit employees’ mental well-being. However, certain dispositional
characteristics and personality types may make an individual more prone to stress and strain and affect employees’ mental health in a
negative way. There are, nevertheless, a few personality traits that may facilitate buffering the negative influences of demands and
stressors.
Personality moderates the relationship between various stressors and psychological distress (Marchand et al., 2006). Neuroticism is
associated with psychological distress and depression, and causes health impairment (Bakker et al., 2010). Neurotic people are unable
to manage their emotions in stressful situations (Halim, Halim, & Khairuddin, 2018). Similarly, research depicts how workaholics are
likely to have poor well-being (Haar & Roche, 2013). Personality traits like easy going, orderly, compassionate, and receptive are
negatively related to burnout (Meeusen et al., 2011). Dispositional zest, depicting a view that work is a calling, is associated with higher
satisfaction (Peterson, Park, Hall, & Seligman, 2009). Game (2007) suggests that high ‘boredom copers’ experience enhanced job-related
well-being.
Lam, Wan, and Roussin (2016) study of the influence of helping behavior revealed mixed results. Helping behavior is associated with
work meaningfulness and improved well-being of the provider as it energizes them. In contrast, drawing on resource depletion
perspective, participating in helping behavior can lead to strain as helping others requires effort and interrupts help provider’s regular
work (Lin, Koopmann, & Wang, 2020). Helping pressure increases the negative affect and subsequent deviant behavior (Koopman
et al., 2020). However, proactive helping, which is initiated because of one’s own willingness, is positively associated with well-being
as opposed to reactive helping (Duan, Wong, & Yue, 2019). Engaging in Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCBs) allows in­
dividuals to make them feel good about their work and that positive effect spills over to their job satisfaction. However, based on
conservation of resource theory, OCB is associated with role overload and affects employees’ well-being (Kaur & Kang, 2019).
Gender. Evidence suggests that gender affects psychological distress. A female employee is more likely to experience psychological
distress as the avoidance strategy, mostly adopted by females, increases their vulnerability to distress. In contrast, male employees
generally adopt active strategies and overt behavior to deflate the negative impact of various stressors at workplace (Abubakar, 2018).

4.2.6. Facilitators at micro-level

At the individual level of analysis, coping capabilities of individuals, social capital, psychological capital, job engagement, reli­
giosity, mindfulness, physical activity, and innovative behavior at work are the factors that enable an employee to buffer the negative
effect of workplace stressors and affect employee health and well-being in a positive way.
Social capital plays a significant role in influencing employees’ well-being in a positive way (Dimitrov, 2012). It comprises
structural, relational, and cognitive social capital, where structural social capital and relational social capital are positively associated
with employee well-being, and cognitive social capital does not influence employee’s well-being significantly (Berraies, Lajili, &
Chtioui, 2020; Løkke, 2016).
Psychological capital. Among the studies investigating the influence of psychological capital, 19 showed positive influence on
employee mental health. Psychological capital is the combination of four positive psychological resources, i.e., hope, self-efficacy,
optimism, and resilience (Kawalya et al., 2019). Self-efficacy leads to reduced anxiety and enhanced well-being as employees who
are confident about their capabilities are less likely to feel overburdened (Kumar Pradhan, Prasad Panigrahy, & Kesari Jena, 2021). It
affects mental well-being positively by buffering the adverse effects of demands and stressors (Kalyar, Saeed, Usta, & Shafique, 2020).
Moreover, individuals with high levels of optimism and resilience tend to perceive their job demands as less taxing, which in turn
decreases the probability of experiencing psychological health problems (Boudrias et al., 2011).
Although resilience buffers the unpleasant influences of workplace stressors on employees’ psychological well-being (Hu, Zhang, &
Wang, 2015), Annor and Amponsah-Tawiah (2020) note that resilience strengthens the adverse relationship between workplace
bullying and employee well-being. This finding may be attributed to the fact that when employees rely on personal resources to deal
with workplace stressors like bullying, it might prove to be counterproductive.
Also, an individual’s coping resources are associated with his or her psychological well-being (Petru & Jarosova, 2019) as they
buffer the negative impact of stressors and enable employees to cope with depression and anxiety (McCarthy, Fouladi, Juncker, &
Matheny, 2006). This is consistent with Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) coping theory because when individuals perceive their coping
resources to be inadequate to combat potential threats posed by the demands, they experience stress.
Religiosity affects employees’ stress and burnout. Religious individuals are more likely to be satisfied with their jobs than nonre­
ligious individuals (Bednarczuk, 2019). Maham, Bhatti, and Öztürk (2020) suggest that religious belief or spirituality affects employee
happiness and mediates the relationship between organizational justice and happiness.

11
A. Khalid and J. Syed Human Resource Management Review 34 (2024) 100998

Mindfulness is a non-judgmental, present-centered awareness in which each thought, feeling, or sensation that arises is acknowl­
edged and accepted per se (Kabat-Zinn & Hanh, 2009). The ability of mindful individuals to remain in the present moment increases
their behavioral repertoire and gives them the resources necessary to deal with the “strong situations” more effectively (Narayanan &
Moynihan, 2006).
Physical activity. Physical activity buffers negative influences of work stressors and influences depression and satisfaction. It may
provide resources in the form of improved physical health that enable individuals to cope with demands and stressors (Sliter, Sinclair,
Cheung, & McFadden, 2014).
Innovative behavior at work (creativity). Innovative behavior at work or creativity has a positive impact on employees’ positive affect
and is associated with mental well-being. Enactment of creative behaviors at work has a pleasant influence, and employee feels
enthusiastic and cheerful (Tavares, 2016).

4.3. Interconnectedness of factors

The review shows that factors at one level interact with factors at another level to jointly affect mental health and well-being of
employees. For example, while a lack of job control affects mental health in a negative way, individuals possessing self-efficacy and
social support are less likely to be depressed or anxious (Millar et al., 2014). Individuals experiencing harmful interactions at
workplace may experience high levels of psychological distress but having supportive coworkers or/and supportive manager protects
them from the harmful effects of the mistreatment (Yang & Lau, 2019). Similarly, psychological capital is a valuable resource that may
decrease psychological distress caused by workplace incivility or mistreatment (Al-Zyoud & Mert, 2019).
Organizational structural support, such as in the form of paid leaves, provides employees with an opportunity to take vacations
which promotes employee’s creativity leading to enhanced well-being (Kawakubo & Oguchi, 2019). Long working hours alone do not
influence employees’ health in a negative way but longer hours along with the low salary may have a negative influence (Ryu, 2016).
Moreover, meaningful work in the presence of a supportive work environment enhances employees’ psychological well-being (Kim
et al., 2019). In terms of individual personality type, neuroticism may lead to depression directly as well as indirectly by exacerbating
the negative influence of job demands (Bakker et al., 2010; Halim et al., 2018).

4.4. Consequences of employees’ mental health and well-being

The reviewed studies have highlighted the implications of employees’ mental health and well-being at multiple interconnected
levels. At the organizational level, mental health and well-being affects job performance, workplace deviance, organizational citi­
zenship behavior, employee engagement and commitment, reduced absence, and turnover intentions. It may be noted that the
literature does not offer much evidence of macro-level outcomes of employees’ mental health. At the individual level, knowledge
sharing attitude, creativity, reduced work-family conflict, and resilience are discussed. Broaden-and-build theory (Fredrickson, 1998)
and engagement theory (Kahn, 1990) explain the outcomes of positive mental health. Broaden-and-build theory suggests that positive
affect and emotions impact cognitive processes and leads to positive outcomes. Engagement theory (Kahn, 1990) suggests that
convergence of positive affective-cognitive processes leads to meaningful engagement which further causes beneficial outcomes.
Table 2 provides an overview of consequences of employees’ mental health and well-being.

4.4.1. Meso-(Organizational) level outcomes

At the meso-level of analysis, positive mental health and well-being lead to enhanced job performance, reduced workplace devi­
ance, more involvement in OCB, high employee engagement and commitment, reduced absence and reduced turnover intentions.
Job performance. Improved mental well-being and high levels of positive affect are associated with enhanced job performance
(Darvishmotevali & Ali, 2020; Sandrin, Morin, Fernet, & Gillet, 2020). Employees’ poor mental health is significantly associated with

Table 2
Overview of consequences of employees’ mental health.
Outcome Consequences of Mental Health Total number of studies No. of studies with strong research design Notes

+ 0 − Other

Meso Level Outcomes

Job performance 6 6 1
Workplace deviance 13 11 3
OCB 3 3
Employee engagement and commitment 7 7 2
Reduced absence 4 4 2
Turnover intentions 10 10 4
Micro Level Outcomes
Knowledge sharing 1 1
Creativity 1 1 1
Reduced WFC 3 3 1
Resilience 1 1

12
A. Khalid and J. Syed Human Resource Management Review 34 (2024) 100998

reduced productivity, whereas positive emotions like life satisfaction and happiness have a positive impact on work attitudes and
performance of work (Wood et al., 2012).
Workplace deviance. Stress, distress, and negative affect lead to insecurity that triggers employees’ deviant and aggressive behavior.
Individuals experiencing negative emotions are more likely to engage in counterproductive work behavior and bullying (Koopman
et al., 2020). Job stress is positively related to workplace deviance. However, organizational deviance and job stress is moderated by
meaningfulness (Sulistiawan, Ekowati, & Alfirdaus, 2020).
OCB. Employees experiencing deteriorated mental health tend to be less involved in OCB, while workplace happiness is positively
related to organizational citizenship behavior (Mousa, Massoud, & Ayoubi, 2020). Employees having a feeling of respect from the
employer experience workplace happiness and tend to be involved in desirable and beneficial behaviors (Luria & Yagil, 2008).
Employee engagement and commitment. Employees experiencing anxiety have a reduced level of workplace engagement and
commitment (Green & Medlin, 2010). Employee well-being interacts with meaningfulness to influence employee engagement
(Rothmann & Baumann, 2014). Employee well-being is also found positively related to employee’s organizational commitment (Liu-
Lastres & Wen, 2021).
Reduced absence. Employee wellbeing is significantly associated with reduced absence (Soane et al., 2013). Positive affect reduces
absenteeism while negative affect increases it (Pelled & Xin, 1999).
Turnover Intentions. Burnout is positively associated with turnover intentions (Meeusen et al., 2011). High level of negative affect is
associated with turnover intentions (Pelled & Xin, 1999; Sandrin et al., 2020). Employees experiencing psychological distress feel less
enthusiastic about their work and get detached from the organization (Anasori, Bayighomog, De Vita, & Altinay, 2021). In contrast, if
the psychological well-being of employees is high, then even low job satisfaction does not influence the turnover intentions up to that
extent (Wright & Bonett, 2007).

4.4.2. Micro- (Individual) level outcomes

At micro-level, mental health is associated with knowledge sharing attitude, creativity, work-family conflict, and resilience.
Knowledge sharing. Employees’ well-being has a positive impact on knowledge sharing attitude. Workers who report positive well-
being are more inclined towards knowledge sharing. Happy employees tend to enjoy their work and are more involved in helping their
coworkers through knowledge sharing (Berraies et al., 2020).
Creativity. Psychological distress, which includes anxiety, stress, withdrawal, and hopelessness, affects employee creativity in a
negative manner. Stress and depression block the creative part of the brain where emotions achieve salience over creativity. Conse­
quently, distressed mental state leads to low motivation and hinders creativity (Henriksen, Richardson, & Shack, 2020; Kalyar et al.,
2020).
Reduced Work-Family Conflict (WFC). Employee well-being is inversely associated with work–family conflict (Hunsaker, 2020).
Employees with low positive affect are associated with higher levels of WFC as stress and worry spill over to employees’ personal lives
influencing their well-being suffers (Chan & Wyatt, 2007).
Resilience. Positive affect is a significant predictor of resilience (Pillay, 2020). Based on broaden and build theory, Kay (2016)
argues that employees who experience recurrent positive emotions tend to be more satisfied. And this is not because of the reason that
they are enjoying but they have built such resources that enable them to with the challenges.

5. Discussion

This review has synthesized the research on the correlates of employees’ mental health and well-being in a systematic and
meaningful manner. While the extant evidence is dispersed and disjointed, this review has helped in synthesizing the fragmented
literature through a multilevel approach. The findings of the review as shown in Table 1 and Fig. 2 offer a holistic understanding of the

Table 3
Summary of future research possibilities.
Level of Possible research questions Proposed methodology
analysis

Macro-level Analyze the role a happy workplace has on worker’s productivity in a country-wide study. How does that Survey based
consequently contribute to the country’s GDP?
Compare stress levels of individuals involved in various occupations while controlling for their personality Survey based
type
Explore and understand factors that influence mental well-being of faculty members of higher educational Qualitative
institutions with triple work profile (research, teaching, management)
Explore the process through which an individual’s mental well-being is influenced (using diverse Diary based or experience-based
methodological approaches) studies etc.
Meso-level Does positive impact of transformational leadership outweigh its negative impact on employee mental well- Qualitative or diary based
being?
Examine the experiences of people in authority concerning their own mental health and the interplay Qualitative
between the structural conditions and their own coping mechanism?
Micro-level How does the impact of autonomy on mental health vary with respect to hierarchical position? Survey based
Under what circumstances, resilience may prove to be detrimental for employee’s well-being? Qualitative

13
A. Khalid and J. Syed Human Resource Management Review 34 (2024) 100998

multilevel factors that affect employees’ mental health and well-being and their consequences. The review highlights that the factors
identified at each level may interact with the factors at other level/s to produce a collective influence on mental health of employees.
Based on the findings of the review, Table 3 provides the brief summary of the future research possibilities which are discussed in detail
in the next section.

5.1. Future research directions

Despite the growing interest in mental health at the workplace, there are still several areas that need scholarly attention. The future
research recommendations at each level are discussed in the following section.

5.1.1. Macro-level
While mental well-being of population is, arguably, associated with a country’s sustainability, long-term growth, and development
(McDaid, Santini, Stewart-Brown, & Koushede, 2021), there is a lack of scholarly attention towards the macro-level outcomes of
mental health or lack thereof. Of 341 studies, only 47 studies discussed consequences of mental well-being at workplace and that too at
meso- and micro levels. This pattern suggests that macro-level consequences of mental well-being merit scholarly attention to develop
an understanding of the phenomenon and make the government institutions and organizations realize the significance of employees’
mental health.
The review reveals that certain facets of mental health and well-being (hedonic well-being) have received more attention than
others (eudaimonic well-being). Berraies et al. (2020) sought to integrate hedonic aspects of the work, i.e., physical environment and
eudaimonic aspects such as personal growth and good relationship with colleagues. Ménard and Brunet (2011) examined the effect of
authenticity at work on both hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Similarly, a few studies examined subjective well-being as the
criteria variable incorporating both hedonic and eudaimonic well-being (Monnot & Beehr, 2014). The distinctive influence of various
factors on hedonic well-being (satisfaction and contentment) and eudaimonic well-being (thriving and activated affect) may be
explicated. Also, future research may consider and measure the variability in mental health and well-being of employees, as the
fluctuations in inhibitors and facilitators may render employees’ mental health dynamic and variable.
Furthermore, the review suggests that certain kinds of jobs lead to deteriorated psychological well-being, for instance, employees
from hospitality sector, healthcare professionals or those who are involved in surface acting. A comparative analysis of mental well-
being across different professions could help in developing further understanding about the professions and kinds of occupations that
are inherently associated with stress and deteriorated well-being. It can facilitate and guide students vulnerable to stress in deciding
which professions would suit their personality type.
Also, mental health of employees in academic sector has not been researched enough. The literature suggests that surface acting
and student’s behavior can prove to be significant demands for teachers (Aldrup, Klusmann, Lüdtke, Göllner, & Trautwein, 2018;
Näring, Briët, & Brouwers, 2006). Research related tasks can be a source of satisfaction as well as a cause of dissatisfaction among
faculty members (Oshagbemi, 1997). Therefore, an in-depth understanding of the factors that influence mental well-being of faculty
members with triple work profile (research, teaching, management) may be developed (Vera, Salanova, & Martín, 2010).
A pluralistic approach may be adopted in terms of research designs and methods. Research on employees’ mental health and well-
being is dominated by quantitative research methods. 90% of the reviewed studies involved quantitative research design, 3.8%
qualitative, 5% mixed-method and 1.2% experimental/critical incident technique. The dominance of a particular method restricts the
kind of insights that could be gained (Stephan, 2018). Hence, diverse methodological approaches may be adopted. There are possi­
bilities of innovative ways to measure employees’ stress and emotional micro-level processes of mental well-being. Physiological
measures based on new technologies could be a good option to avoid possible self-report biases of employees. Moreover, diary-based or
experience sampling studies could also be done (Eatough, Shockley, & Yu, 2016).
Also, contextual differences may be explored by documenting the differences in mental well-being of employees across countries.
Cultural differences are expected to significantly affect the frequency and expression of mental health issues (Bass, Bolton, & Murray,
2007). Hence, the role of culture and cultural norms in affecting mental health and well-being may be examined to recognize how they
affect employees’ mental health and well-being.

5.1.2. Meso-level
The review suggests that the impact of transformational leadership on mental health at work has mixed results. Typically,
transformational leadership is expected to exert positive influence on mental health and well-being (Zwingmann et al., 2014) but it
may have negative impact on mental well-being (Parveen & Adeinat, 2019). Therefore, the influence of transformational leadership
may be examined further, along with the contextual factors and boundary conditions where it can potentially exert positive or negative
influence.
Almost all the studies in the review discussed factors associated with the mental well-being of employees but there is not enough
evidence that explains the mental well-being of managers, supervisors or executives. People in authority have a significant role in
ensuring positive mental well-being of the ones in their care (Donovan et al., 2006). Therefore, managers experience high levels of job
strain which increases their emotional exhaustion and affects their well-being (Jonsdottir, Rafnsdottir, & Ólafsdóttir, 2020). Further
research may be conducted to examine the views of people in authority, their experiences concerning their own mental health and the
ones in their care, the interplay between the structural conditions and their own coping mechanism.
Although research generally suggests that positive mental health and well-being are associated with positive outcomes (Fre­
drickson, 2013), it is possible that certain traits associated with low mental well-being are advantageous in certain ways (Wiklund,

14
A. Khalid and J. Syed Human Resource Management Review 34 (2024) 100998

Hatak, Patzelt, & Shepherd, 2018). There could be instances where low mental health and well-being (e.g., day to day negative
emotions) motivate further effort (Foo, Uy, & Baron, 2009) or offer unique skills and qualities that enable employees to excel in their
positions (Hennekam, Follmer, & Beatty, 2020). Hence, the potential opportunities and positive outcomes associated with mental
illnesses may be examined.
The findings highlight the prevalence of interconnectedness of factors at each level. Further research may be conducted to explore
the simultaneous interaction of factors at the three levels in detail. For instance, various studies examine the role of individual coping
styles in buffering the stress caused by job demands. Further research could be conducted to explore the facilitating or inhibiting role of
culture (macro-level factor) on the individual coping style (micro-level factor) to minimize the negative effect of job demands (meso-
level factor).

5.1.3. Micro-level
Contrary to the common understanding, autonomy seems to have a negative influence on mental health and well-being (Ho, 2018;
Lee, 2019). Autonomy can be negatively associated with performance outcomes directly or indirectly. Dual task processing and
cognitive distraction, because of autonomy can have detrimental effects (Langfred, 2008). Therefore, there is an opportunity to
develop an in-depth understanding about the contextual variables and explicate the underlying mechanisms of the relationship be­
tween autonomy and mental well-being. For instance, autonomy with respect to the hierarchical position or with respect to experience
of an individual may lead to different outcomes, i.e., autonomy for an experienced individual may promote mental well-being as he
would be confident about what to do and how to do but probably for a novice, autonomy may pose extra pressure and challenge.
Evidence regarding resilience is also ambivalent and interesting. Resilience, which is expected to buffer the negative influences of
stressors or demands, can prove to be detrimental for employees’ mental health and well-being as resilient employees tend to rely on
their personal resource to face the negative impact of stressors (Annor & Amponsah-Tawiah, 2020). Hence, a deeper understanding of
the influence of resilience is required, explicating the degree of resilience which can facilitate improving the mental health and well-
being of an employee.
Evidence suggests various personality characteristics that affect mental health positively or negatively. However, it is also
established that personality changes have a significant impact on life satisfaction and alter at least as much as economic circumstances.
(Boyce, Wood, & Powdthavee, 2013). Hence, the effect of personality changes on mental health and well-being of employees or how
the personality co-evolves with other factors and how it affects mental health and well-being could be a focus of research. Certain
environments may be more conducive to positive personality change. For instance, an environment with improved access to mental
health services helps reduce neurotic tendencies (Boyce et al., 2013). Hence, public policy interventions could be helpful in fostering
such environments that facilitate an individual to grow and develop.
While the findings of the SLR presented in Table 1 and Fig. 2 depict a comprehensive view of research evidence regarding the
factors that facilitate or inhibit employees’ psychological well-being, it was beyond this SLR’s scope to measure the strength and
relative importance of these factors. However, owing to the fact that organizations have limited resources, they may be interested in
knowing which antecedent influences mental health more significantly or predicts variance in mental health. For instance, while
Wood, Braeken, and Niven (2013) depicted a weak negative relationship between workplace discrimination and mental health, Deitch
et al. (2003) showed a relatively strong association. Therefore, for a deeper analysis, we have presented meta-analytic results (see
appendices A and B) to assess the impact of various inhibitors and facilitators on employee well-being and to identify the relationship’s
strength. To statistically combine and analyze the data to gain an insight into the direction as well as the precise effect of each inhibitor
and facilitator, we used Hunter and Schmidt’s Meta-Analysis Program, V2.0 (Schmidt & Le, 2014), and corrected for sampling error
and reliability error. For the sake of this analysis, qualitative studies and a few quantitative studies, where the required data was not
accessible or not provided, were excluded. From Appendix A, we can infer that economic crisis, workplace ostracism, job demands, and
work-family conflict are weakly and negatively associated with mental well-being. However, workplace discrimination, workplace
aggression, abusive supervision, and workplace conflict are moderately and negatively correlated with mental well-being. Similarly,
workplace ostracism, abusive supervision, and job demands are positively and weakly related to psychological distress. Moreover,
workplace discrimination, workplace aggression, workplace conflict, and work-family conflict are positively and moderately related to
psychological distress. Similarly, the relationship of the rest of the variables can be examined from Appendices A and B.
Since the present SLR includes all the empirical studies (qualitative and quantitative), future scholars may conduct an exclusive
meta-analysis including only quantitative studies in the inclusion criteria and the studies providing quantitative data for sample size,
mean, standard deviation, correlation, and Cronbach’s alpha of variables of interest (Arain, Bhatti, Hameed, Khan, & Rudolph, 2022).

5.2. Limitations

This review has its own share of limitations. First, we used the Scopus database to identify relevant articles. Although there is a huge
overlap of Scopus with Web of Science (Gavel & Iselid, 2008), future scholars may wish to consider other databases in their research.
Secondly, we included the studies published in the subject area of business management and accounting only. Research in other subject
areas may have diverse findings and arguments and there could be additional information on relationships. Moreover, this review has
focused primarily on the antecedents and consequences of employees’ mental health and is not directed towards delineating the
mechanism behind the phenomenon or identifying the possible mediating and moderating variables.

15
A. Khalid and J. Syed Human Resource Management Review 34 (2024) 100998

5.3. Theoretical and managerial contribution

In terms of theoretical contribution, the review reveals that current research regarding mental health of employees is dominated by
models such as job-demand control model (Karasek Jr, 1979), role stress theory (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964), job
characteristic model (Hackman & Oldham, 1976), etc. While these models help in gaining an understanding of the underlying
mechanism of why certain factors influence mental health, categorizing the factors at various levels widens and deepens our view to
understand the possible spillover effects of factors at each level. The adoption of a multilevel, relational perspective to gain an un­
derstanding of antecedents and consequences of mental health of employees provides a holistic view. It offers insights and avenues to
examine the interconnectedness of factors at each level for better understanding of the mental health of employees, its interaction with
their personal life, and the context.
Moreover, the current review has significant implications for organizations and practitioners as it can enhance their understanding
of correlates of employees’ mental health and well-being. The review offers evidence-based ideas to develop policies to improve mental
health. Guided by the findings of this study, specifically post hoc analysis, human resource (HR) practitioners and managers may wish
to recognize the relative significance of each factor in influencing mental well-being of their employees and develop effective in­
terventions to enhance employees’ mental health at workplace. The findings of this review may enable the HR practitioners to analyze
how social factors interact with the various work-related demands and dispositional characteristics to influence mental well-being.

6. Conclusion

This review has helped in developing a comprehensive understanding of the antecedents and consequences of employees’ mental
health by integrating the findings from 341 studies. By adopting a multilevel approach, it has highlighted the prevalence and inter­
connectedness of the antecedents of mental health at various levels. There is a multitude of societal, organizational, and individual
level factors that affect employees’ mental well-being. Improved mental well-being in turn leads to favorable individual and orga­
nizational level outcomes. To guide future research, this review has also highlighted possible avenues for future research. A multilevel
approach may facilitate and guide policy makers to develop appropriate and effective interventions to enhance employees’ mental
health at the workplace by keeping in view the factors influencing mental health at all three levels. Overall, this review adds value to
the literature by providing an integrated view of antecedents and consequences of mental health and well-being of employees. It
highlights that employees’ mental health at the workplace is influenced by a range of factors within and beyond the workplace.

Authorship statement

All persons who meet the authorship criteria are listed as authors, and all the authors certify that they have participated sufficiently
in the work to take public responsibility for the content, including participation in the concept, design, analysis, writing, or revision of
the manuscript. Furthermore, each author certifies that this material or similar material has not been and will not be submitted to or
published in any other publication before its appearance in Human Resource Management Review journal.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Afaf Khalid: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Software, Writing – original draft, Writing – review
& editing. Jawad Syed: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – review & editing.

Funding

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

Data availability

Data will be made available on request.

Acknowledgements

We are thankful to Dr. Ghulam Ali Arain for his valuable input in data anlysis and Dr. Muhammad Abdur Rahman Malik for his
valuable input during the review process. We are also thankful to the anonymous reviewers and action editor for thier most
constructive comments on the article during the review process.

16
A. Khalid and J. Syed Human Resource Management Review 34 (2024) 100998

Appendix A. Results of post hoc analysis – Antecedents of mental health and well-being

95%CIs (ρ) 80%CVs (ρ)

Antecedents Focus N k r SDr ρ SDρ CIL CIU CRL CRU %Var

Variable

Macro-level factor:
Economic Crisis WB 13,214 4 − 0.238 0.045 − 0.299 0.057 − 0.358 − 0.240 − 0.372 − 0.227 11.81%
Meso–level factors: Inhibitors
HWAI, Ostracism PD 1177 4 0.23 0.076 0.274 0.033 0.202 0.345 0.231 0.316 79.36
HWAI, Ostracism WB 1176 3 − 0.102 0.096 − 0.121 0.091 − 0.243 0.002 − 0.238 − 0.004 28.7%
HWAI, Workplace PD 4453 5 0.358 0.251 0.474 0.308 0.202 0.746 0.08 0.868 1.5%
discrimination
HWAI, Workplace WB 14,970 4 − 0.428 0.068 − 0.569 0.097 − 0.665 − 0.473 − 0.693 − 0.445 3.29%
discrimination
HWAI, Aggression PD 9881 22 0.42 0.138 0.491 0.173 0.416 0.566 0.27 0.713 6.61%
Aggression WB 4602 12 − 0.326 0.169 − 0.377 0.18 − 0.483 − 0.271 − 0.607 − 0.147 7.88%
HWAI, Abusive PD 2869 5 0.295 0.099 0.336 0.1 0.24 0.432 0.208 0.464 15.78%
supervision
HWAI, Abusive WB 763 3 − 0.505 0.102 − 0.584 0.087 − 0.699 − 0.468 − 0.695 − 0.473 27.95%
supervision
HWAI, Workplace PD 879 5 0.232 0.073 0.253 0 0.192 0.314 0.253 0.253 100%
harassment
HWAI, Workplace WB Less than three studies
harassment
Job Demands PD 89,847 16 0.281 0.1 0.321 0.121 0.262 0.381 0.166 0.477 1.35%
Job Demands WB 8175 5 − 0.214 0.132 − 0.234 0.139 − 0.357 − 0.111 − 0.411 − 0.057 3.32%
Workplace Conflict PD 7887 13 0.436 0.144 0.496 0.136 0.42 0.573 0.322 0.671 6.91%
Workplace Conflict WB 3268 6 − 0.32 0.043 − 0.397 0.038 − 0.447 − 0.348 − 0.447 − 0.348 60.96%
WFC PD 3333 12 0.435 0.182 0.53 0.168 0.429 0.631 0.315 0.745 10.63%
WFC WB 3254 5 − 0.278 0.175 − 0.311 0.19 − 0.482 − 0.141 − 0.555 − 0.068 4.37%
Meso–level factors: Facilitators
Job Characteristics PD 5689 12 − 0.252 0.101 − 0.304 0.146 − 0.392 − 0.216 − 0.491 − 0.117 12.21%
Job Characteristics WB 20,565 8 0.154 0.111 0.184 0.131 0.092 0.277 0.016 0.352 3%
Workplace Support PD 21,248 24 − 0.212 0.148 − 0.248 0.177 − 0.32 − 0.175 − 0.474 − 0.021 4.44%
Workplace Support WB 42,207 32 0.358 0.188 0.419 0.253 0.331 0.507 0.096 0.742 1.31%
Organizational Justice PD 1660 5 − 0.284 0.076 − 0.362 0.081 − 0.452 − 0.271 − 0.465 − 0.258 39.12%
Organizational Justice WB 1760 3 0.38 0.124 0.404 0.147 0.232 0.576 0.216 0.592 6.33%
Work-Family fit PD Less than three studies
Work-Family fit WB 3423 3 0.26 0.129 0.288 0.142 0.124 0.452 0.106 0.47 4.49%
Workplace Spirituality PD 2230 6 − 0.12 0.32 − 0.139 0.376 − 0.444 0.165 − 0.62 0.342 2.55%
Workplace Spirituality WB 3152 12 0.529 0.183 0.637 0.229 0.504 0.771 0.344 0.931 5.3%
Leadership Style PD 2512 7 − 0.19 0.151 − 0.234 0.155 − 0.357 − 0.111 − 0.432 − 0.036 13.21%
Leadership Style WB 4190 7 0.346 0.105 0.377 0.11 0.291 0.463 0.236 0.518 9.81%
Micro–level factors: Facilitators
Psychological Capital PD 2124 6 − 0.08 0.207 − 0.076 0.251 − 0.283 0.131 − 0.397 0.245 6.19%
Psychological Capital WB 6840 12 0.397 0.131 0.485 0.155 0.394 0.576 0.286 0.683 7.19%

Appendix B. Results of post hoc analysis – Outcomes of mental health and well-being

95%CIs (ρ) 80%CVs (ρ)

Focus Outcome N K r SDr ρ SDρ CIL CIU CRL CRU %Var

Variable

Meso–level outcomes
PD Workplace Deviance 4303 12 0.294 0.159 0.35 0.172 0.248 0.453 0.131 0.57 10.01%
WB Employee engagement & 1366 4 0.347 0.093 0.413 0.078 0.318 0.507 0.313 0.513 34.33%
commitment
PD Turnover Intentions 1373 3 0.351 0.081 0.381 0.078 0.28 0.483 0.282 0.481 24.86%
WB Turnover Intentions 1005 4 − 0.505 0.057 − 0.562 0 − 0.611 − 0.512 − 0.562 − 0.562 100%
* PD, Psychological distress; WB, Well-Being; HWAI, Harmful Workplace Action and Interactions; N, Total number of respondents; K represents
number of independent samples (studies) and not the number of research papers as few papers included multiple studies with different datasets; r‾,
Sample-weighted mean correlation; SDr‾, Standard deviation of sample-weighted mean correlation; ρ, Sample-weighted and reliability corrected
population correlation; SDρ, Standard deviation of sample-weighted and reliability corrected population correlation; CIs, Confidence intervals; CIL,
Confidence interval lower; CIU, Confidence interval upper; CVL, Credibility interval lower; CVU, Credibility interval upper; %Var, Percentage of
variance attributed to artifacts.

17
A. Khalid and J. Syed Human Resource Management Review 34 (2024) 100998

Appendix C. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2023.100998.

References

Aboobaker, N., Edward, M., & Zakkariya, K. (2019). Workplace spirituality, employee wellbeing and intention to stay. International Journal of Educational Management,
33(1), 28–44.
Abubakar, A. M. (2018). Linking work-family interference, workplace incivility, gender and psychological distress. Journal of Management Development, 37(3),
226–242.
Achille, M. (2003). Definir la sante au travail: I. La base conceptuelle d’un modele de la sante au travail. [defining health at work: I. conceptual basis of a health-at-
work model]. In R. Foucher, A. Savoie, & L. Brunet (Eds.), Concilier performance organisationnelle et santé psychologique au travail [conciliating organziational
performance and psychological health at work] (pp. 65–90). Montreal, Canada: Editions Nouvelles.
Aldrup, K., Klusmann, U., Lüdtke, O., Göllner, R., & Trautwein, U. (2018). Student misbehavior and teacher well-being: Testing the mediating role of the teacher-
student relationship. Learning and Instruction, 58, 126–136.
Al-Zyoud, M. F., & Mert, İ. S. (2019). Does employees’ psychological capital buffer the negative effects of incivility? EuroMed Journal of Business, 14(3), 239–250.
Anasori, E., Bayighomog, S. W., De Vita, G., & Altinay, L. (2021). The mediating role of psychological distress between ostracism, work engagement, and turnover
intentions: An analysis in the Cypriot hospitality context. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 94, 1–12.
Annor, F., & Amponsah-Tawiah, K. (2020). Relationship between workplace bullying and Employees’ subjective well-being: Does resilience make a difference?
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 32(3), 123–135.
Arain, G. A., Bhatti, Z. A., Hameed, I., Khan, A. K., & Rudolph, C. W. (2022). A meta-analysis of the nomological network of knowledge hiding in organizations.
Personnel Psychology, 1–32. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12562.
Asquin, A., Garel, G., & Picq, T. (2010). When project-based management causes distress at work. International Journal of Project Management, 28(2), 166–172.
Bajaj, H., & Krishnan, V. R. (2016). Role of justice perceptions and social exchange in enhancing employee happiness. International Journal of Business Excellence, 9(2),
192–209.
Bakker, A. B., Boyd, C. M., Dollard, M., Gillespie, N., Winefield, A. H., & Stough, C. (2010). The role of personality in the job demands-resources model: A study of
Australian academic staff. Career Development International, 15(7), 622–636.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328.
Bass, J. K., Bolton, P. A., & Murray, L. K. (2007). Do not forget culture when studying mental health. The Lancet, 370(9591), 918–919.
Bednarczuk, M. (2019). God in the workplace: Religiosity and job satisfaction among US public servants. Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs, 5(3), 261–276.
Berraies, S., Lajili, R., & Chtioui, R. (2020). Social capital, employees’ well-being and knowledge sharing: Does enterprise social networks use matter? Case of Tunisian
knowledge-intensive firms. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 21(6), 1153–1183.
Bhalla, A., & Kang, L. S. (2019). Domain-specific and nonspecific outcomes of work-family interface. Evidence-based HRM: A Global Forum for Empirical Scholarship, 7
(2), 127–142.
Boles, J. S., Johnston, M. W., & Hair, J. F., Jr. (1997). Role stress, work-family conflict and emotional exhaustion: Inter-relationships and effects on some work-related
consequences. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 17(1), 17–28.
Boudrias, J.-S., Desrumaux, P., Gaudreau, P., Nelson, K., Brunet, L., & Savoie, A. (2011). Modeling the experience of psychological health at work: The role of personal
resources, social-organizational resources, and job demands. International Journal of Stress Management, 18(4), 372–395.
Bouncken, R. B., Gast, J., Kraus, S., & Bogers, M. (2015). Coopetition: A systematic review, synthesis, and future research directions. Review of Managerial Science, 9(3),
577–601.
Bowen, P., Edwards, P., Lingard, H., & Cattell, K. (2014). Predictive modeling of workplace stress among construction professionals. Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management, 140(3), 1–10.
Boyce, C. J., Wood, A. M., & Powdthavee, N. (2013). Is personality fixed? Personality changes as much as “variable” economic factors and more strongly predicts
changes to life satisfaction. Social Indicators Research, 111(1), 287–305.
Bryson, A., Barth, E., & Dale-Olsen, H. (2013). The effects of organizational change on worker well-being and the moderating role of trade unions. ILR Review, 66(4),
989–1011.
Bubonya, M., Cobb-Clark, D. A., & Wooden, M. (2017). Mental health and productivity at work: Does what you do matter? Labour Economics, 46, 150–165.
Büchler, N., ter Hoeven, C. L., & van Zoonen, W. (2020). Understanding constant connectivity to work: How and for whom is constant connectivity related to
employee well-being? Information and Organization, 30(3), 1–14.
Callea, A., Lo Presti, A., Mauno, S., & Urbini, F. (2019). The associations of quantitative/qualitative job insecurity and well-being: The role of self-esteem. International
Journal of Stress Management, 26(1), 46–56.
Cameron, E., Joyce, K. M., Delaquis, C. P., Reynolds, K., Protudjer, J. L., & Roos, L. E. (2020). Maternal psychological distress & mental health service use during the
COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Affective Disorders, 276, 765–774.
Chan, K. W., & Wyatt, T. A. (2007). Quality of work life: A study of employees in Shanghai, China. Asia Pacific Business Review, 13(4), 501–517.
Chen, H.-T., & Wang, C.-H. (2019). Incivility, satisfaction and turnover intention of tourist hotel chefs. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
31(5), 2034–2053.
Chen, S.-C. (2018). The relationships between multifoci workplace aggression and work–family conflict. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 29
(9), 1537–1564.
Cheung, C., Bowen, P., Cattell, K., & Davis, J. (2019). Measuring what counts: Workplace well-being of project professionals. In Paper presented at the thirty-fifth annual
conference.
Chiocchio, F., Beaulieu, G., Boudrias, J.-S., Rousseau, V., Aubé, C., & Morin, E. M. (2010). The project involvement index, psychological distress, and psychological
well-being: Comparing workers from projectized and non-projectized organizations. International Journal of Project Management, 28(3), 201–211.
Co-operation, O. f. E., & Development. (2012). Sick on the job?: Myths and realities about mental health and work. OECD Publishing Paris.
Cotti, C. D., Haley, M. R., & Miller, L. A. (2014). Workplace flexibilities, job satisfaction and union membership in the US workforce. British Journal of Industrial
Relations, 52(3), 403–425.
Cottini, E., & Lucifora, C. (2013). Mental health and working conditions in Europe. ILR Review, 66(4), 958–988.
Crabtree, J. W., Haslam, S. A., Postmes, T., & Haslam, C. (2010). Mental health support groups, stigma, and self-esteem: Positive and negative implications of group
identification. Journal of Social Issues, 66(3), 553–569.
Darvishmotevali, M., & Ali, F. (2020). Job insecurity, subjective well-being and job performance: The moderating role of psychological capital. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 87, 1–10.
Day, N. E. (2005). Religion in the workplace: Correlates and consequences of individual behavior. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 2(1), 104–135.
De Clercq, D., Haq, I. U., & Azeem, M. U. (2020). The relationship between workplace incivility and depersonalization toward co-workers: Roles of job-related anxiety,
gender, and education. Journal of Management & Organization, 26(2), 219–240.
De Jonge, J., Dormann, C., Janssen, P. P., Dollard, M. F., Landeweerd, J. A., & Nijhuis, F. J. (2001). Testing reciprocal relationships between job characteristics and
psychological well-being: A cross-lagged structural equation model. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74(1), 29–46.

18
A. Khalid and J. Syed Human Resource Management Review 34 (2024) 100998

De Jonge, J., & Schaufeli, W. B. (1998). Job characteristics and employee well-being: A test of Warr’s vitamin model in health care workers using structural equation
modelling. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 19(4), 387–407.
Deitch, E. A., Barsky, A., Butz, R. M., Chan, S., Brief, A. P., & Bradley, J. C. (2003). Subtle yet significant: The existence and impact of everyday racial discrimination in
the workplace. Human Relations, 56(11), 1299–1324.
Demerouti, E., Le Blanc, P. M., Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., & Hox, J. (2009). Present but sick: A three-wave study on job demands, presenteeism and burnout.
Career Development International, 14(1), 50–68.
Devonish, D. (2014). Job demands, health, and absenteeism: Does bullying make things worse? Employee Relations, 36(2), 165–181.
Dextras-Gauthier, J., & Marchand, A. (2018). Does organizational culture play a role in the development of psychological distress? The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 29(12), 1920–1949.
Dimitrov, D. (2012). Sources of meaningfulness in the workplace: A study in the US hospitality sector. European Journal of Training and Development, 36(2/3),
351–371.
Donovan, R. J., Henley, N., Jalleh, G., Silburn, S., Zubrick, S., & Williams, A. (2006). The impact on mental health in others of those in a position of authority: A
perspective of parents, teachers, trainers and supervisors. Australian e-journal for the Advancement of Mental Health, 5(1), 60–66.
Duan, J., Wong, M., & Yue, Y. (2019). Organizational helping behavior and its relationship with employee workplace well-being. Career Development International, 24
(1), 18–36.
Eatough, E., Shockley, K., & Yu, P. (2016). A review of ambulatory health data collection methods for employee experience sampling research. Applied Psychology, 65
(2), 322–354.
Edwards, A. V., & Harraf, A. (2020). Wellbeing program implementation at a fortune 500 company: A case study. In Paper presented at the European conference on
innovation and entrepreneurship.
Einarsen, S., & Nielsen, M. B. (2015). Workplace bullying as an antecedent of mental health problems: A five-year prospective and representative study. International
Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 88(2), 131–142.
Elnahla, N., & McKay, R. (2020). Workplace issues in the context of Aldous Huxley’s brave New World: Mental health problems, cannabis and the division of labour.
Transnational Corporations Review, 12(2), 106–125.
Fairbrother, K., & Warn, J. (2003). Workplace dimensions, stress and job satisfaction. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18(1), 8–21.
Foo, M.-D., Uy, M. A., & Baron, R. A. (2009). How do feelings influence effort? An empirical study of entrepreneurs’ affect and venture effort. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 94(4), 1086–1094.
Fowler, J. L., & O’Gorman, J. G. (2005). Mentoring functions: A contemporary view of the perceptions of mentees and mentors. British Journal of Management, 16(1),
51–57.
Franken, R. E. (2007). Human motivation (6th ed.). Belmont, California: Wadsworth Group.
Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 300–319.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2013). Positive emotions broaden and build. In , 47. Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 1–53). Elsevier.
Game, A. M. (2007). Workplace boredom coping: Health, safety, and HR implications. Personnel Review, 36(5), 701–721.
Garg, N. (2017). Workplace spirituality and employee well-being: An empirical exploration. Journal of Human Values, 23(2), 129–147.
Gavel, Y., & Iselid, L. (2008). Web of science and Scopus: A journal title overlap study. Online Information Review, 32(1), 8–21.
Giorgi, G., Shoss, M. K., & Leon-Perez, J. M. (2015). Going beyond workplace stressors: Economic crisis and perceived employability in relation to psychological
distress and job dissatisfaction. International Journal of Stress Management, 22(2), 137–158.
Green, K. W., & Medlin, B. (2010). Impact of recession-based workplace anxiety. International Journal of Management and Enterprise Development, 9(3), 213–232.
Haar, J. M., & Bardoel, E. A. (2008). Positive spillover from the work—Family interface: A study of Australian employees. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 46
(3), 275–287.
Haar, J. M., & Roche, M. A. (2013). Three-way interaction effects of workaholism on employee well-being: Evidence from blue-collar workers in New Zealand. Journal
of Management & Organziation, 19(2), 134–149.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 250–279.
Halim, H. A. M., Halim, F. W., & Khairuddin, R. (2018). Does personality influence workplace bullying and Lead to depression among nurses? Jurnal Pengurusan (UKM
Journal of Management), 53, 53–100.
Harris, L. M., Cumming, S. R., & Campbell, A. J. (2006). Stress and psychological well-being among allied health professionals. Journal of Allied Health, 35(4),
198–207.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268–279.
Harvey, S. B., Modini, M., Joyce, S., Milligan-Saville, J. S., Tan, L., Mykletun, A., … Mitchell, P. B. (2017). Can work make you mentally ill? A systematic meta-review
of work-related risk factors for common mental health problems. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 74(4), 301–310.
Hennekam, S., Follmer, K., & Beatty, J. E. (2020). The paradox of mental illness and employment: A person-job fit lens. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 32(15), 3244–3271.
Henriksen, D., Richardson, C., & Shack, K. (2020). Mindfulness and creativity: Implications for thinking and learning. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 37(1− 10).
Herrman, H., Saxena, S., & Moodie, R. (2005). Promoting mental health: Concepts, emerging evidence, practice: A report of the World Health Organization, Department of
Mental Health and Substance Abuse in collaboration with the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation and the university of. Melbourne: World Health Organization.
Ho, H.-C. (2018). Intertwining trilogy premises of Hope, social support and trust relieving work stress influencing to well-being. In Proceedings of the international
conference on industrial engineering and operations management, Washington DC, USA (pp. 1286–1297).
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524.
Hogh, A., Mikkelsen, E. G., & Hansen, A. M. (2011). Individual consequences of workplace bullying/mobbing. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.),
Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research, and practice (2nd ed., pp. 107–128). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Houston, D. J. (2000). Public-service motivation: A multivariate test. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(4), 713–728.
Hu, T., Zhang, D., & Wang, J. (2015). A meta-analysis of the trait resilience and mental health. Personality and Individual Differences, 76, 18–27.
Hunsaker, W. (2019). Spiritual leadership and job burnout: Mediating effects of employee well-being and life satisfaction. Management Science Letters, 9(8),
1257–1268.
Hunsaker, W. D. (2020). Spiritual leadership and work–family conflict: Mediating effects of employee well-being. Personnel Review, 50(1), 143–158.
Hussain, K., Abbas, Z., Gulzar, S., Jibril, A. B., & Hussain, A. (2020). Examining the impact of abusive supervision on employees’ psychological wellbeing and turnover
intention: The mediating role of intrinsic motivation. Cogent Business & Management, 7(1), 1–21.
Jagtap, S. (2019). Key guidelines for designing integrated solutions to support development of marginalised societies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 219, 148–165.
Janssen, P. P., Peeters, M. C., de Jonge, J., Houkes, I., & Tummers, G. E. (2004). Specific relationships between job demands, job resources and psychological
outcomes and the mediating role of negative work–home interference. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65(3), 411–429.
Jones, B. L., Hill, E. J., & Miller, R. B. (2020). Family routines and family satisfaction in Singapore: Work–family fit as a moderator. Asia Pacific Journal of Human
Resources, 58(1), 24–45.
Jonsdottir, I. J., Rafnsdottir, G. L., & Ólafsdóttir, T. (2020). Job strain, gender and well-being at work: A case study of public sector line managers. International Journal
of Workplace Health Management, 13(4), 445–460.
Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2006). Soul food: Morrison and the transformative power of ethical leadership in the public sector. Public Integrity, 8(3), 245–256.
Kabat-Zinn, J., & Hanh, T. N. (2009). Full catastrophe living: Using the wisdom of your body and mind to face stress, pain, and illness. New York: Delacourt.
Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D., Quinn, A., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. (1964). Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and role ambiguity. New York, NY: Wiley and Sons.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724.

19
A. Khalid and J. Syed Human Resource Management Review 34 (2024) 100998

Kalyar, M. N., Saeed, M., Usta, A., & Shafique, I. (2020). Workplace cyberbullying and creativity: Examining the roles of psychological distress and psychological
capital. Management Research Review, 44(4), 607–624.
Karasek, R. A., Jr. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(2), 285–308.
Karasek, R., & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy work: Stress, productivity, and the reconstruction of working life. 1990. Nueva York: Basic Books.
Kashif, M., Braganca, E., Awang, Z., & De Run, E. C. (2017). You abuse but I will stay: The combined effects of job stress, customer abuse, and emotional intelligence
on employee turnover. Journal of Management Development, 36(7), 899–914.
Kaur, N., & Kang, L. S. (2019). The costs and benefits of going beyond the call of duty. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 69(2),
252–270.
Kawakubo, A., & Oguchi, T. (2019). Recovery experiences during vacations promote life satisfaction through creative behavior. Tourism Management Perspectives, 30,
240–250.
Kawalya, C., Munene, J. C., Ntayi, J., Kagaari, J., Mafabi, S., & Kasekende, F. (2019). Psychological capital and happiness at the workplace: The mediating role of flow
experience. Cogent Business & Management, 6(1), 1–13.
Kay, S. A. (2016). Emotion regulation and resilience: Overlooked connections. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 9(2), 411–415.
Kelloway, E. K., & Barling, J. (1991). Job characteristics, role stress and mental health. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 64(4), 291–304.
Kim, M., Kim, A. C. H., Newman, J. I., Ferris, G. R., & Perrewé, P. L. (2019). The antecedents and consequences of positive organizational behavior: The role of
psychological capital for promoting employee well-being in sport organizations. Sport Management Review, 22(1), 108–125.
Kinicki, A. J., McKee, F. M., & Wade, K. J. (1996). Annual review, 1991–1995: Occupational health. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49(2), 190–220.
Kinman, G., Clements, A. J., & Hart, J. (2016). Work-related wellbeing in UK prison officers: A benchmarking approach. International Journal of Workplace Health
Management, 9(3), 290–307.
Koon, V.-Y., & Ho, T.-S. (2020). Authentic leadership and employee engagement: The role of employee well-being. Human Systems Management, 40(1), 81–92.
Koopman, J., Rosen, C. C., Gabriel, A. S., Puranik, H., Johnson, R. E., & Ferris, D. L. (2020). Why and for whom does the pressure to help hurt others? Affective and
cognitive mechanisms linking helping pressure to workplace deviance. Personnel Psychology, 73(2), 333–362.
Koyuncu, M., Burke, R. J., & Wolpin, J. (2012). Work-family conflict, satisfactions and psychological well-being among women managers and professionals in Turkey.
Gender in Management: An International Journal, 27(3), 202–213.
Kumar Pradhan, R., Prasad Panigrahy, N., & Kesari Jena, L. (2021). Self-efficacy and workplace well-being: Understanding the role of resilience in manufacturing
organizations. Business Perspectives and Research, 9(1), 62–76.
Kuriakose, V., Sreejesh, S., Wilson, P., & Anusree, M. (2019). The differential association of workplace conflicts on employee well-being. International Journal of
Conflict Management, 30(5), 680–705.
Lachterman, B., & Meir, E. I. (2004). The impact of work setting congruence on well-being. Journal of Career Assessment, 12(2), 150–168.
Lam, C. F., Wan, W. H., & Roussin, C. J. (2016). Going the extra mile and feeling energized: An enrichment perspective of organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 101(3), 379–391.
Langfred, C. W. (2008). The autonomy trap: A cognitive perspective on the negative effects of individual autonomy. In Paper presented at the academy of management
proceedings.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer Publishing Company.
Lee, Y. (2019). JD-R model on psychological well-being and the moderating effect of job discrimination in the model. European Journal of Training and Development, 43
(3/4), 232–249.
Leka, S., Jain, A., Iavicoli, S., & Di Tecco, C. (2015). An evaluation of the policy context on psychosocial risks and mental health in the workplace in the European
Union: Achievements, challenges, and the future. BioMed Research International, 2015, 213089.
Li, Y., Li, D., Tu, Y., & Liu, J. (2018). How and when servant leadership enhances life satisfaction. Personnel Review, 47(5), 1077–1093.
Lin, W., Koopmann, J., & Wang, M. (2020). How does workplace helping behavior step up or slack off? Integrating enrichment-based and depletion-based
perspectives. Journal of Management, 46(3), 385–413.
Lingard, H., & Francis, V. (2006). Does a supportive work environment moderate the relationship between work-family conflict and burnout among construction
professionals? Construction Management and Economics, 24(2), 185–196.
Lings, I., Durden, G., Lee, N., & Cadogan, J. W. (2014). Socio-emotional and operational demands on service employees. Journal of Business Research, 67(10),
2132–2138.
Lippel, K. (2011). Law, public policy and mental health in the workplace. Healthcare Papers, 11, 20–37.
Liu-Lastres, B., & Wen, H. (2021). How do ethnic minority foodservice workers perceive employee well-being? An exploratory study. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Management, 46, 376–383.
Løkke, A.-K. (2016). Social capital and health and job related outcomes: The case of a large municipality. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 9(1),
17–31.
Loretto, W., Platt, S., & Popham, F. (2010). Workplace change and employee mental health: Results from a longitudinal study. British Journal of Management, 21(2),
526–540.
Luria, G., & Yagil, D. (2008). Procedural justice, ethical climate and service outcomes in restaurants. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27(2), 276–283.
Maham, R., Bhatti, O. K., & Öztürk, A. O. (2020). Impact of Islamic spirituality and Islamic social responsibility on employee happiness with perceived organizational
justice as a mediator. Cogent Business & Management, 7(1), 1–20.
Marchand, A., Demers, A., & Durand, P. (2005). Do occupation and work conditions really matter? A longitudinal analysis of psychological distress experiences among
Canadian workers. Sociology of Health & Illness, 27(5), 602–627.
Marchand, A., Demers, A., & Durand, P. (2006). Social structures, agent personality and workers’ mental health: A longitudinal analysis of the specific role of
occupation and of workplace constraints-resources on psychological distress in the Canadian workforce. Human Relations, 59(7), 875–901.
Marchand, A., Durand, P., Haines, V., & Harvey, S. (2015). The multilevel determinants of workers’ mental health: Results from the SALVEO study. Social Psychiatry
and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 50(3), 445–459.
Martin, A., Karanika-Murray, M., Biron, C., & Sanderson, K. (2016). The psychosocial work environment, employee mental health and organizational interventions:
Improving research and practice by taking a multilevel approach. Stress and Health, 32(3), 201–215.
Mauersberger, H., Hess, U., & Hoppe, A. (2019). Measuring task conflicts as they occur: A real-time assessment of task conflicts and their immediate affective,
cognitive and social consequences. Journal of Business and Psychology, 35, 813–830.
Mawritz, M. B., Mayer, D. M., Hoobler, J. M., Wayne, S. J., & Marinova, S. V. (2012). A trickle-down model of abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 65(2),
325–357.
McCarthy, C. J., Fouladi, R. T., Juncker, B. D., & Matheny, K. B. (2006). Psychological resources as stress buffers: Their relationship to university students’ anxiety and
depression. Journal of College Counseling, 9(2), 99–110.
McDaid, D., Santini, Z. I., Stewart-Brown, S., & Koushede, V. (2021). Mental wellbeing is not just beneficial for you–it can also lead to lower healthcare costs. In The
conversation.
Meeusen, V. C., Van Dam, K., Brown-Mahoney, C., Van Zundert, A. A., & Knape, H. T. (2011). Understanding nurse anesthetists’ intention to leave their job: How
burnout and job satisfaction mediate the impact of personality and workplace characteristics. Health Care Management Review, 36(2), 155–163.
Ménard, J., & Brunet, L. (2011). Authenticity and well-being in the workplace: A mediation model. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26(4), 332–346.
Millar, C. C., Culpin, V., Gervais, R. L., & Millear, P. (2014). The well-being of women at work: The importance of resources across the life course. Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 27(4), 598–612.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of
Internal Medicine, 151(4), 264–269.
Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of web of science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213–228.

20
A. Khalid and J. Syed Human Resource Management Review 34 (2024) 100998

Monnot, M. J., & Beehr, T. A. (2014). Subjective well-being at work: Disentangling source effects of stress and support on enthusiasm, contentment, and
meaningfulness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 85(2), 204–218.
Moodie, R., & Jenkins, R. (2005). I’m from the government and you want me to invest in mental health promotion. Well why should I? Promotion & Education, 12(2_
suppl), 37–41.
Morin, A. (2021, May 25). The 7 best online anxiety support groups of 2021. Retrieved June 14, 2021, from https://www.verywellmind.com/best-online-anxiety-
support-groups-4692353.
Mousa, M., Massoud, H. K., & Ayoubi, R. M. (2020). Gender, diversity management perceptions, workplace happiness and organisational citizenship behaviour.
Employee Relations: The International Journal, 42(6), 1249–1269.
Murphy, S. A. (2000). Mental health and the workplace: A multidisciplinary examination of the individual and organizational antecedents and outcomes of stress, anxiety and
depressed mood. Doctoral dissertation. Carleton University, Ottawa, ON.
Narayanan, J., & Moynihan, L. (2006). Mindfulness at work: The beneficial effects on job burnout in call centers. In Paper presented at the academy of management
proceedings.
Näring, G., Briët, M., & Brouwers, A. (2006). Beyond demand–control: Emotional labour and symptoms of burnout in teachers. Work and Stress, 20(4), 303–315.
Neff, W. S. (2017). Work & human behavior: Routledge.
Ogbonnaya, C., Gahan, P., & Eib, C. (2019). Recessionary changes at work and employee well-being: The protective roles of national and workplace institutions.
European Journal of Industrial Relations, 25(4), 377–393.
Olinske, J. L., & Hellman, C. M. (2017). Leadership in the human service nonprofit organization: The influence of the board of directors on executive director well-
being and burnout. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 41(2), 95–105.
Olofsdotter, G., & Randevåg, L. (2016). Doing masculinities in construction project management. Gender in Management: an International Journal, 31(2), 134–153.
Oshagbemi, T. (1997). Job satisfaction and dissatisfaction in higher education. Education and Training, 39(9), 354–359.
Østhus, S. (2007). For better or worse? Workplace changes and the health and well-being of Norwegian workers. Work, Employment and Society, 21(4), 731–750.
Paap, K. (2006). Working construction: Why white working-class men put themselves–and the labor movement–in harm’s way. Cornell University Press.
Park, H. I., & Nam, S. K. (2020). From role conflict to job burnout: A mediation model moderated by mindfulness. The Career Development Quarterly, 68(2), 129–144.
Park, J. G., Kim, J. S., Yoon, S. W., & Joo, B.-K. (2017). The effects of empowering leadership on psychological well-being and job engagement. Leadership and
Organization Development Journal, 38(3), 350–367.
Parveen, M., & Adeinat, I. (2019). Transformational leadership: Does it really decrease work-related stress? Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 40(8),
860–876.
Pawar, B. S. (2016). Workplace spirituality and employee well-being: An empirical examination. Employee Relations, 38(6), 975–994.
Pelled, L. H., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Down and out: An investigation of the relationship between mood and employee withdrawal behavior. Journal of Management, 25(6),
875–895.
Pellerin, S., & Cloutier, J. (2018). The effects of rewards on psychological health in the workplace: Underlying mechanisms. Canadian Journal of Administrative
Sciences, 35(3), 361–372.
Perez, E., & Wilkerson, B. (1998). Mindsets, mental health: The ultimate productivity weapon. Homewood Centre for Organizational Health: Riverslea, Canada.
Peterson, C., Park, N., Hall, N., & Seligman, M. E. (2009). Zest and work. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and
Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 30(2), 161–172.
Petru, J., & Jarosova, E. (2019). Exploring the impact of coping resources on perceived well-being: A study of executives and senior managers. Central European
Business Review, 8(3), 54–68.
Pillay, D. (2020). Positive affect and mindfulness as predictors of resilience amongst women leaders in higher education institutions. SA Journal of Human Resource
Management, 18(1), 1–10.
Porath, C. L., Overbeck, J. R., & Pearson, C. M. (2008). Picking up the gauntlet: How individuals respond to status challenges. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38
(7), 1945–1980.
Powell, A., Galea, N., Salignac, F., Loosemore, M., & Chappell, L. (2018). Masculinity and workplace wellbeing in the Australian construction industry. In Paper
presented at the proceeding of the 34th annual ARCOM conference. Belfast, UK.
Pyc, L. S., Meltzer, D. P., & Liu, C. (2017). Ineffective leadership and employees’ negative outcomes: The mediating effect of anxiety and depression. International
Journal of Stress Management, 24(2), 196–215.
Qian, J. (2012). Mental health care in China: Providing services for under-treated patients. Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics, 15(4), 179–186.
Quick, J. C., Cooper, C. L., Nelson, D. L., Quick, J. D., & Gavin, J. H. (2003). Stress, health, and well-being at work. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: The
state of the science (2nd ed., pp. 53–89). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Ragusa, A., & Crowther, A. (2012). ‘I think it is the best job… I love it!’Engendering workplace satisfaction in rural and remote Australian mental health nursing.
Rural Society, 22(1), 45–58.
Raj, S., Nijjer, S., Ongsakul, V., & Singh, H. (2019). Determinants of key facets of job satisfaction in the banking sector: Applying SMART PLS and artificial neural
networks. Journal for Global Business Advancement, 12(2), 298–323.
Rothmann, S., & Baumann, C. (2014). Employee engagement: The effects of work-home/home-work interaction and psychological conditions. South African Journal of
Economic and Management Sciences, 17(4), 515–530.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52
(1), 141–166.
Ryu, G. (2016). Public employees’ well-being when having long working hours and low-salary working conditions. Public Personnel Management, 45(1), 70–89.
Sandrin, E., Morin, A. J., Fernet, C., & Gillet, N. (2020). A longitudinal person-centered perspective on positive and negative affect at work. The Journal of Psychology,
154(7), 499–532.
Schieman, S., Taylor, C. J., Narisada, A., & Pudrovska, T. (2020). Underpaid boss: Gender, job authority, and the association between Underreward and depression.
Work and Occupations, 47(1), 44–82.
Schmidt, F. L., & Le, H. (2014). Software for the hunter-Schmidt meta-analysis methods. Software package version 2. Department of Management and Organizations,
University of Iowa.
Shen, Y., & Gallivan, M. (2004). An empirical test of the job demand/control model among IT users. In Proceedings of the 2004 SIGMIS conference on computer personnel
research: Careers, culture, and ethics in a networked environment (pp. 39–47). New York: ACM Press.
Siegrist, J. (1996). Adverse health effects of high-effort/low-reward conditions. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1(1), 27–41.
Siegrist, J., Siegrist, K., & Weber, I. (1986). Sociological concepts in the etiology of chronic disease: The case of ischemic heart disease. Social Science & Medicine, 22
(2), 247–253.
Sliter, K. A., Sinclair, R., Cheung, J., & McFadden, A. (2014). Initial evidence for the buffering effect of physical activity on the relationship between workplace
stressors and individual outcomes. International Journal of Stress Management, 21(4), 348–360.
Soane, E., Shantz, A., Alfes, K., Truss, C., Rees, C., & Gatenby, M. (2013). The association of meaningfulness, well-being, and engagement with absenteeism: A
moderated mediation model. Human Resource Management, 52(3), 441–456.
Sonnentag, S., Unger, D., & Nägel, I. J. (2013). Workplace conflict and employee well-being: The moderating role of detachment from work during off-job time.
International Journal of Conflict Management, 24(2), 166–183.
Spell, C. S., & Arnold, T. J. (2007). A multi-level analysis of organizational justice climate, structure, and employee mental health. Journal of Management, 33(5),
724–751.
Stephan, U. (2018). Entrepreneurs’ mental health and well-being: A review and research agenda. Academy of Management Perspectives, 32(3), 290–322.
Stratton, E., Player, M. J., Dahlheimer, A., Choi, I., & Glozier, N. (2020). Prevalence and association of discrimination and bullying and the impact on mental health in
an occupational setting. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 14(1), 32–49.

21
A. Khalid and J. Syed Human Resource Management Review 34 (2024) 100998

Sulistiawan, J., Ekowati, D., & Alfirdaus, Z. (2020). The antecedents of salesperson deviant behavior: The role of work meaningfulness. Problems and Perspectives in
Management, 18(1), 254–262.
Sultana, I., & Sultana, R. (2017). Workplace bullying: A neglected and overlooked phenomenon in the corporate cultures of Bangladesh. International Journal of
Management Practice, 10(3), 254–272.
Syed, J., & Özbilgin, M. (2009). A relational framework for international transfer of diversity management practices. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 20(12), 2435–2453.
Tafvelin, S., Keisu, B.-I., & Kvist, E. (2020). The prevalence and consequences of intragroup conflicts for employee well-being in women-dominated work. Human
Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 44(1), 47–62.
Tavares, S. M. (2016). How does creativity at work influence employee’s positive affect at work? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25(4),
525–539.
Tejeda, M. J. (2015). Exploring the supportive effects of spiritual well-being on job satisfaction given adverse work conditions. Journal of Business Ethics, 131(1),
173–181.
Teoh, K. R., Hassard, J., & Cox, T. (2020). Individual and organizational psychosocial predictors of hospital doctors’ work-related well-being: A multilevel and
moderation perspective. Health Care Management Review, 45(2), 162–172.
Thara, R., & Patel, V. (2010). Role of non-governmental organizations in mental health in India. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 52(Suppl1), S389–S395.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review.
British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222.
Ur Rehman, A., Jajja, M. S. S., Khalid, R. U., & Seuring, S. (2020). The impact of institutional voids on risk and performance in base-of-the-pyramid supply chains. The
International Journal of Logistics Management, 31(4), 829–863.
Van der Vaart, L., Linde, B., De Beer, L., & Cockeran, M. (2015). Employee well-being, intention to leave and perceived employability: A psychological contract
approach. South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, 18(1), 32–44.
Van Dick, R., Ullrich, J., & Tissington, P. A. (2006). Working under a black cloud: How to sustain organizational identification after a merger. British Journal of
Management, 17(S1), S69–S79.
Veage, S., Ciarrochi, J., Deane, F. P., Andresen, R., Oades, L. G., & Crowe, T. P. (2014). Value congruence, importance and success and in the workplace: Links with
well-being and burnout amongst mental health practitioners. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 3(4), 258–264.
Vera, M., Salanova, M., & Martín, B. (2010). University faculty and work-related well-being: The importance of the triple work profile. Electronic Journal of Research in
Educational Psychology, 8(2), 581–602.
Verkuil, B., Atasayi, S., & Molendijk, M. L. (2015). Workplace bullying and mental health: A meta-analysis on cross-sectional and longitudinal data. PLoS One, 10(8),
1–16.
Warszewska-Makuch, M., Bedyńska, S., & Żołnierczyk-Zreda, D. (2015). Authentic leadership, social support and their role in workplace bullying and its mental health
consequences. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 21(2), 128–140.
Watts, J. H. (2009). Leaders of men: Women ‘managing’in construction. Work, Employment and Society, 23(3), 512–530.
Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory. Research in Organziational Behvaior, 18(1), 1–74.
WHO. (2001). Strengthening mental health promotion. Geneva: World Health Organization (Fact sheet no. 220).
Wiklund, J., Hatak, I., Patzelt, H., & Shepherd, D. A. (2018). Mental disorders in the entrepreneurship context: When being different can be an advantage. Academy of
Management Perspectives, 32(2), 182–206.
Wood, S., Braeken, J., & Niven, K. (2013). Discrimination and well-being in organizations: Testing the differential power and organizational justice theories of
workplace aggression. Journal of Business Ethics, 115, 617–634.
Wood, S., Michaelides, G., & Ogbonnaya, C. (2020). Recessionary actions and absence: A workplace-level study. Human Resource Management, 59(6), 501–520.
Wood, S., & Ogbonnaya, C. (2018). High-involvement management, economic recession, well-being, and organizational performance. Journal of Management, 44(8),
3070–3095.
Wood, S., Van Veldhoven, M., Croon, M., & de Menezes, L. M. (2012). Enriched job design, high involvement management and organizational performance: The
mediating roles of job satisfaction and well-being. Human Relations, 65(4), 419–445.
Woods, M., Macklin, R., Dawkins, S., & Martin, A. (2019). Mental illness, social suffering and structural antagonism in labour process. Work, Employment and Society,
33(6), 948–965.
WHO. (2017). Data and statistics: prevalence of mental disorders. Available at: http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/noncommunicable-diseases/mental-
health/dataand-statistics.
Wright, T. A., & Bonett, D. G. (2007). Job satisfaction and psychological well-being as nonadditive predictors of workplace turnover. Journal of Management, 33(2),
141–160.
Wright, T. A., & Doherty, E. M. (1998). Organizational behavior’rediscovers’ the role of emotional well-being. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19(5), 481–485.
Yang, F. X., & Lau, V. M.-C. (2019). Evil customers, an angel boss and coopetitive coworkers: Burnout of frontline employees. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 83, 1–10.
Zhou, B., Marchand, A., & Guay, S. (2018). Gender differences on mental health, work-family conflicts and alcohol use in response to abusive supervision. Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 34(3), 157–167.
Zwingmann, I., Wegge, J., Wolf, S., Rudolf, M., Schmidt, M., & Richter, P. (2014). Is transformational leadership healthy for employees? A multilevel analysis in 16
nations. German Journal of Human Resource Management, 28(1–2), 24–51.

22