Cited by 71Stress and Burnout ResearchJob Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorWorkplace Health and Well-being

The role of perceived workplace safety practices and mindfulness in maintaining calm in employees during times of crisis

Vu, Thinh‐Van, Vo‐Thanh, Tan, Chi, Hsinkuang, Nguyen, Nguyen Phong, Nguyen, Duy Van, Zaman, Mustafeed·2022·Human Resource Management

Abstract

While prior studies in human resource management have investigated how employee outcomes have been affected in high‐risk workplaces, this study stands out by examining this issue through the role played by COVID‐19 as a specific stressor. We explained how employees' perceived health risks due to COVID‐19 (CV19PHR) and perceived workplace safety practices (PWSPs) affected job performance via burnout and how PWSPs moderated the CV19PHR–burnout and CV19PHR–JP relationships. We also examined how mindfulness moderated the direct effects of CV19PHR and PWSPs on burnout and JP and the indirect effects of CV19PHR and PWSPs on JP via burnout. We performed three studies using an explanatory sequential mixed‐method design. In study 1, a three‐phase survey with 987 respondents was conducted to test the hypotheses. In study 2, by analyzing verbatim from 22 informants, the findings of study 1 and some main points concerning mindfulness and PWSPs were explained. In study 3, using data from 12 informants, we investigated how COVID‐19 affected individuals differently compared with other high‐risk workplaces and whether the impact of COVID‐19 on individuals was curvilinear. We demonstrated that employees' CV19PHR was positively correlated with burnout, negatively influencing JP. Moreover, PWSPs reduced burnout, which adversely affected JP. Interestingly, PWSPs positively moderated the CV19PHR–burnout relationship but not the CV19PHR–JP relationship. We also found that mindfulness moderated the CV19PHR–burnout and PWSPs–burnout relationships. Furthermore, mindfulness significantly moderated the mediating effects of burnout on the CV19PHR–JP and PWSPs–JP relationships.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/hrm.22101

Cites

93 of 93 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vu, T., Vo‐Thanh, T., Chi, H., Nguyen, N. P., Nguyen, D. V., & Zaman, M.
Affiliations
  • Thuongmai University (VN)
  • Centre de Recherche et d’Enseignement de Géosciences de l’Environnement (FR)
  • Department of Business Administration Nanhua University Chiayi County Taiwan
  • University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City (VN)
  • Dai Nam University (VN)
  • EM Normandie Business School (FR)
Corresponding author
Vo‐Thanh, Tan
Venue
Human Resource Management
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2022-02-02
Volume
61
Issue
3
Pages
315-333
ISSN
  • 0090-4848 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-050X
OpenAlex
W4210329314
Cited by
71
References
93
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 9
FWCI
15.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Human Resource Management (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Stress and Burnout Research
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Workplace Health and Well-being
Keywords
mindfulness, COVID-19 pandemic, health risk perception, burnout, employee performance, occupational safety, moderating effect, mediation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review