Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and

Organizational Behavior
Job Demands–Resources
Theory: Ten Years Later
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2023.10:25-53. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Arnold B. Bakker,1,2 Evangelia Demerouti,2,3

and Ana Sanz-Vergel4
Access provided by 141.136.215.49 on 02/07/23. See copyright for approved use.

1
Center of Excellence for Positive Organizational Psychology, Erasmus University, Rotterdam,
The Netherlands; email: [email protected]
2
Department of Industrial Psychology and People Management, University of Johannesburg,
Johannesburg, South Africa
3
Department of Industrial Engineering and Innovation Sciences, Eindhoven University of
Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
4
Norwich Business School, University of East Anglia, United Kingdom

Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2023. Keywords

10:25–53
burnout, job demands–resources theory, job design, proactive work
First published as a Review in Advance on
November 18, 2022 behavior, work engagement
The Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Abstract
Organizational Behavior is online at
orgpsych.annualreviews.org Burnout refers to a work-related state of exhaustion and a sense of cynicism.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920- In contrast, work engagement is a positive motivational state of vigor, ded-
053933 ication, and absorption. In this article, we discuss the concepts of burnout
Copyright © 2023 by the author(s). This work is and work engagement and review their antecedents and consequences. We
licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 look back at our inaugural Annual Reviews article (Bakker et al. 2014) and
International License, which permits unrestricted
highlight new empirical findings and theoretical innovations in relationship
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original author and source are credited. to job demands–resources ( JD-R) theory. We discuss four major innova-
See credit lines of images or other third-party tions of the past decade, namely (a) the person × situation approach of JD-R,
material in this article for license information.
(b) multilevel JD-R theory, (c) new proactive approaches in JD-R theory, and
(d) the work–home resources model. After discussing practical implications,
we elaborate on more opportunities for future research, including JD-R
interventions, team-level approaches, and demands and resources from
other life domains.

25
 INTRODUCTION
It has been almost 10 years since we published our article for the inaugural volume of the Annual
Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior (Bakker et al. 2014). At the time,
we had no idea that this Annual Reviews journal would obtain such a high impact factor and
that our article would become one of the most cited of this journal. The popularity of the article
indicates that many colleagues are actively trying to understand, explain, and influence burnout
and work engagement and that job demands–resources ( JD-R) theory offers valuable knowledge
and means for doing so. Over the past decade, our field has made substantial progress, and we have
gained new insights into the possible causes and consequences of burnout and work engagement.
This article celebrates the tenth anniversary of the Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2023.10:25-53. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Organizational Behavior and highlights the progress we have made. We hope you will find this an
engaging read.
Access provided by 141.136.215.49 on 02/07/23. See copyright for approved use.

The Concept of Burnout

Freudenberger (1974) coined the term burnout and defined it as “a state of mental and physical
exhaustion caused by one’s professional life.” Among the volunteers who worked for aid organi-
zations, he observed an “extinction of motivation or incentive, especially where one’s devotion to
a cause or relationship fails to produce the desired results” (p. 159). In the decades that followed,
empirical research was largely dominated by Maslach & Jackson’s (1981) approach. These schol-
ars defined burnout as a syndrome characterized by emotional exhaustion, depersonalization (i.e.,
a negative, excessively detached response toward the recipients of one’s service or care), and lack
of personal accomplishment (i.e., feelings of incompetence and lack of successful achievement at
work) (see also Maslach & Leiter 2008).
Originally, scholars assumed that burnout was a response to chronic emotional and interper-
sonal stressors at work (Maslach et al. 2001). This view was revised in the 1990s, when Schaufeli
and colleagues (1996) replaced the depersonalization component with cynicism (i.e., a distant
attitude toward work in general, and not necessarily toward other people) and Demerouti &
Nachreiner (1998) defined burnout as a syndrome of chronic fatigue or exhaustion and disengage-
ment from work. Later approaches included physical fatigue and cognitive weariness (Shirom &
Melamed 2006) or cognitive impairment (Schaufeli et al. 2020) as core symptoms of burnout.
In approximately 2015, the prevalence of burnout was 10% among workers in European
countries and 17% among workers in non-European countries (Schaufeli 2018). In the United
States, 28% of millennials felt frequently or constantly burned out, compared to 21% of all work-
ers belonging to older generations (Pendell 2018). Only recently has burnout been recognized
as an “occupational phenomenon” by the World Health Organization (WHO) in the Interna-
tional Categorization of Diseases (ICD-11) (WHO 2019). Notably, burnout is not classified as a
medical condition. Rather, the WHO definition follows the three-dimensional conceptualization
of Maslach et al. (2001). This is an important step forward but also raises important theoretical
and practical questions, given the ongoing debate about the conceptualization and definition of
burnout. Between 1974 and 2019, no fewer than 13 different definitions of burnout were published
(Canu et al. 2021).
The academic debate on what constitutes burnout has uncovered at least two further issues
(Demerouti et al. 2021a). First, the instruments used to measure burnout have not been devel-
oped for diagnostic purposes. Thus, differentiating between mild burnout symptoms (i.e., those
potentially at risk) and clinical burnout is difficult. Second, the overlap between burnout and de-
pression is very high; Bianchi et al. (2021) found a meta-analytic correlation of r = 0.80. This
means that distinguishing between both concepts is difficult. According to Bakusic et al. (2017),

26 Bakker • Demerouti • Sanz-Vergel

 the concepts share a common biological basis (i.e., DNA methylation), and burnout as well as
depression coincides with symptoms of energy loss and fatigue.

The Concept of Work Engagement

Kahn (1990) introduced the concept of engagement as the “. . .harnessing of organization mem-
ber’s selves to their work roles: in engagement, people employ and express themselves physically,
cognitively, emotionally and mentally during role performances” (p. 694). Thus, engaged em-
ployees put much effort into their work because they identify with it. However, it is research on
burnout that has stimulated most contemporary research on work engagement. In contrast to
employees who suffer from burnout, engaged employees have a sense of energetic and affective
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2023.10:25-53. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

connection with their work; they perceive their work as challenging. According to Maslach
& Leiter (2008), work engagement, as the direct opposite of the three burnout dimensions, is
characterized by energy (instead of exhaustion), involvement (instead of cynicism), and efficacy
Access provided by 141.136.215.49 on 02/07/23. See copyright for approved use.

(instead of ineffectiveness). By implication, work engagement is assessed by the opposite pattern

of scores on the three dimensions of burnout.
In contrast, Schaufeli et al. (2002) defined work engagement as “. . .a positive, fulfilling, work-
related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (p. 74). Vigor refers
to high levels of energy and mental resilience while working, the willingness to invest effort in one’s
work, and persistence even in the face of difficulties. Dedication implies being strongly involved in
one’s work and experiencing a sense of significance, enthusiasm, and challenge. Absorption refers
to being fully concentrated and happily engrossed in one’s work, whereby time passes quickly.
Thus, work engagement is characterized by a high level of energy and strong identification with
one’s work, whereas burnout is characterized by the opposite: a low level of energy and poor
identification with one’s work (González-Romá et al. 2006).
In Europe, the prevalence of work engagement is relatively high. In 2015, most workers (71%)
in 27 participating countries reported feeling full of energy or dedicated to their work, and 76%
felt absorbed at work “always” or “most of the time” (Eurofound 2017). A recent meta-analysis
suggests that work engagement has some overlap with workaholism. The absorption component
of work engagement is positively related to the two main indicators of workaholism: working
excessively and working compulsorily (Di Stefano & Gaudino 2019). Moreover, while job satisfac-
tion reflects hedonic work-related well-being connoting pleasure but also satiation and calmness,
work engagement reflects eudemonic work-related well-being connoting pleasure but also high
activation—including enthusiasm, excitement, and energy (Tummers et al. 2018). Although there
is a debate about whether burnout and work engagement may co-occur or be mutually exclusive (as
each other’s opposite), Maricuțoiu et al.’s (2017) meta-analysis showed nonsignificant cross-lagged
relationships between burnout and work engagement.

Antecedents
In addition to theoretical and empirical work on the conceptualization of burnout and work en-
gagement, research has focused on identifying situational and individual predictors. Which work-
ing conditions prevent burnout and foster work engagement? Why are some individuals more
prone to burnout or engagement than others? We answer these questions in the following sections.
Antecedents of burnout. Research has shown that situational as well as individual factors
contribute to burnout. What do we know about the antecedents of burnout?

Situational factors. Meta-analyses and systematic reviews conducted over the last 25 years have
shown that there are specific contextual factors leading to burnout. Lee & Ashforth’s (1996)

www.annualreviews.org • Job Demands–Resources Theory 27

 meta-analysis showed that exposure to job demands such as role ambiguity, role conflict, role stress,
stressful events, workload, and work pressure led to exhaustion and depersonalization. Given that
this study was conducted among human services providers, Alarcon (2011) extended the meta-
analysis to all types of occupations and confirmed that job demands were important predictors of
burnout for individuals working in various sectors. It seems clear that sustained physical, emo-
tional, or cognitive effort has psychological and physiological costs. In these studies, job resources
were less strongly related to burnout and showed a consistent negative relationship—particularly
with the cynicism component (see Demerouti et al. 2001).
Aronsson et al. (2017) built on previous meta-analyses and included longitudinal studies in
their analysis. They found that most of the studies were focused on emotional exhaustion, with
fewer on cynicism and still fewer on personal accomplishment. Regarding the main situational
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2023.10:25-53. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

factors predicting burnout, they found the strongest evidence for the relation between two job re-
sources and burnout. Specifically, both job control and workplace support were negatively related
to emotional exhaustion. They also found that job demands such as workload and job insecurity
Access provided by 141.136.215.49 on 02/07/23. See copyright for approved use.

increased the risk for developing exhaustion, although the evidence was limited. The empirical
evidence was judged insufficient for a number of predictors, such as workplace conflicts, lack of
feedback, long working week, and physical environment, as well as for the combination of high
psychological demands and low decision latitude. Interestingly, reduced personal accomplishment
was associated only with low rewards. Finally, Shoman et al. (2021) conducted a systematic review
of longitudinal studies conducted between 1990 and 2018. The results supported the notion that
continued exposure to various job demands leads to exhaustion.

Individual factors. Since individuals differ in the way they appraise and cope with their environ-
ment (Lazarus & Folkman 1984), the experience of burnout may be different among employees
facing the same working conditions. Swider & Zimmerman (2010) argued that neurotic employees
would be more prone to experience burnout because they tend to focus on the negative aspects of a
situation and often recall negative information about a situation afterward. In contrast, extraverted,
agreeable, and conscientious employees would be less prone to experience burnout because they
tend to be open, warm, supportive, and perseverant—characteristics that help one cope with job
demands. The results of their meta-analysis supported this argumentation, showing that personal-
ity factors were robust predictors of burnout. These findings are in line with Alarcon et al. (2009),
who found in a meta-analysis that emotional stability was the most important predictor of exhaus-
tion and depersonalization, whereas extraversion was the most important predictor of personal
accomplishment.
Over the last few years, scholars have shown an increased interest in examining individual
factors. Among mental health professionals, emotional intelligence and emotional stability neg-
atively relate to burnout (e.g., Gutierrez & Mullen 2016). In a review of correlates of faculty
burnout, Sabagh et al. (2018) identified hardiness, coping abilities, and intrinsic motivation as
protective factors. Among educational staff, burnout has been linked to the affective insecurity
and impulsiveness components of borderline personality (Bianchi et al. 2018).

Antecedents of engagement. The concept of work engagement includes enthusiasm about the
content of work and excitement regarding the tasks one performs. It therefore seems evident
that situational factors can have an important influence on engagement. What is the role of the
individual? What do we know about the antecedents of work engagement?

Situational factors. Job resources are aspects of the job that can help one achieve work goals,
regulate job demands, and/or stimulate personal growth (Bakker & Demerouti 2017). In meta-
analyses, Christian et al. (2011) and Halbesleben (2010) identified important job resources,

28 Bakker • Demerouti • Sanz-Vergel

 including autonomy, social support, feedback, and task significance, as predictors of engagement.
In both studies, the relationship of job resources with work engagement was much stronger than
the relationship of job demands with work engagement.
Lesener et al. (2020) identified 55 longitudinal studies (including 57 samples) examining the
impact of various job resources on work engagement. The authors classified resources into three
categories: group-level resources, leader-level resources, and organizational-level resources. They
found links between job resources and work engagement at all three levels. Autonomy/job control
was the most studied resource at the organizational level, while social support and supervisory
support were the most frequently analyzed resources at the group and leader levels, respectively.
Among the three levels, organizational resources had the strongest impact on work engagement
over time. Lesener and colleagues argued that organizational resources reflect how the work is
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2023.10:25-53. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

organized, designed, and managed and therefore are more directly connected to the employee
than are resources at the other two levels.
Mazzetti et al. (2021) systematically investigated documents published between 2011 and 2018,
Access provided by 141.136.215.49 on 02/07/23. See copyright for approved use.

including a total of 94 studies. They evaluated four types of resources: social resources (e.g.,
coworker support), job resources (e.g., task variety), organizational resources (e.g., organizational
justice), and developmental resources (e.g., career perspective). In line with the abovementioned
meta-analyses, all types of job resources were positively related to work engagement. Among the
four categories, development resources had a stronger relationship with work engagement than
did organizational, job, and social resources, with coworker support as the weakest predictor of
work engagement.

Individual factors. The role of individual characteristics in the work engagement process is clear
and has been consistently shown in different meta-analyses. Halbesleben (2010) showed that opti-
mism and self-efficacy predicted work engagement, whereas Christian et al. (2011) also mentioned
conscientiousness, positive affect, and proactive personality. Mäkikangas et al. (2013) added self-
efficacy, optimism, and self-esteem (i.e., personal resources in JD-R theory) and confirmed their
positive relationship with work engagement.
Since then, scholars have continued showing interest in the role that the Big Five personality
factors (conscientiousness, neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, and openness to experience)
and other individual characteristics play in work engagement. Young et al. (2018) showed that
the Big Five, as well as proactive personality and positive affectivity, related to work engage-
ment. Mazzetti et al. (2021) included personal resources (i.e., resilience, self-efficacy, optimism,
and proactivity) in their meta-analysis and found that their influence on work engagement was
statistically stronger than social and job resources. Emotional intelligence was also identified as a
predictor of work engagement (Akhtar et al. 2015). When individuals are able to recognize and
manage their own and others’ emotions, they collect more emotional resources during interactions
with others. These emotional resources, in turn, facilitate work engagement. Openness to expe-
rience, interpersonal sensitivity, extraversion, adjustment, and conscientiousness also predicted
engagement.

Consequences
As discussed below, burnout and work engagement are parts of two different processes with dif-
ferent associated outcomes (Bakker & Demerouti 2017). While burnout leads to ill-health and
unfavorable organizational outcomes, work engagement is part of a motivational process leading
to favorable organizational outcomes. In the following sections, we disentangle these outcomes,
dividing them into different categories.

www.annualreviews.org • Job Demands–Resources Theory 29

 Consequences of burnout. Since chronic fatigue is a core element of burnout, it can be argued
that burned-out individuals have reduced levels of energy and can only invest limited effort in their
work. Indeed, research has shown that burnout is linked to health problems as well as job-related
outcomes.

Health-related outcomes. There is wide empirical evidence showing that the experience of
burnout leads to several health-related issues. Such evidence generally causes alarm because these
effects are not momentary and do not fade out quickly. For example, Kim et al. (2011) found
that social workers who scored high on burnout reported problems falling asleep, headaches, and
respiratory and gastrointestinal infections 3 years later. Burnout also predicts diabetes and the
common cold (e.g., Melamed et al. 2006). The most alarming finding was reported by Ahola et al.
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2023.10:25-53. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

(2010), who followed more than 7,000 workers over a 10-year period. They found that burnout
contributed to mortality among employees under 45 years of age. The mechanism linking burnout
to mortality needs to be explored, but on the basis of previous empirical evidence, the authors ar-
Access provided by 141.136.215.49 on 02/07/23. See copyright for approved use.

gued that cardiovascular disease, changes in stress hormones, or impairment of the immune system
could be important mechanisms.
Yang & Hayes (2020) conducted a systematic review of 44 studies conducted between 2009
and 2020. They concluded that psychotherapists suffering from burnout are at risk of develop-
ing a wide range of health-related problems, including anxiety and depressive disorders, secondary
traumatic stress, back and neck pain, sleep deprivation, and insomnia. Patel et al. (2018) conducted
a review of studies published between 2000 and 2018 to summarize the main consequences of
burnout among physicians. They highlight important consequences for physicians’ health, ranging
from mood disorders and increased alcohol abuse/dependence to a suicide rate 2.27 times higher
than the general population among female physicians and 1.41 times higher than the general pop-
ulation among male physicians. With the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), we
also find studies showing the negative effects of burnout among healthcare workers. For example,
among Italian healthcare employees during the first pandemic peak period, Conti et al. (2021)
found that participants with burnout had significant higher levels of depression, anxiety, post-
traumatic symptomatology, intrusive thoughts, and hyperarousal than did participants without
burnout.

Job-related outcomes. The experience of burnout has consequences at the occupational level,
which can ultimately impact the organization. Surprisingly, Lee & Ashforth’s (1996) classic meta-
analysis on job burnout did not include important work outcomes such as absenteeism, personnel
turnover, and job performance. This gap was filled by the meta-analysis of Swider & Zimmerman
(2010). They found an interesting pattern of results, with emotional exhaustion as the most prox-
imal predictor of absenteeism, depersonalization the most proximal predictor of turnover, and
personal accomplishment the most proximal predictor of job performance. This last aspect has
usually been the most controversial one because most studies use self-report measures of perfor-
mance, which involves the issue of common method variance bias. However, in the meta-analysis,
Swider & Zimmerman (2010) included other ratings of performance and found that the relation-
ship between job burnout and job performance was actually stronger when other ratings were
used. Long-term sickness (90 days or more) is also an outcome that deserves attention. In a study
among 6,000 employees in Sweden, Peterson et al. (2011) found that the exhaustion dimension
predicted long-term sick leave (≥90 days) during a follow-up of 44 months.
Consequences of burnout have been of particular concern in the healthcare sector because
of the implications for patient care. In a systematic review, Patel et al. (2018) pointed out that
physicians’ burnout leads to important outcomes such as increased risk of malpractice, increased

30 Bakker • Demerouti • Sanz-Vergel

 number of medical errors, and reduced patient satisfaction. Jun et al. (2021) conducted a system-
atic review of 20 studies to investigate the relationship between (a) nurse burnout and (b) patient
and organizational outcomes. The emotional exhaustion dimension of burnout was negatively
associated with nurses’ perceived patient safety and patients’ satisfaction with received care.
Depersonalization was associated with increased nurse-reported falls and medication errors. One
of the studies included in this review showed that nurse burnout was positively related to surgical
site infections even when patient severity and nurse and hospital characteristics were controlled
for (Cimiotti et al. 2012).

Consequences of engagement. When individuals are engaged in their work, they are full with
energy and enthusiasm. Such active positive emotions help to take initiative and persist when
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2023.10:25-53. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

working on difficult work tasks. What are the motivational and job-related outcomes of work
engagement?
Access provided by 141.136.215.49 on 02/07/23. See copyright for approved use.

Motivational outcomes. Engaged workers seem more open to new experiences (Fredrickson
2001). As a result, they tend to explore their environment and be more creative. Indeed, in a
study among Dutch employees, Bakker et al. (2020b) showed that weekly work engagement was
positively related to weekly creativity; this relationship was stronger when individuals had a high
(versus low) learning goal orientation. Asif et al. (2019) found that ethical leadership was related to
higher affective commitment, which in turn increased work engagement and, ultimately, creativity.
On the basis of social exchange theory, Hui et al. (2020) conducted a study among Chinese millen-
nial generation employees, showing that those who identified with their organization were more
engaged in their work and, as a result, showed greater creativity. A related outcome, namely innova-
tive behavior, is also a positive consequence of experiencing positive affect and work engagement
(Kong & Li 2018). These findings suggest that work engagement has the potential to broaden
employees’ horizons, making them more prone to explore alternative and innovative paths.
The positive effects of work engagement go beyond the employee. Rodríguez-Muñoz et al.
(2014) found that employees and their intimate partners at home were happier on the days on
which employees experienced higher work engagement. In a study among Japanese families,
Shimazu et al. (2020) found that work engagement was positively related to work-to-family facil-
itation and own happiness. When fathers and mothers reported higher levels of happiness, their
child had less emotional and behavioral problems.

Job-related outcomes. One crucial outcome of work engagement is job performance. Kim et al.
(2013) reviewed 20 papers exploring this link and found that 11 studies found a direct or indirect
relationship between work engagement and job performance. Seven other studies found that work
engagement was the mediating factor between other constructs and job performance; two studies
indicated a relationship mediated by another factor (e.g., job embeddedness). Notably, only one
study in this review used objective financial data to measure performance (Xanthopoulou et al.
2009b).
Neuber et al.’s (2022) meta-analysis confirmed the positive association between work engage-
ment and task performance. The three facets of engagement had similar effects on performance
over time. As Kim et al. (2019) state, work engagement is not just “nice to have”; it fully mediates
the influences of environmental and personal resources on employee performance. Christian et al.
(2011) pointed out that work engagement is important not only for task performance but also for
extrarole performance. Engaged employees are more prone to help others because they are able
to free up resources and have energy to perform their tasks efficiently. For example, Farid et al.
(2019), in a study among employees working in the banking sector, found a positive relationship
between work engagement and organizational citizenship behaviors.

www.annualreviews.org • Job Demands–Resources Theory 31

 But there are other job-related outcomes beyond performance, as demonstrated in the meta-
analysis by Mazzetti et al. (2021). Interestingly, the highest correlations were found between work
engagement and two outcomes: job commitment and job satisfaction. In this analysis, the rela-
tionship between work engagement and performance was moderate to high. Finally, Keyko et al.
(2016) conducted a systematic review of studies among nurses and found that work engagement
was positively related to perceived quality of care, patient satisfaction, and work effectiveness.

JD-R THEORY
JD-R theory is a unifying job design theory that integrates various job stress and motivational
perspectives (Bakker & Demerouti 2017, Van Veldhoven et al. 2020). In short, the theory explains
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2023.10:25-53. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

how job demands and resources influence job performance through employee well-being (in-
cluding burnout and work engagement) and how employees use proactive as well as reactive work
behaviors to influence job demands and resources (Bakker & Demerouti 2017, Bakker et al. 2014).
Access provided by 141.136.215.49 on 02/07/23. See copyright for approved use.

While originating from the burnout and engagement literatures (Demerouti et al. 2001), JD-R
theory over the past two decades has been able to synthesize knowledge from various theories
of job stress and work motivation, including two-factor theory (Herzberg 1966), job character-
istics theory (Hackman & Oldham 1976), the job demands–control model (Karasek 1979), the
effort–reward imbalance model (Siegrist 1996), and conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll
et al. 2018). In doing so, it provides for a more complete and comprehensive understanding of
employee well-being and performance.
Whereas previous job design models have claimed a limited and fixed set of job characteristics
as crucial predictors of job stress and/or work motivation, JD-R theory is flexible and able to
integrate a wide variety of job characteristics. A core assumption of all job design theories is
that certain physical, social, or psychological facets of the job and the organizational environ-
ment influence employee well-being and may indirectly affect employee health, behavior, and
performance. For example, the job demands–control model (Karasek 1979) proposes that job
demands are particularly stressful and may lead to health problems when job control is low. Job
characteristics theory (Hackman & Oldham 1976) proposes that five specific job characteristics
(skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback) have a positive impact on
work outcomes (motivation, performance) through critical psychological states (experienced
meaningfulness, experienced responsibility for outcomes, and knowledge of actual results).
JD-R theory synthesizes these perspectives and claims that burnout and work engagement
may be the result of various job characteristics (for an overview of all propositions, see Table 1).
Although all organizations are unique and their jobs may have different characteristics, the first
proposition of JD-R theory is that all these job characteristics can be modeled using two dis-
tinctive categories, namely job demands and job resources (Demerouti et al. 2001). Job demands
are defined as the physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the job that require
sustained physical, cognitive, and/or emotional effort and are therefore associated with certain
physiological and/or psychological costs (Demerouti et al. 2001). In contrast, job resources are
defined as the physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the job that have motivat-
ing potential, that are functional in achieving work goals, that regulate the impact of job demands,
and that stimulate learning and personal growth (Bakker & Demerouti 2017). While some job
demands and resources (e.g., workload, social support) can be found in almost every occupational
group, other job demands and resources are more unique. For example, while emotional and phys-
ical demands are very important job demands for nurses and police officers, cognitive demands
are much more relevant for software developers and scientists.
A second proposition of JD-R theory is that job demands and resources instigate two different
processes (see Figure 1). In the first process, the health impairment process, the frequency and/or

32 Bakker • Demerouti • Sanz-Vergel

 Table 1 Propositions in job demands–resources theory
Proposition Definitions, specifications and hypotheses
Proposition 1: Job demands are defined as the physical, psychological, social, or organizational
Job characteristics can be modeled using aspects of the job that require sustained physical, cognitive, and/or emotional
two distinctive categories, namely job effort and are therefore associated with certain physiological and/or psychological
demands and job resources. costs.
Job resources are defined as the physical, psychological, social, or organizational
aspects of the job that have motivating potential, that are functional in achieving
work goals, that regulate the impact of job demands, and that stimulate learning
and personal growth.
Proposition 2: Health impairment process: The frequency and/or severity of job demands leads to
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2023.10:25-53. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Job demands and resources instigate two increased effort, which, in turn, depletes employees’ physical, emotional, and
different processes. cognitive resources and may lead to exhaustion and health problems.
Motivational process: Job resources satisfy basic psychological needs and foster
Access provided by 141.136.215.49 on 02/07/23. See copyright for approved use.

employee work engagement. The experience of work engagement consequently

leads to creativity and improved performance.
Proposition 3: Buffer hypothesis: Job resources weaken the impact of job demands on strain.
Job demands and resources have a Boost hypothesis: Job demands amplify the impact of job resources on work
multiplicative impact on employee engagement (and more generally on work motivation).
well-being.
Proposition 4: Personal resources are positive self-evaluations that refer to individuals’ sense of
Personal resources such as optimism, their ability to control and impact their environment successfully.
self-efficacy, and resilience have a Employees with more personal resources are expected to also have access to more
reciprocal relationship with job job resources, and vice versa.
resources.
Proposition 5: When employees perceive that they can control their work environment, they are
Similar to job resources, personal better able to deal with job demands.
resources moderate the impact of job
demands on employee well-being.
Proposition 6: Job crafting refers to employees’ personal initiative to change their job demands and
Employees proactively optimize their own job resources in order to better align the design of the job with their own abilities
job demands and resources via job and preferences.
crafting. Job crafting is expected to increase job and personal resources and facilitate work
engagement and performance.
Proposition 7: Engaged employees are intrinsically motivated to stay engaged and therefore start to
Work engagement can instigate a gain proactively optimize their job (increase resources and optimize demands).
cycle of proactive work behaviors, (job Over time, this job crafting behavior generates job and personal resources that help
and personal) resources, and optimal job employees to deal with job demands and fosters future work engagement.
demands.
Proposition 8: Self-undermining refers to employees’ dysfunctional behaviors (e.g., poor
Job demands and strain may lead to communication, conflict behaviors) that create obstacles and may undermine
maladaptive self-regulation cognitions performance.
and behaviors (self-undermining). Self-undermining is expected to increase hindrance job demands and lead to strain
and poor performance.
Proposition 9: When employees experience higher levels of job strain, concentrating is more
Job strain can instigate a loss cycle of difficult, and they make more work-related mistakes.
self-undermining and job demands. Over time, self-undermining behaviors generate new job demands that foster future
job strain.

www.annualreviews.org • Job Demands–Resources Theory 33

 + –

Personal Job Job

resources resources demands

+
+ +

+ –
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2023.10:25-53. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

PROACTIVE SELF-
BEHAVIOR – UNDERMINING
+ +
Access provided by 141.136.215.49 on 02/07/23. See copyright for approved use.

Work
+ engagement – Exhaustion +

+ –

JOB PERFORMANCE

Figure 1
The job demands–resources model. Data from Bakker & Demerouti (2017).

severity of job demands (e.g., workload, email demands, interpersonal conflicts) leads to increased
effort. This increased effort depletes employees’ physical, emotional, and cognitive resources and
may lead to job strain, exhaustion, and health problems (e.g., Demerouti et al. 2001, Li et al. 2022).
In the second process, the motivational process, job resources (e.g., skill variety, social support,
feedback) satisfy basic psychological needs and foster employee work engagement. The experience
of work engagement consequently leads to creativity and improved performance (e.g., Bakker &
Xanthopoulou 2013).
There is considerable evidence for health impairment and motivational pathways in JD-R the-
ory (for meta-analyses, see Alarcon 2011, Christian et al. 2011, Crawford et al. 2010, Halbesleben
2010). Nahrgang et al. (2011) conducted a meta-analysis based on 203 independent samples
(N = 186,440). These authors related job demands and resources to safety outcomes through
burnout and work engagement and found support for JD-R theory in the context of safety at
work. Job demands (risks and hazards) were particularly related to burnout and, in turn, to highly
adverse events such as errors at work, whereas job resources (safety climate) were particularly
related to work engagement (in terms of compliance with safety and preventative measures),
which, in turn, predicted lower accidents and injuries. In a meta-analysis of longitudinal JD-R
studies, Lesener et al. (2020) used structural equation modeling on the data of 57 independent
samples (N = 37,324). They found that job demands were uniquely related to burnout over
time, whereas job resources were most strongly positively related to work engagement (but also
negatively related to burnout) over time.
The third proposition is that job demands and resources have a multiplicative impact on
employee well-being (including burnout and work engagement). First, according to the buffer

34 Bakker • Demerouti • Sanz-Vergel

 hypothesis in JD-R theory, job resources weaken or buffer the impact of job demands on strain.
Job resources may alter the perceptions and cognitions evoked by job demands, may moderate
responses that follow the appraisal process, or may reduce the health-damaging consequences of
such responses (Bakker et al. 2005). Indeed, several studies have shown that job resources such
as skill variety, performance feedback, and opportunities for recovery can mitigate the impact of
various job demands (e.g., workload, cognitive demands, emotional demands) on strain, including
psychological distress, burnout, and psychosomatic complaints (e.g., Bakker et al. 2005, De Jonge
& Huter 2021, Lavoie-Tremblay et al. 2014).
Second, according to the boost hypothesis in JD-R theory, job demands amplify the impact
of job resources on work engagement (and more generally on work motivation; see Figure 1).
Particularly when employees are regularly confronted with challenge job demands (e.g., work
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2023.10:25-53. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

complexity, workload), they can benefit from training, autonomy, and feedback—and utilize social
job resources such as support from colleagues and intellectual stimulation from the leader to cope
with these challenges (Bakker et al. 2007, Breevaart & Bakker 2018). Hobfoll and colleagues (2018)
Access provided by 141.136.215.49 on 02/07/23. See copyright for approved use.

have argued that individuals must bring in resources to prevent resource loss and that those with a
greater pool of resources are less susceptible to resource loss. Indeed, consistent with this idea and
with JD-R theory, Tadic et al. (2015) found that daily hindrance job demands such as bureaucracy,
role conflict, and hassles had a weaker negative effect on work engagement on days on which
employees had access to job resources like social support, coaching, and feedback. In short, job
resources become salient and are most important for burnout and work engagement when job
demands are high.
Personal resources are positive self-evaluations that refer to individuals’ sense of their ability
to control and impact their environment successfully (Hobfoll et al. 2003). Proposition 4 in JD-R
theory states that personal resources such as optimism, self-efficacy, and resilience have a recip-
rocal relationship with job resources. This means that employees with more personal resources
are expected to also have access to more job resources, and vice versa. Indeed, using a longitudi-
nal design, Xanthopoulou et al. (2009a) found that employees who were more self-efficacious and
optimistic also reported higher levels of autonomy, performance feedback, and opportunities for
growth over time. In addition, job resources had a lagged positive effect on personal resources.
Similar to job resources, personal resources can also moderate the impact of job demands on em-
ployee well-being (Proposition 5; see Figure 1). When employees perceive that they can control
their work environment, they are better able to deal with job demands. For example, using a weekly
diary study among nurses, Bakker & Sanz-Vergel (2013) predicted and found that challenging
emotional job demands were positively related to work engagement when self-efficacy and opti-
mism were high. However, emotional job demands were negatively related to work engagement
when these personal resources were low.
JD-R theory proposes that job demands and resources influence employee well-being, behav-
iors, and performance but that employees may also proactively optimize their own job demands
and resources (Proposition 6). This process of employees shaping their jobs has been referred to as
job crafting (Wrzesniewski & Dutton 2001). Tims & Bakker (2010) discussed that employees can
engage in various types of proactive behavior, including role innovation, task revision, and negoti-
ation of individualized arrangements with their employer. They defined job crafting as employees’
personal initiative to change their job demands and job resources to better align the design of the
job with their own abilities and preferences.
Job crafting is a bottom-up approach to job redesign that is expected to optimize job charac-
teristics, increase person–job fit, and increase work engagement (Tims et al. 2013; see Figure 1).
Indeed, research of the past decade has shown that, when employees make small adjustments to
their daily job demands and resources (e.g., acquiring support and feedback, starting a new project,

www.annualreviews.org • Job Demands–Resources Theory 35

 proactively looking for a silent workplace to focus), their daily work engagement and performance
increase (e.g., Petrou et al. 2015). Moreover, a meta-analysis of job crafting training intervention
studies (Oprea et al. 2019) showed that employees can learn to use job crafting strategies by setting
clear job crafting goals. Over time, implementing these goals leads to a better job design, more
meaningful work, lower burnout, higher work engagement, and improved performance.
Further inspection of Figure 1 shows that work engagement is both an outcome and a pre-
dictor of proactive behavior (including job crafting) and job and personal resources. Thus, taking
chronological time into consideration, JD-R theory proposes that employees may enter a gain
cycle (Proposition 7). Specifically, when employees experience vigor, dedication, and absorption
(i.e., work engagement), they are intrinsically motivated to stay engaged and therefore start to
proactively optimize their job (increase resources and optimize demands). Over time (i.e., days,
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2023.10:25-53. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

weeks, months, years), this job crafting behavior, in turn, generates job and personal resources that
help employees to deal with job demands and foster work engagement. A positive gain cycle may
even result in a gain spiral, in which the positive relationships (loops) between work engagement,
Access provided by 141.136.215.49 on 02/07/23. See copyright for approved use.

proactive behavior, and resources become increasingly stronger and the levels of these variables
become increasingly higher (see also Hobfoll et al. 2018, Salanova et al. 2010).
Whereas job resources and work engagement may stimulate employees to use proactive behav-
iors, JD-R theory proposes that job demands and strain may lead to maladaptive self-regulation
cognitions and behaviors (Proposition 8) (Bakker & De Vries 2021). When employees experi-
ence higher levels of job strain, they find concentrating more difficult and make more mistakes
(Van der Linden et al. 2005). In addition, the negative emotions (e.g., anger, irritation) experi-
enced by employees under stress narrow their thought–action repertoires (Fredrickson 2001).
Thus, when job demands are persistently high, employees may start to use destructive strategies
like self-undermining; i.e., they create new obstacles that may compromise their job performance
(Bakker & Costa 2014, Bakker & Wang 2020). Examples are communicating poorly, making care-
less mistakes, and starting interpersonal conflicts. Using a diary study, Roczniewska & Bakker
(2021) found that nurses with lower self-regulation capacity at the beginning of the day were
more likely to show self-undermining during the day, which impaired daily job performance.
As Figure 1 shows, job strain is both an outcome and a predictor of dysfunctional behaviors
(including self-undermining) and job demands. Thus, over the course of time, employees may en-
ter a loss cycle (Proposition 9). Specifically, when employees experience job strain in the form of
exhaustion, anxiety, or depressive complaints, they deplete their energy resources and engage in
dysfunctional coping. Over time (i.e., days, weeks, months, years), this self-undermining behavior,
in turn, generates additional job demands and further increases job strain. If this process becomes
chronic, the negative loss cycle may result in a loss spiral (see also Hobfoll et al. 2018), in which
the positive relationships (loops) between job strain, self-undermining, and demands become in-
creasingly stronger and the levels of these variables become increasingly higher. Indicative of this
loss cycle is the study by Bakker et al. (2023). Using a weekly diary design, they showed that weekly
job demands were related to weekly self-undermining behaviors through weekly burnout symp-
toms (exhaustion and cynicism). The impact of weekly job demands on burnout symptoms and
self-undermining was stronger for individuals who were already relatively high (versus low) on
chronic burnout.

TEN YEARS LATER

The previous section highlights several innovations in JD-R theory, including feedback loops,
growing evidence for the importance of job crafting, and (to a lesser extent) evidence for the
role of self-undermining. However, various other developments in JD-R theory are exciting and

36 Bakker • Demerouti • Sanz-Vergel

OP10CH02_Bakker ARjats.cls January 7, 2023 8:35

important. Here, we discuss four major innovations of the past decade, namely (a) the person ×
situation approach of JD-R, (b) multilevel JD-R theory, (c) new proactive approaches in JD-R
theory, and (d) the work–home resources model. We also pay attention to common problems in
JD-R research.

Person × Situation Approach

Over the years, several scholars have tried to incorporate personality into JD-R theory. As we
discuss above, these studies have suggested that the Big Five personality factors influence the per-
ception and evaluation of job demands and resources and may have direct and indirect effects
on employee well-being (e.g., Borst & Knies 2021, Mäkikangas et al. 2013). However, whereas
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2023.10:25-53. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

personality is stable, work events and job characteristics (e.g., workload, social support) may
fluctuate—even from day to day. This calls for a person × situation approach in which the stability
of the person and the variability of the situation are included in one overall model (see Figure 2).
Access provided by 141.136.215.49 on 02/07/23. See copyright for approved use.

According to Bakker (2015), personality is a higher-order construct that differs between in-
dividuals, whereas job demands, job resources, and personal resources differ within individuals.
As in the original JD-R theory, job demands are hypothesized to evoke exhaustion and self-
undermining, which may consequently result in more job demands—but now from day to day.
In contrast, job and personal resources are hypothesized to evoke work engagement and proactive
work behaviors, which subsequently result in even more job and personal resources—on a daily
basis. What is different from the original version of JD-R theory is that personality is proposed
to moderate the daily effects of job demands and resources on well-being and outcomes. Thus, it
can be expected that neurotic individuals will suffer most on the days on which they are exposed
to a high workload and complex tasks (e.g., Debusscher et al. 2016), because they lack the skills

PERSONALITY
GENERAL JOB DEMANDS–RESOURCES
GENERAL WELL-BEING

LOSS CYCLE GAIN CYCLE

Daily Daily
job job
demands resources
+ + + +

Daily work Daily

Daily self- Daily
engagement job
undermining exhaustion
crafting

+ +
– +

JOB PERFORMANCE

Figure 2
The person × situation approach of the job demands–resources model.

www.annualreviews.org • Job Demands–Resources Theory 37

 needed to deal with such demands. In addition, extraverted individuals may flourish most on the
days on which they have access to many social job resources, because they have the strongest need
for relatedness and social exchange (Bakker 2022).
An important proposition of the multilevel version of JD-R theory (Bakker 2015; see Figure 2)
is the idea that relatively stable or chronic levels of well-being or ill-being may also influence how
employees deal with job demands and resources. General ill-being is hypothesized to moderate
the impact of daily job demands on exhaustion and self-undermining such that the effects are
more strongly positive when ill-being (e.g., chronic burnout, depression, physical disease) is higher
(Bakker et al. 2023, Meier et al. 2014, Roczniewska & Bakker 2021). In a similar vein, general well-
being is hypothesized to moderate the impact of daily job resources on work engagement and
job crafting such that the effects are more strongly positive when well-being (e.g., overall work
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2023.10:25-53. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

engagement, overall vitality) is higher (Bakker & Oerlemans 2016). JD-R theory also proposes
that ill-being may prevent employees from profiting from their daily job resources and that well-
being may help employees to deal with their daily job demands (Bakker 2015).
Access provided by 141.136.215.49 on 02/07/23. See copyright for approved use.

Multilevel JD-R Theory

Whereas the person × situation approach shows that working days are nested in employees, the
multilevel approach of JD-R acknowledges that employees are nested in teams, which, in turn,
are nested in organizations. At the highest organizational level, we see how top management
determines the strategic role of human resources and the organizational climate (see Figure 3;
see Bakker & Demerouti 2018). Through human resources practices, organizations can select
and develop their leaders, who influence their teams’ job demands and resources and indi-
rectly impact employee well-being and performance (Albrecht et al. 2015, Tummers & Bakker
2021). For example, Croon et al. (2015) showed that job enrichment human resources practices
were indirectly related to productivity through employee perceptions of job resources and job

ORGANIZATION
Job design
Climate
HR practices

LEADERS
Team JD-R
Well-being
Behaviors
INDIVIDUALS
JD-R
Well-being
Behaviors

Figure 3
Multiple levels in JD-R theory. Abbreviations: HR, human resources; JD-R, job demands–resources.

38 Bakker • Demerouti • Sanz-Vergel

 satisfaction. Psychosocial safety climate may have similar trickle-down effects on employees.
Dollard & Bakker (2010) found that, when employees perceived a psychosocial safety climate
signaling that management took care of them, employees reported a richer combination of job
demands and resources, resulting in higher levels of work engagement. In a similar fashion, Idris
et al. (2014) found that psychosocial safety climate had positive cross-level effects on employee
perceptions of job design and indirectly reduced job strain (exhaustion and depression).
In addition, there is considerable evidence for trickle-down effects of leaders on employees.
Consistent with JD-R theory, Fernet et al. (2015) found that transformational leadership re-
sulted in fewer job demands and more job resources and indirectly contributed to more positive
work attitudes and better job performance. Wang et al. (2023) showed that proactive leaders who
empowered their followers (through consulting, delegating, enabling, and informing) stimulated
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2023.10:25-53. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

follower job crafting. Thus, followers were encouraged to proactively seek job challenges and re-
sources so as to optimize their person–job fit and increase their own work engagement (Tims &
Bakker 2010). Leaders may also function as key job resources themselves. By using charisma tac-
Access provided by 141.136.215.49 on 02/07/23. See copyright for approved use.

tics, individual consideration, and intellectual stimulation, leaders help employees deal with their
hindrance and challenge job demands (Breevaart & Bakker 2018).
In the original formulation of JD-R theory, Demerouti et al. (2001) argued and showed that
job demands and resources are not merely subjective interpretations of employees, but rather
characteristics of jobs that can be reliably observed by independent raters. Although the evidence
base is still limited, several studies have shown that individuals who work in teams share their
perceptions of job demands and resources; there is consensus regarding job characteristics at the
team level. Employees who work in teams share the same leader and work environment. Moreover,
because of having interdependence and frequent interactions, team members may also influence
each other’s affect, cognitions, and behaviors through modeling and emotional contagion (Bakker
2022).
For example, Costa et al. (2015) found that social support from coworkers, performance feed-
back, support from the supervisor, and information acted as team job resources that influenced
objective research output (e.g., number of publications, oral presentations, and patents) through
team work engagement. Relationship conflict weakened the link between team resources and team
work engagement, whereas task conflict strengthened the link between team work engagement
and performance. Li et al. (2022) used multisource and lagged data from more than 2,000 em-
ployees in almost 100 jobs and showed that objective job characteristics at the occupation level
were indirectly related to employee outcomes through employees’ perceptions of job demands and
resources. Finally, Tims et al. (2013) hypothesized and showed that employees were more likely
to be proactive and to improve their own job demands and resources if they worked in teams in
which most others engaged in such job crafting behaviors. Team job crafting was related to team
performance through team work engagement and to individual performance through individual
job crafting and individual work engagement.

New Proactive Approaches

According to Hobfoll et al. (2018), individuals are evolutionarily wired to actively obtain and retain
various resources to deal with current and future environmental demands. Consistent with this
idea, JD-R theory proposes that employees are proactively motivated to acquire resources to deal
with their job demands. Proactive work behavior refers to “self-initiated, anticipatory action aimed
at changing either the situation or oneself” (Bindl & Parker 2011, p. 567). In recent years, JD-R
theory has proposed several proactive work behaviors, including job crafting, proactive vitality
management, and playful work design (e.g., Bakker 2017).

www.annualreviews.org • Job Demands–Resources Theory 39

 Job crafting. Job crafting is the first proactive behavior included in JD-R theory (Tims & Bakker
2010). The past decade has seen a plethora of job crafting studies that have generated impor-
tant new insights. First, Demerouti & Peeters (2018) have argued and shown that, in addition to
increasing job resources and job challenges, employees may optimize their job demands. These
authors argued that proactively reducing job demands (e.g., reducing workload, avoiding annoy-
ing customers) costs more energy than it generates (e.g., Petrou et al. 2015, Rudolph et al. 2017).
Instead, optimizing demands refers to proactive efforts to simplify work processes, work more
efficiently, and bypass unproductive work processes. Optimizing demands has a positive relation-
ship with work engagement (Demerouti & Peeters 2018) and job performance (Demerouti et al.
2018a), and intervention research has shown that it has a positive impact on willingness to change
and safety behavior (Demerouti et al. 2021b).
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2023.10:25-53. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

A second important new insight is that employees who participate in training interventions
can learn to strategically use job crafting (Oprea et al. 2019). In these interventions, employees
learn to optimize their job demands and increase their challenges (Demerouti et al. 2021b). In
Access provided by 141.136.215.49 on 02/07/23. See copyright for approved use.

addition, those who craft their jobs seem to increase their job and personal resources (e.g., Oprea
et al. 2019, Vogt et al. 2016). Consequently, and consistent with JD-R theory (see Figure 1), job
crafting increases meaningfulness, work engagement, and job performance (for a meta-analysis,
see Rudolph et al. 2017).

Proactive vitality management. Whereas job crafting is aimed at changing the situation, proac-
tive vitality management is aimed at changing the self. More specifically, proactive vitality
management denotes a specific form of proactive behavior aimed at improving one’s own phys-
ical and psychological resources to promote optimal functioning at work (Op den Kamp et al.
2018b). For example, employees may proactively look for energy, motivation, and inspiration by
networking with people who have different ideas and viewpoints, by intentionally taking a walk in
the nature, or by visiting a museum with the goal of finding new inspiration (Bakker et al. 2020b).
Op den Kamp et al. (2018a) found that employees were more creative in the weeks they proac-
tively managed their own vitality. The effects were most pronounced for individuals who worked
in organizations with considerable support for creative ideas and for individuals who were best
able to recognize their own vitality (i.e., self-insight). In another study among employees from
a variety of occupational sectors, Bakker et al. (2020b) found that weekly proactive vitality man-
agement was positively related to changes in weekly creativity through changes in weekly work
engagement. The effects were strongest for individuals with a strong learning goal orientation—a
desire to develop mastery through learning, seeking challenges, and acquiring new skills. Ye et al.
(2022) found that Chinese employees who engaged in proactive vitality management reported
fewer complaints of burnout (i.e., emotional exhaustion).

Playful work design. Playful work design is defined as the process through which employees
proactively create conditions at work that foster play and enjoyment without changing the de-
sign of the job itself (Scharp et al. 2022b). When designing fun, employees use humor and fantasy
to make work more enjoyable. An office worker may compare themselves with Charlie Chaplin
in the time machine while working on emails. When designing competition, employees may in-
tentionally try to make their work tasks more challenging. A retail security guard may, for example,
try to guess which route a customer will follow after entering the store.
By playfully redesigning tasks so that they are more fun and more competitive, employees opti-
mize the fit between their abilities and the task by making their work more challenging and more
resourceful. Indeed, Scharp et al. (2022a) showed that, when employees designed their work to
be more fun, they satisfied their basic need for relatedness. In addition, when employees designed
their work to be more competitive, they satisfied their basic need for competence. Both types of

40 Bakker • Demerouti • Sanz-Vergel

 playful work design satisfied the basic need for autonomy. Furthermore, building on JD-R theory,
Scharp et al. (2021) showed that, on the days on which employees redesigned their work tasks to be
more fun, communion hindrance demands (social isolation, emotional demands, and interpersonal
conflicts) did not result in reduced work engagement and impaired performance. In addition, on
days on which employees redesigned their work tasks to be more competitive, agency hindrance
demands (repetitive tasks, monotony, and simplicity) were no longer negatively related to work
engagement and performance (see also Bakker et al. 2020a).

Work–Home Resources Model

Although work plays a central role in many people’s lives, all of us have a life outside work in
which we socialize, rest, love, play, and care for others. Since an increasing number of individuals
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2023.10:25-53. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

combine work and nonwork roles, there has been a spectacular increase in the number of stud-
ies investigating how work and nonwork roles influence each other. In the work–home resources
model, Ten Brummelhuis & Bakker (2012) integrate spillover theories with JD-R theory and pro-
Access provided by 141.136.215.49 on 02/07/23. See copyright for approved use.

pose that (a) job demands and resources may influence home outcomes through volatile personal
resources (e.g., time, mood, energy) and (b) home demands and resources may simultaneously
influence work outcomes through the same volatile personal resources. In addition, the authors
propose that macro resources (e.g., culture, welfare) and key resources (e.g., personality, skills)
moderate these spillover processes because macro and key resources influence how individuals
deal with home and job demands and how individuals mobilize their home and job resources.
Over the past decade, the number of studies testing the WH-R model has steadily increased.
For example, Aw et al. (2021) investigated spillover from work to home and found that offer-
ing help to colleagues at work both enriched and hindered family life. Specifically, they found
that, when employees offered help and assistance to their colleagues, they felt a sense of per-
sonal accomplishment but also felt more tired (particularly when the provided help was not
reciprocated). Consequently, exhaustion led to withdrawal behaviors at home and reduced family
performance, whereas personal accomplishment led to fewer withdrawal behaviors at home and
improved family performance. Du et al. (2020) argued and found that previous-day positive child-
related events moderated the relationship between daily job demands and daily task performance
through capitalization during the previous evening. The relationship between job demands and
task performance was positive when employees had a resourceful home life—i.e., experienced a
high (versus low) level of positive child-related events. In addition, sharing these positive events
with significant others at home facilitated employees’ functioning in dealing with job demands
and further improved task performance during the subsequent workday.

Common Problems
Over the past two decades, many great studies, such as observational research in laboratory en-
vironments (e.g., Lee et al. 2020) and multilevel research that included almost 300,000 federal
government employees ( Jong & Ford 2016), have used and expanded JD-R theory. However,
JD-R research is also plagued by common problems and misunderstandings, and there are ex-
amples of studies in which the theory is misused. Table 2 summarizes several major issues. For
example, scholars sometimes have difficulty distinguishing job demands from job resources. How-
ever, the absence of a job demand does not make work more motivating. Similarly, the absence
of a job resource does not make work more demanding but rather inhibits voluntary initiation of
action to achieve goals.
Other scholars have defined coping behaviors as personal resources. However, personal re-
sources are positive beliefs or cognitions, which are not the same as behaviors. As a final example,
some researchers assume that job demands always have negative outcomes, whereas job resources

www.annualreviews.org • Job Demands–Resources Theory 41

 Table 2 Common problems in job demands–resources research
Job demands Job resources Personal resources Employee behaviors Example
Misconceptualization A low score on a A low score on a Personal resources Behaviors are actions, Low support does not
job resource is job demand is are not job not characteristics mean conflict
not a demand not a resource resources; they are of the person or Lack of conflict is not
Not all aspects of the self the job support
occupational Proactive coping is not
sectors have task autonomy
the same
demands
Level of control External: External: property Internal: employees Internal: visible Employees can use job
property of of the work can choose to train actions employees crafting to increase
the work environment themselves may choose to job resources such as
environment engage in social support
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2023.10:25-53. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Beneficial/detrimental Hindrance Can be both Beneficial Can be both Time pressure

demands: (hindrance) is linked
detrimental to ill-health
Challenges: can Cognitive demands
Access provided by 141.136.215.49 on 02/07/23. See copyright for approved use.

be both (challenge) are

linked to both work
engagement and
burnout
Resources: too much of
a good thing?
Level of analysis Can be analyzed Can be analyzed Can be analyzed at Can be analyzed at Personal resources can
at multiple at multiple multiple levels multiple levels fluctuate
levels levels Personality is a trait
Outcomes Are related to Are related to Play a role in both Play a role in both Mental satiation (an
(beyond burnout favorable and favorable and processes processes unfavorable
and work unfavorable unfavorable outcome) could be
engagement) health-related motivational studied as an
outcomes outcomes indicator of low
motivation

are related only to positive outcomes. However, job demands and resources may both be related
to positive and negative outcomes. What is crucial is that JD-R theory distinguishes two inde-
pendent processes: a health impairment and a motivational process. To test such processes, one
may use positive and negative indicators of health and motivation. For example, mental satiation
could be studied as an indicator of low motivation. More examples of common problems in JD-R
research can be found in Table 2.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
One reason why JD-R theory has become so popular is that it generates specific insights that
help guide interventions. Broadly speaking, interventions may take place at the organizational
level and at the individual level. The organizational level offers several possible intervention ap-
proaches. First, organizations and their human resource departments may want to use human
resource practices that improve job demands and resources, including open communication and
information sharing, initiatives to improve work–life balance, and opportunities for learning and
development. Such interventions may take the form of workshops and trainings in which groups
of employees or complete teams learn to improve their work–life balance. For example, to avoid
work-to-family conflict, employees may learn new ways to create transition rituals and separate
work and family time and activities. Employees may also do exercises in which they brainstorm
about possible new ways through which work and family may enrich each other. In this way, em-
ployees will recover more from their work-related effort and will be better able to deal with their
job demands and resources.

42 Bakker • Demerouti • Sanz-Vergel

 Second, organizations may want to improve their psychosocial work climate. Psychosocial
safety climate refers to employees’ shared perceptions of whether the management has devel-
oped and enacts policies, procedures, and practices for the protection of employees’ psychological
health, well-being, and safety (Dollard & Bakker 2010). In organizations in which the management
fundamentally values the psychological health of workers, employees know that they can count
on their leaders when they have stressful experiences at work. In such organizations, managers
regularly communicate about psychological health issues and are involved in structural interven-
tions to protect worker psychological health. Research has shown that organizations with a better
psychosocial safety climate typically also provide a better combination of job demands and job
resources to their employees, resulting in higher levels of work engagement and performance
(Dollard & Bakker 2010, Idris et al. 2014).
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2023.10:25-53. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

A third practical implication of JD-R theory is that organizations need to constantly monitor
and optimize the design of their jobs. When employees are exposed to an enriched job design, with
optimal job demands and resources, they feel better, are more engaged, and are more productive.
Access provided by 141.136.215.49 on 02/07/23. See copyright for approved use.

Job redesign may take the form of participative interventions, in which representatives identify the
most important tasks and obstacles and generate ideas about how to optimize job demands and
resources (Holman & Axtell 2016). Job redesign may also take the form of team-level job crafting,
in which all members of a team discuss, practice, and implement possible proactive changes in
their jobs (Tims et al. 2013). Teams may try to seek new challenge job demands and to reduce or
optimize hindrance job demands. In addition, they may actively seek and mobilize team-level job
resources. Such team job crafting can be expected to result in teams that collaborate and perform
better (Oprea et al. 2019).
Fourth, leaders may learn to facilitate the right job demands and resources or may directly
encourage employee proactive work behaviors (including job crafting, proactive vitality manage-
ment, and playful work design) (Tummers & Bakker 2021). Organizations may organize lectures,
workshops, and trainings in which leaders are taught how to recognize and regulate job demands
and job resources. Job demands can be regulated by offering the right challenging tasks to fol-
lowers and by taking away hindrance job demands (e.g., bureaucracy, role conflicts, hassles). Job
resources can be regulated by offering constructive feedback, social support, and opportunities
for skill variety and personal growth. Leaders may also enrich followers’ job design by facilitat-
ing resource exchange among followers (Bakker 2022). For example, leaders may create work
procedures through which employees provide help and feedback to each other. Managers may
also enable resource exchange by facilitating collaboration at the team level and by changing the
architecture of the work environment (e.g., by creating opportunities at work to be seated to-
gether through providing a coffeehouse, lounge, and meeting rooms). In addition, leaders may
show example behaviors (e.g., job crafting, playful work) that can be modeled by followers.
Fifth, individual-level interventions may take the form of tailored JD-R interventions, idiosyn-
cratic deals, and job crafting and recovery trainings. Ideally, such interventions should be tailored
to the burnout or engagement levels of individual employees. Other possible options include
workshops and trainings, in which employees learn to use their strengths, playful work design,
and proactive vitality management to optimize their approach and experience of work, as well as
their own well-being. Future research should evaluate the effectiveness of such interventions in
preventing burnout and promoting work engagement.

BACK TO THE FUTURE

In our 2014 article, we argued that the literature had largely ignored possible daily fluctuations in
burnout and work engagement, as well as momentary peaks and lows. In addition, we contended
that job crafting represents the missing link in the reversed causal path from burnout and work

www.annualreviews.org • Job Demands–Resources Theory 43

 engagement to future job demands and job resources (Bakker et al. 2014). We also pled for more
research using observable outcomes.
Looking forward from that time, we can see that our article has inspired a substantial num-
ber of studies. First, the number of diary and experience sampling studies on burnout and work
engagement has increased exponentially. Using Web of Science, we were able to locate 191 new
studies that were published since 2014. These studies have shown that employees report more
burnout symptoms (fatigue and cynicism) and lower work engagement on the days on which they
are exposed to high job demands and/or low job resources. For example, Klusmann et al. (2021)
conducted a 14-day diary study and found that work-related positive events (“uplifts”) were nega-
tively related and work-related negative events (“hassles”) were positively related to the emotional
exhaustion component of burnout. Additionally, and consistent with JD-R theory, they found that
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2023.10:25-53. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

exposure to more work-related uplifts than on an average day attenuated the positive association
between work-related hassles and emotional exhaustion. Private uplifts were associated with a sta-
tistically significant decrease and private hassles with an increase in emotional exhaustion beyond
Access provided by 141.136.215.49 on 02/07/23. See copyright for approved use.

work-related events.
Furthermore, Tadic et al. (2015) used JD-R theory to argue and show that, on the days on
which employees were confronted with hindrance job demands (e.g., hassles, bureaucracy), they
reported lower levels of positive affect and work engagement—unless there were job resources
available on these days. In contrast, on the days on which employees were exposed to challenge
job demands (e.g., time urgency, job complexity), they reported higher levels of positive affect and
work engagement, but only on the days on which employees had access to job resources. As a final
example, using a 10-day experience sampling study, Barnes et al. (2015) showed that poor nightly
sleep influenced leaders to enact daily abusive behaviors via ego depletion and that these abusive
behaviors ultimately resulted in decreased daily subordinate unit work engagement.
One other important question proposed by Bakker et al. (2014) was whether burnout and work
engagement are predictive of job crafting over time. We expected that employees with higher lev-
els of burnout would be less likely to craft their jobs and that those with higher levels of work
engagement would be more likely to craft their jobs. In a review, Bakker & De Vries (2021) con-
cluded that, over the course of time, job stress/burnout predicts decreased attempts of job crafting
(and reduced recovery) and increased levels of self-undermining and avoidance coping. Addition-
ally, some studies have shown that engaged employees are more likely to use job crafting. Lu et al.
(2014) found that work engagement among Chinese employees was positively related to changes
in physical job crafting and relational job crafting over 3 months of time. Harju et al. (2016) used a
3-year cross-lagged panel design in a Finnish study and found that employees who scored higher
on work engagement were more likely to proactively seek social and structural job resources. In
a similar vein, Hakanen et al. (2018) used a two-wave study with a 4-year time lag among Finnish
dentists. The authors found that work engagement positively predicted job crafting in the form
of increasing job resources and increasing challenge job demands and negatively predicted job
crafting in the form of decreasing hindrance job demands. Burnout positively predicted job craft-
ing in the form of decreasing hindering demands and negatively predicted increasing structural
job resources.
Finally, we found only scarce examples of observer studies, in which other ratings and non-
self-report methods were used to assess job demands and job resources. One exception is the
study by Demerouti et al. (2018b), who used a multimethod design to investigate how social job
demands (i.e., social interruptions) and resources (i.e., colleague support) in the service context
influence employee (negative) (re)actions to customers through cynicism toward the job. They
used observer ratings of employee–customer interactions regarding the number of interruptions
and employee negative (re)actions during service encounters, employee self-reports of overall

44 Bakker • Demerouti • Sanz-Vergel

 colleague support and daily cynicism, and customer ratings of service quality. Results showed
that the number of observed social interruptions during service encounters related positively to
cynicism. Cynical employees exhibited more negative (re)actions toward their customers, who
consequently reported to be less satisfied with the service quality. We would welcome more
studies integrating alternative and less subjective measures.

FUTURE RESEARCH
Above, we elaborate on new research avenues, namely (a) the person × situation approach of
JD-R, (b) multilevel JD-R theory, (c) new proactive approaches in JD-R theory, and (d) the
work–home resources model. Each of these developments has clearly inspired new research, but
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2023.10:25-53. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

considerably more work is needed to increase our knowledge of organizational life and to expand
JD-R theory. We argue that, in addition to these important areas, JD-R theory and the litera-
tures on burnout and work engagement will profit from new research on (a) JD-R interventions,
Access provided by 141.136.215.49 on 02/07/23. See copyright for approved use.

(b) team-level approaches, and (c) demands and resources from other life domains.

JD-R Intervention Studies

Arguably, the best way to understand a phenomenon is by changing it. Therefore, it is important
that future research continues to evaluate JD-R interventions. Remarkably, most interventions
that have tried to influence burnout or work engagement have focused on individual employees,
instead of teams or organizations as a whole. For example, regarding burnout, the meta-analysis
of Maricuțoiu et al. (2017) showed that relaxation and role-related interventions were effective
in reducing exhaustion and that interpersonal soft skills interventions improved personal ac-
complishment (see also Ahola et al. 2017). Knight et al. (2017) used a meta-analysis to identify
interventions aimed at increasing work engagement. They identified five self-efficacy interven-
tions that had a positive impact on work engagement. Consistent with these findings, Bakker
& Van Wingerden (2021) showed that a personal resource intervention increased self-efficacy,
assertiveness, and resilience and had an indirect impact on work engagement. Furthermore,
research has documented the effectiveness of job crafting interventions (Oprea et al. 2019).
Employees, by being trained to optimize their own job demands and resources, can increase their
own work engagement and reduce their burnout.
Knight et al.’s (2017) systematic review and meta-analysis of work engagement interventions
also identified a few interventions that focused on job resource building, but a closer examination
of the interventions revealed that the focus was mostly on educating leaders, job training, and
physical activity. In another meta-analysis of controlled trials, Vîrgă et al. (2021) showed that
most interventions aimed at promoting work engagement used cognitive-behavioral techniques,
mindfulness, development of soft skills, positive psychological techniques, and job crafting. Future
research may use the present article as a basis for interventions at the organizational level. Thus,
it would be interesting to see more research on structural interventions that aim to optimize job
demands and resources at the organizational or team level. Moreover, it would be theoretically and
practically important to know whether a combination of organizational-level and individual-level
interventions might work best. Is a JD-R intervention at the organizational level more effective if
individual-level factors such as personal resources and level of burnout or work engagement are
also improved (see Tetrick & Winslow 2015)?

Team-Level Approaches
JD-R theory is a job design theory, assuming that the architecture of the organization (manage-
ment, units, departments, teams) has important effects on employee well-being and performance.

www.annualreviews.org • Job Demands–Resources Theory 45

 Curiously, only few JD-R studies have used the team as the unit of analysis (e.g., Costa et al. 2015,
Li et al. 2022). This is unfortunate because there is a lot to learn at the higher, organizational, or
team level. Theoretically, the psychological processes that explain work engagement at the team
level can be rather different from those at the individual level. Bakker (2022) has argued that so-
cial psychological processes play an important role. For example, interdependent team members
may influence each other through a process of emotional contagion, through which they auto-
matically mimic and synchronize feelings of burnout or work engagement (Bakker et al. 2006).
Moreover, team members may influence their own and others’ work engagement through the
frequent exchange of job demands and resources, and the rate of exchange may depend on per-
ceptions of reciprocity (Zeijen et al. 2020). Furthermore, research has shown that job crafting at
the team level can instigate job crafting at the individual level and that job crafting has important
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2023.10:25-53. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

implications for team-level and individual-level work engagement and performance (Tims et al.
2013).
Urien et al. (2021) developed a model that focuses on how the interplay of individual (e.g., at-
Access provided by 141.136.215.49 on 02/07/23. See copyright for approved use.

tention) and interpersonal (i.e., information sharing) processes results in team burnout emergence.
The model accounts for the role that salient team characteristics (e.g., team task interdependence)
play in influencing the individual demands–resources balance and consequently the team mem-
bers’ burnout experience. The model also explains how team burnout relates to team members’
burnout and via what mechanisms the former impacts team effectiveness. We hope that future
JD-R research will examine such multilevel relationships.

Demands and Resources from Other Life Domains

The COVID-19 pandemic made clear that employee well-being is determined not only by the de-
mands and resources in the work domain but also by the demands and resources from the home,
organizational, and personal domains. One important lesson learned from the pandemic is that
the demands and resources in the various life domains are interconnected and that individuals
are constantly required to regulate these demands and resources. For example, because many em-
ployees started to work from home, the boundaries between the home and work domains became
blurred. As a consequence, work life started to interfere with family life, but family resources were
also used to buffer the impact of job demands (e.g., Landolfi et al. 2021).
Demerouti & Bakker (2023) expanded JD-R theory to make it more applicable to crisis
situations and beyond. Specifically, they argued that the interplay between work (job and orga-
nizational) and nonwork (family and personal) role characteristics may be better able to explain
how people react to demands because time and energy are finite resources. Similarly, the inter-
play between resources from various life domains may better explain their motivating impact, as
the availability of resources from other life domains may reinforce the impact of job resources
(a synergetic effect) or may sometimes diminish their impact (a substitution effect).
Consequently, Demerouti & Bakker (2023) proposed that resources from various life domains
may buffer the impact of various demands on burnout and work engagement. Similarly, they
proposed that personal, home, work, and organizational demands may boost the impact of var-
ious resources on work engagement. For instance, the impact of workload on exhaustion may be
buffered not only by autonomy at work but also by autonomy at home. In addition, social support
from colleagues at work may be even more motivating for employees who have high demands in
their private life. This extension increases the complexity of JD-R theory, as well as its explanatory
power and the ability of the theory to capture occupational health and well-being in the complex
context in which it emerges. Future research is needed to test whether these new propositions
hold.

46 Bakker • Demerouti • Sanz-Vergel

 CONCLUSION
In this article, we review the burnout and work engagement literatures. Using JD-R theory, we
show that the combination of high job demands and low job resources leads to burnout, whereas
the combination of high challenge job demands and job resources leads to work engagement—
with important organizational consequences. JD-R theory outlines how organizations and their
managers can influence well-being and how employees can use job crafting, proactive vitality man-
agement, and playful work design to avoid burnout and stay engaged. We discuss the progress in
the field and elaborate on possible avenues for future research, including person × environment
and multilevel approaches of JD-R and the work–home resources model. We hope that this article
will inspire scholars to program new studies on burnout and work engagement in the next decades
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2023.10:25-53. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

to come.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Access provided by 141.136.215.49 on 02/07/23. See copyright for approved use.

The authors are not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holdings that
might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We want to thank Jan Pletzer for his help with identifying diary studies on burnout and work
engagement.

LITERATURE CITED
Ahola K, Toppinen-Tanner S, Seppänen J. 2017. Interventions to alleviate burnout symptoms and to support
return to work among employees with burnout: systematic review and meta-analysis. Burnout Res. 4:1–11
Ahola K, Väänänen A, Koskinen A, Kouvonen A, Shirom A. 2010. Burnout as a predictor of all-cause mortality
among industrial employees: a 10-year prospective register-linkage study. J. Psychosom. Res. 69:51–57
Akhtar R, Boustani L, Tsivrikos D, Chamorro-Premuzic T. 2015. The engageable personality: personality and
trait EI as predictors of work engagement. Personal. Individ. Differ. 73:44–49
Alarcon G. 2011. A meta-analysis of burnout with job demands, resources, and attitudes. J. Vocat. Behav. 79:549–
62
Alarcon G, Eschleman KJ, Bowling NA. 2009. Relationships between personality variables and burnout:
a meta-analysis. Work Stress 23:244–63
Albrecht S, Bakker AB, Gruman J, Macey W, Saks A. 2015. Employee engagement, human resource man-
agement practices and competitive advantage: an integrated approach. J. Organ. Eff. People Perform.
2:7–35
Aronsson G, Theorell T, Grape T, Hammarström A, Hogstedt C, et al. 2017. A systematic review including
meta-analysis of work environment and burnout symptoms. BMC Public Health 17:1–13
Asif M, Qing M, Hwang J, Shi H. 2019. Ethical leadership, affective commitment, work engagement, and
creativity: testing a multiple mediation approach. Sustainability 11:4489
Aw SSY, Ilies R, Li X, Bakker AB, Liu X-Y. 2021. Work-related helping and family functioning: a work-home
resources perspective. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 94:55–79
Bakker AB. 2015. Towards a multilevel approach of employee well-being. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 24:839–43
Bakker AB. 2017. Strategic and proactive approaches to work engagement. Organ. Dyn. 46:67–75
Bakker AB. 2022. The social psychology of work engagement: state of the field. Career Dev. Int. 27:36–53
Bakker AB, Costa P. 2014. Chronic job burnout and daily functioning: a theoretical analysis. Burnout Res.
1:112–19
Bakker AB, Demerouti E. 2017. Job Demands–Resources theory: taking stock and looking forward. J. Occup.
Health Psychol. 22:273–85

www.annualreviews.org • Job Demands–Resources Theory 47

 Bakker AB, Demerouti E. 2018. Multiple levels in job demands–resources theory: implications for employee
well-being and performance. In Handbook of Well-Being, ed. E Diener, S Oishi, L Tay, pp. 1–13. Salt Lake
City, UT: DEF
Bakker AB, Demerouti E, Euwema MC. 2005. Job resources buffer the impact of job demands on burnout.
J. Occup. Health Psychol. 10:170–80
Bakker AB, Demerouti E, Sanz-Vergel AI. 2014. Burnout and work engagement: the JD-R approach. Annu.
Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 1:389–411
Bakker AB, De Vries JD. 2021. Job Demands–Resources theory and self-regulation: new explanations and
remedies for job burnout. Anxiety Stress Coping 34:1–21
Bakker AB, Hakanen JJ, Demerouti E, Xanthopoulou D. 2007. Job resources boost work engagement
particularly when job demands are high. J. Educ. Psychol. 99:274–84
Bakker AB, Hetland J, Kjellevold-Olsen O, Espevik R, De Vries JD. 2020a. Job crafting and playful work
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2023.10:25-53. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

design: links with performance during busy and quiet days. J. Vocat. Behav. 122:103478
Bakker AB, Leiter MP, eds. 2010. Work Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research. London:
Psychology Press
Access provided by 141.136.215.49 on 02/07/23. See copyright for approved use.

Bakker AB, Oerlemans WGM. 2016. Momentary work happiness as a function of enduring burnout and work
engagement. J. Psychol. 150:755–78
Bakker AB, Petrou P, Op den Kamp EM, Tims M. 2020b. Proactive vitality management, work engagement,
and creativity: the role of goal orientation. Appl. Psychol. Int. Rev. 69:351–78
Bakker AB, Sanz-Vergel AI. 2013. Weekly work engagement and flourishing: the role of hindrance and
challenge demands. J. Vocat. Behav. 83:397–409
Bakker AB, Van Emmerik IJH, Euwema MC. 2006. Crossover of burnout and engagement in work teams.
Work Occup. 33:464–89
Bakker AB, Van Wingerden J. 2021. Do personal resources and strengths use increase work engagement? The
effects of a training intervention. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 26:20–30
Bakker AB, Wang Y. 2020. Self-undermining behavior at work: evidence of construct and predictive validity.
Int. J. Stress Manag. 27:241–51
Bakker AB, Xanthopoulou D. 2013. Creativity and charisma among female leaders: the role of resources and
work engagement. Int. J. Hum. Res. Manag. 24:2760–79
Bakker AB, Xanthopoulou D, Demerouti E. 2023. Weekly job demands, dysfunctional coping, and
self-undermining: a multilevel study of job burnout. Appl. Psychol. Int. Rev. In press
Bakusic J, Schaufeli W, Claes S, Godderis L. 2017. Stress, burnout and depression: a systematic review on
DNA methylation mechanisms. J. Psychosom. Res. 92:34–44
Barnes CM, Lucianetti L, Bhave DP, Christian MS. 2015. “You wouldn’t like me when I’m sleepy”: leaders’
sleep, daily abusive supervision, and work unit engagement. Acad. Manag. J. 58:1419–37
Bianchi R, Rolland JP, Salgado JF. 2018. Burnout, depression, and borderline personality: a 1,163-participant
study. Front. Psychol. 8:2336
Bianchi R, Verkuilen J, Schonfeld IS, Hakanen JJ, Jansson-Fröjmark M, et al. 2021. Is burnout a depressive
condition? A 14-sample meta-analytic and bifactor analytic study. Clin. Psychol. Sci. 9:579–97
Bindl UK, Parker SK. 2011. Proactive work behavior: forward-thinking and change-oriented action in or-
ganizations. In Selecting and Developing Members for the Organization (APA Handbook of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 2), ed. S Zedeck, pp. 567–98. Washington, DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc.
Borst RT, Knies E. 2021. Well-being of public servants under pressure: the roles of job demands and
personality traits in the health-impairment process. Rev. Public Pers. Admin. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0734371X211052674
Breevaart K, Bakker AB. 2018. Daily job demands and employee work engagement: the role of daily
transformational leadership behavior. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 23:338–49
Canu G, Marca SC, Dell’Oro F, Balazs A, Bergamaschi E, et al. 2021. Harmonized definition of occupational
burnout: a systematic review, semantic analysis, and Delphi consensus in 29 countries. Scand. J. Work
Environ. Health 47:95–107
Christian MS, Garza AS, Slaughter JE. 2011. Work engagement: a quantitative review and test of its relations
with task and contextual performance. Pers. Psychol. 64:89–136

48 Bakker • Demerouti • Sanz-Vergel

 Cimiotti JP, Aiken LH, Sloane DM, Wu ES. 2012. Nurse staffing, burnout, and health care–associated
infection. Am. J. Infect. Control 40:486–90
Conti C, Fontanesi L, Lanzara R, Rosa I, Doyle RL, Porcelli P. 2021. Burnout status of Italian healthcare
workers during the first COVID-19 pandemic peak period. Healthcare 9:510
Costa P, Passos A, Bakker AB. 2015. Direct and contextual influence of team conflict on team resources, team
work engagement and team performance. Negot. Confl. Manag. Res. 8:211–27
Crawford ER, LePine JA, Rich BL. 2010. Linking job demands and resources to employee engagement and
burnout: a theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. J. Appl. Psychol. 95:834–48
Croon MA, Van Veldhoven MJPM, Peccei RE, Wood S. 2015. Researching individual wellbeing and perfor-
mance in context: multilevel mediational analysis for bathtub models. In Well-Being and Performance at
Work: The Role of Context, ed. MJPM van Veldhoven, R Peccei, pp. 129–54. London: Psychology Press
De Jonge J, Huter FF. 2021. Does match really matter? The moderating role of resources in the relation
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2023.10:25-53. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

between demands, vigor and fatigue in academic life. J. Psychol. 155:548–70

Debusscher J, Hofmans J, De Fruyt F. 2016. From state neuroticism to momentary task performance: a
person × situation approach. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 25:89–104
Access provided by 141.136.215.49 on 02/07/23. See copyright for approved use.

Demerouti E, Bakker AB. 2023. Job Demands–Resources theory in times of crises: new propositions. Organ.
Psychol. Rev. In press. https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866221135022
Demerouti E, Bakker AB, Nachreiner F, Schaufeli WB. 2001. The Job Demands–Resources model of burnout.
J. Appl. Psychol. 86:499–512
Demerouti E, Bakker AB, Peeters MCW, Breevaart K. 2021a. New directions in burnout research. Eur.
J. Work Organ. Psychol. 30:686–91
Demerouti E, Nachreiner F. 1998. Zur Spezifität von Burnout für Dienstleistungsberufe: Fakt oder Artefakt?
[The specificity of burnout in human services: fact or artifact?]. Z. Arbeitswiss. 52:82–89
Demerouti E, Peeters MCW. 2018. Transmission of reduction-oriented crafting among colleagues: a diary
study on the moderating role of working conditions. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 91:209–34
Demerouti E, Soyer LMA, Vakola M, Xanthopoulou D. 2021b. The effects of a job crafting intervention on
the success of an organizational change effort in a blue-collar work environment. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol.
94:374–99
Demerouti E, Veldhuis W, Coombes C, Hunter R. 2018a. Burnout among pilots: psychosocial factors related
to happiness and score on simulator training. Ergonomics 139:1–39
Demerouti E, Xanthopoulou D, Bakker AB. 2018b. How do cynical employees serve their customers? A multi-
method study. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 27:16–27
Di Stefano G, Gaudino M. 2019. Workaholism and work engagement: How are they similar? How are they
different? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 28:329–47
Dollard MF, Bakker AB. 2010. Psychosocial safety climate as a precursor to conducive work environments,
psychological health problems, and employee engagement. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 83:579–99
Du D, Bakker AB, Derks D. 2020. Capitalization on positive family events and task performance: a perspective
from the work–home resources model. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 25:357–67
Eurofound. 2017. Sixth European Working Conditions Survey: overview report (2017 update). Luxembourg: Publ.
Off. Eur. Union
Farid T, Iqbal S, Ma J, Castro-González S, Khattak A, Khan MK. 2019. Employees’ perceptions of CSR, work
engagement, and organizational citizenship behavior: the mediating effects of organizational justice. Int.
J. Environ. Res. Public Health 16:1731
Fernet C, Trépanier S, Austin S, Gagné M, Forest J. 2015. Transformational leadership and optimal functioning
at work: on the mediating role of employees’ perceived job characteristics and motivation. Work Stress
29:11–31
Fredrickson B. 2001. The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: the broaden-and-build theory of
positive emotions. Am. Psychol. 56:218–26
Freudenberger HJ. 1974. Staff burnout. J. Soc. Issues 30:159–65
González-Romá V, Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB, Lloret S. 2006. Burnout and work engagement: independent
factors or opposite poles? J. Vocat. Behav. 62:165–74
Gutierrez D, Mullen PR. 2016. Emotional intelligence and the counselor: examining the relationship of trait
emotional intelligence to counselor burnout. J. Mental Health Couns. 38:187–200

www.annualreviews.org • Job Demands–Resources Theory 49

 Hackman JR, Oldham GR. 1976. Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory. Organ. Behav. Hum.
Perform. 16:250–79
Hakanen JJ, Peeters MC, Schaufeli WB. 2018. Different types of employee well-being across time and their
relationships with job crafting. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 23:289–301
Halbesleben JRB. 2010. A meta-analysis of work engagement: relationships with burnout, demands, resources
and consequences. See Bakker & Leiter 2010, pp. 102–117
Harju LK, Hakanen JJ, Schaufeli WB. 2016. Can job crafting reduce job boredom and increase work
engagement? A three-year cross-lagged panel study. J. Vocat. Behav. 95:11–20
Herzberg FI. 1966. Work and the Nature of Man. Cleveland, OH: World
Hobfoll SE, Halbesleben J, Neveu J-P, Westman M. 2018. Conservation of resources in the organizational
context: the reality of resources and their consequences. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 5:103–28
Hobfoll SE, Johnson RJ, Ennis N, Jackson AP. 2003. Resource loss, resource gain, and emotional outcomes
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2023.10:25-53. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

among inner city women. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 84:632–43

Holman D, Axtell C. 2016. Can job redesign interventions influence a broad range of employee outcomes by
changing multiple job characteristics? A quasi-experimental study. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 21:284–95
Access provided by 141.136.215.49 on 02/07/23. See copyright for approved use.

Hui L, Qun W, Nazir S, Mengyu Z, Asadullah MA, Khadim S. 2020. Organizational identification perceptions
and millennials’ creativity: testing the mediating role of work engagement and the moderating role of
work values. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 24:1653–78
Idris MA, Dollard MF, Yulita. 2014. Psychosocial safety climate, emotional demands, burnout, and depression:
a longitudinal multilevel study in the Malaysian private sector. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 19:291–302
Jong J, Ford MT. 2016. The lagged effects of job demands and resources on organizational commitment in
federal government agencies: a multi-level analysis. J. Public Admin. Res. Theory 26:475–92
Jun J, Ojemeni MM, Kalamani R, Tong J, Crecelius ML. 2021. Relationship between nurse burnout, patient
and organizational outcomes: systematic review. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 119:103933
Kahn WA. 1990. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Acad. Manag.
J. 33:692–724
Karasek RA. 1979. Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: implications for job redesign. Admin.
Sci. Q. 24:285–308
Keyko K, Cummings GG, Yonge O, Wong CA. 2016. Work engagement in professional nursing practice:
a systematic review. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 61:142–64
Kim HJ, Ji J, Kao D. 2011. Burnout and physical health among social workers: a three-year longitudinal study.
Soc. Work 56:258–68
Kim W, Han SJ, Park J. 2019. Is the role of work engagement essential to employee performance or “nice to
have”? Sustainability 11:1050
Kim W, Kolb JA, Kim T. 2013. The relationship between work engagement and performance: a review of
empirical literature and a proposed research agenda. Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev. 12:248–76
Klusmann U, Aldrup K, Schmidt J, Lüdtke O. 2021. Is emotional exhaustion only the result of work ex-
periences? A diary study on daily hassles and uplifts in different life domains. Anxiety Stress Coping
34:173–90
Knight C, Patterson M, Dawson J. 2017. Building work engagement: a systematic review and meta-analysis
investigating the effectiveness of work engagement interventions. J. Organ. Behav. 38:792–812
Kong Y, Li M. 2018. Proactive personality and innovative behavior: the mediating roles of job-related affect
and work engagement. Social Behav. Person. Int. J. 46:431–46
Landolfi A, Barattucci M, De Rosa A, Lo Presti A. 2021. The association of job and family resources
and demands with life satisfaction through work–family balance: a longitudinal study among Italian
schoolteachers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Behav. Sci. 11:136
Lavoie-Tremblay M, Trépanier SG, Fernet C, Bonneville-Roussy A. 2014. Testing and extending the triple
match principle in the nursing profession: a generational perspective on job demands, job resources and
strain at work. J. Adv. Nurs. 70:310–22
Lazarus RS, Folkman S. 1984. Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York: Springer
Lee RT, Ashforth BE. 1996. A meta-analytic examination of the correlates of the three dimensions of job
burnout. J. Appl. Psychol. 8:123–33

50 Bakker • Demerouti • Sanz-Vergel

 Lee W, Migliaccio GC, Lin K-Y, Seto EYW. 2020. Workforce development: understanding task-level job
demands–resources, burnout, and performance in unskilled construction workers. Safety Sci. 123:104577
Lesener T, Gusy B, Jochmann A, Wolter C. 2020. The drivers of work engagement: a meta-analytic review of
longitudinal evidence. Work Stress 34:259–78
Li Y, Tuckey MR, Bakker AB, Chen PY, Dollard MF. 2022. Linking objective and subjective job
demands and resources in the JD-R model: a multilevel design. Work Stress. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02678373.2022.2028319
Lu CQ, Wang HJ, Lu JJ, Du DY, Bakker AB. 2014. Does work engagement increase person–job fit? The role
of job crafting and job insecurity. J. Vocat. Behav. 84:142–52
Mäkikangas A, Feldt T, Kinnunen U, Mauno S. 2013. Does personality matter? Research on individual dif-
ferences in occupational well-being. In Advances in Positive Organizational Psychology, ed. AB Bakker,
pp. 107–43. Bingley, UK: Emerald
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2023.10:25-53. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Maricuțoiu LP, Sulea C, Iancu A. 2017. Work engagement or burnout: Which comes first? A meta-analysis of
longitudinal evidence. Burnout Res. 5:35–43
Maslach C, Jackson SE. 1981. The measurement of experienced burnout. J. Occup. Behav. 2:99–113
Access provided by 141.136.215.49 on 02/07/23. See copyright for approved use.

Maslach C, Leiter MP. 2008. Early predictors of burnout and work engagement. J. Appl. Psychol. 93:498–512
Maslach C, Schaufeli WB, Leiter MP. 2001. Job burnout. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 52:397–422
Mazzetti G, Robledo E, Vignoli M, Topa G, Guglielmi D, Schaufeli WB. 2021. Work engagement:
a meta-analysis using the Job Demands–Resources model. Psychol. Rep. https://doi.org/10.1177/
00332941211051988
Meier LL, Semmer NK, Gross S. 2014. The effect of conflict at work on well-being: depressive symptoms as
a vulnerability factor. Work Stress 28:31–48
Melamed S, Shirom A, Toker S, Shapira I. 2006. Burnout and risk of type 2 diabetes: a prospective study of
apparently healthy employed persons. Psychosom. Med. 68:863–69
Nahrgang J, Morgeson F, Hofmann D. 2011. Safety at work: a meta-analytic investigation of the link between
job demands, job resources, burnout, engagement, and safety outcomes. J. Appl. Psychol. 96:71–94
Neuber L, Englitz C, Schulte N, Forthmann B, Holling H. 2022. How work engagement relates to
performance and absenteeism: a meta-analysis. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 31:292–315
Op den Kamp EM, Bakker AB, Tims M, Demerouti E. 2018a. Proactive vitality management and creative
work performance: the role of self-insight and social support. J. Creative Behav. 54:323–36
Op den Kamp EM, Tims M, Bakker AB, Demerouti E. 2018b. Proactive vitality management in the work
context: development and validation of a new instrument. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 27:493–505
Oprea BT, Barzin L, Vîrgă D, Iliescu D, Rusu A. 2019. Effectiveness of job crafting interventions: a meta-
analysis and utility analysis. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 28:723–41
Patel RS, Bachu R, Adikey A, Malik M, Shah M. 2018. Factors related to physician burnout and its
consequences: a review. Behav. Sci. 8:98
Pendell R. 2018. Millennials are burning out. Gallup, July 19. https://www.gallup.com/workplace/237377/
millennials-burning.aspx
Peterson U, Bergström G, Demerouti E, Gustavsson P, Åsberg M, Nygren A. 2011. Burnout levels and
self-rated health prospectively predict future long-term sickness absence: a study among female health
professionals. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 53:788–93
Petrou P, Demerouti E, Schaufeli WB. 2015. Job crafting in changing organizations: antecedents and
implications for exhaustion and performance. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 20:470–80
Roczniewska M, Bakker AB. 2021. Burnout and self-regulation failure: a diary study of self-undermining and
job crafting among nurses. J. Adv. Nurs. 77:3424–35
Rodríguez-Muñoz A, Sanz-Vergel AI, Demerouti E, Bakker AB. 2014. Engaged at work and happy at home:
a spillover–crossover model. J. Happiness Stud. 15:271–83
Rudolph CW, Katz IM, Lavigne KN, Zacher H. 2017. Job crafting: a meta-analysis of relationships with
individual differences, job characteristics, and work outcomes. J. Vocat. Behav. 102:112–38
Sabagh Z, Hall NC, Saroyan A. 2018. Antecedents, correlates and consequences of faculty burnout. Educ. Res.
60:131–56
Salanova M, Schaufeli WB, Xanthopoulou D, Bakker AB. 2010. Gain spirals of resources and work
engagement. See Bakker & Leiter 2010, pp. 118–31

www.annualreviews.org • Job Demands–Resources Theory 51

 Scharp Y, Bakker AB, Breevaart K. 2022a. Playful work design and employee work engagement: a
self-determination perspective. J. Vocat. Behav. 134:103693
Scharp YS, Bakker AB, Breevaart K, Kruup K, Uusberg A. 2022b. Playful work design: conceptualization,
measurement, and validity. Hum. Relat. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267211070996
Scharp YS, Breevaart K, Bakker AB. 2021. Using playful work design to deal with hindrance job demands:
a quantitative diary study. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 26:175–88
Schaufeli WB. 2018. Work engagement in Europe. Relations with national economy, governance and culture.
Organ. Dyn. 47:99–106
Schaufeli WB, Desart S, De Witte H. 2020. The Burnout Assessment Tool (BAT): development, validity and
reliability. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 17:9495
Schaufeli WB, Leiter MP, Maslach C, Jackson SE. 1996. The Maslach Burnout Inventory—general survey. In
MBI Manual, ed. C Maslach, SE Jackson, MP Leiter, pp. 19–26. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2023.10:25-53. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Press. 3rd ed.

Schaufeli WB, Salanova M, González-Romá V, Bakker AB. 2002. The measurement of burnout and
engagement: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. J. Happiness Stud. 3:71–92
Access provided by 141.136.215.49 on 02/07/23. See copyright for approved use.

Shimazu A, Bakker AB, Demerouti E, Fujiwara T, Iwata N, et al. 2020. Workaholism, work engagement and
child well-being: a test of the spillover-crossover model. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 17:6213
Shirom A, Melamed S. 2006. A comparison of the construct validity of two burnout measures among two
groups of professionals. Int. J. Stress Manag. 13:176–200
Shoman Y, El May E, Marca SC, Wild P, Bianchi R, et al. 2021. Predictors of occupational burnout: a
systematic review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18:9188
Siegrist J. 1996. Adverse health effects of high-effort/low-reward conditions. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 1:27–41
Swider BW, Zimmerman RD. 2010. Born to burnout: a meta-analytic path model of personality, job burnout,
and work outcomes. J. Vocat. Behav. 76:487–506
Tadic M, Bakker AB, Oerlemans WGM. 2015. Challenge versus hindrance job demands and well-being: a
diary study on the moderating role of job resources. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 88:702–25
Tetrick LE, Winslow CJ. 2015. Workplace stress management interventions and health promotion. Annu. Rev.
Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2:583–603
Tims M, Bakker AB. 2010. Job crafting: towards a new model of individual job redesign. South Afr. J. Ind.
Psychol. 36:1–9
Tims M, Bakker AB, Derks D, Van Rhenen W. 2013. Job crafting at the team and individual level: implications
for work engagement and performance. Group Organ. Manag. 38:427–54
Ten Brummelhuis LL, Bakker AB. 2012. A resource perspective on the work–home interface: the work–home
resources model. Am. Psychol. 67:545–56
Tummers L, Bakker AB. 2021. Leadership and Job Demands–Resources theory: a systematic review. Front.
Psychol. 12:722080
Tummers LG, Steijn B, Nevicka B, Heerema M. 2018. The effects of leadership and job autonomy on vitality:
survey and experimental evidence. Rev. Public Pers. Admin. 38:355–77
Urien B, Rico R, Demerouti E, Bakker AB. 2021. An emergence model of team burnout. J. Work Organ. Psychol.
37:175–86
Van der Linden D, Keijsers GPJ, Eling P, Van Schaijk R. 2005. Work stress and attentional difficulties: an
initial study on burnout and cognitive failures. Work Stress 19:23–36
Van Veldhoven M, Van den Broeck A, Daniels K, Bakker AB, Tavares SM, Ogbonnaya C. 2020. Challenging
the universality of job resources: Why, when and for whom are they beneficial? Appl. Psychol. Int. Rev.
69:5–29
Vîrgă D, Maricuţoiu LP, Iancu A. 2021. The efficacy of work engagement interventions: a meta-analysis of
controlled trials. Curr. Psychol. 40:5863–80
Vogt K, Hakanen JJ, Brauchli R, Jenny GJ, Bauer GF. 2016. The consequences of job crafting: a three-wave
study. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 25:353–62
Wang HJ, Demerouti E, LeBlanc P, Bakker AB, Jiang F. 2023. A dual process model of leaders’ proactivity
and follower job crafting. Submitted
WHO (World Health Organ.). 2019. International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). Geneva: WHO

52 Bakker • Demerouti • Sanz-Vergel

 Wrzesniewski A, Dutton JE. 2001. Crafting a job: revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Acad.
Manag. Rev. 26:179–201
Xanthopoulou D, Bakker AB, Demerouti E, Schaufeli WB. 2009a. Reciprocal relationships between job
resources, personal resources, and work engagement. J. Vocat. Behav. 74:235–44
Xanthopoulou D, Bakker AB, Demerouti E, Schaufeli WB. 2009b. Work engagement and financial returns:
a diary study on the role of job and personal resources. J. Organ. Occup. Psychol. 82:183–200
Yang Y, Hayes JA. 2020. Causes and consequences of burnout among mental health professionals: a practice-
oriented review of recent empirical literature. Psychotherapy 57:426
Ye L, Chen Y, Li F. 2022. Psychometric properties of the proactive vitality management scale in a Chinese
sample. Curr. Psychol. 41:5111–14
Young HR, Glerum DR, Wang W, Joseph DL. 2018. Who are the most engaged at work? A meta-analysis of
personality and employee engagement. J. Organ. Behav. 39:1330–46
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2023.10:25-53. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Zeijen M, Petrou P, Bakker AB, Van Gelderen B. 2020. Dyadic support exchange and work engagement: an
episodic test and expansion of self-determination theory. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 93:687–711
Access provided by 141.136.215.49 on 02/07/23. See copyright for approved use.

www.annualreviews.org • Job Demands–Resources Theory 53

OP10_TOC ARjats.cls December 2, 2022 8:26

Annual Review of
Organizational
Psychology and
Organizational
Behavior

Contents Volume 10, 2023

Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2023.10:25-53. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Changes in Perspective and Perspectives on Change:

Access provided by 141.136.215.49 on 02/07/23. See copyright for approved use.

Reflections on a Career
Timothy A. Judge p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 1
Job Demands–Resources Theory: Ten Years Later
Arnold B. Bakker, Evangelia Demerouti, and Ana Sanz-Vergel p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p25
Psychological Safety Comes of Age: Observed Themes in an
Established Literature
Amy C. Edmondson and Derrick P. Bransby p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p55
Employee Voice and Silence: Taking Stock a Decade Later
Elizabeth Wolfe Morrison p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p79
Understanding the Dynamic Interplay Between Actor and Context
for Creativity: Progress and Desirable Directions
Jing Zhou and Inga J. Hoever p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 109
The Psychology of Entrepreneurship: Action and Process
Michael Frese and Michael M. Gielnik p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 137
Laying the Foundation for the Challenge–Hindrance Stressor
Framework 2.0
Nathan P. Podsakoff, Kristen J. Freiburger, Philip M. Podsakoff,
and Christopher C. Rosen p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 165
Crisis Leadership
Ronald E. Riggio and Toby Newstead p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 201
Meta-Analysis in Organizational Research: A Guide to Methodological
Options
Scott B. Morris p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 225
Developing Self-Awareness: Learning Processes for Self-
and Interpersonal Growth
Manuel London, Valerie I. Sessa, and Loren A. Shelley p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 261
OP10_TOC ARjats.cls December 2, 2022 8:26

Understanding Decent Work and Meaningful Work

David L. Blustein, Evgenia I. Lysova, and Ryan D. Duffy p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 289
Innovations in Sampling: Improving the Appropriateness and Quality
of Samples in Organizational Research
Michael J. Zickar and Melissa G. Keith p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 315
Leading Virtually
Bradford S. Bell, Kristie L. McAlpine, and N. Sharon Hill p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 339
Mental Health in the Workplace
E. Kevin Kelloway, Jennifer K. Dimoff, and Stephanie Gilbert p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 363
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2023.10:25-53. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Is Justice Colorblind? A Review of Workplace Racioethnic Differences

Through the Lens of Organizational Justice
Access provided by 141.136.215.49 on 02/07/23. See copyright for approved use.

Derek R. Avery, Alison V. Hall, McKenzie Preston, Enrica N. Ruggs,

and Ella Washington p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 389
Leader Thinking, Follower Thinking: Leader Impacts on Follower
Creative Performance
Michael D. Mumford, Mark Fichtel, Samantha England,
and Tanner R. Newbold p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 413
Self-Reflection at Work: Why It Matters and How to Harness Its
Potential and Avoid Its Pitfalls
Ethan Kross, Madeline Ong, and Ozlem Ayduk p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 441
Employee Green Behavior as the Core of Environmentally
Sustainable Organizations
Hannes Zacher, Cort W. Rudolph, and Ian M. Katz p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 465
Structural Equation Modeling in Organizational Research:
The State of Our Science and Some Proposals for Its Future
Michael J. Zyphur, Cavan V. Bonner, and Louis Tay p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 495
Improving Workplace Judgments by Reducing Noise: Lessons
Learned from a Century of Selection Research
Scott Highhouse and Margaret E. Brooks p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 519
Errata
An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
Organizational Behavior articles may be found at http://www.annualreviews.org/
errata/orgpsych