The DOI matches its Crossref record; 124 of the 126 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Can resilience be developed at work? A meta‐analytic review of resilience‐building programme effectiveness
Abstract
Organizations have increasingly sought to adopt resilience‐building programmes to prevent absenteeism, counterproductive work behaviour, and other stress‐related issues. However, the effectiveness of these programmes remains unclear as a comprehensive review of existing primary evidence has not been undertaken. Using 42 independent samples across 37 studies, the present meta‐analysis sought to address this limitation in the literature by summarizing the effectiveness of resilience‐building programmes implemented in organizational contexts. Results demonstrated that the overall effect of such programmes was small ( d = 0.21) and that programme effects diminish over time ( d proximal = 0.26 vs. d distal = 0.07). Alternatively, moderator analyses revealed that programmes targeting individuals thought to be at greater risk of experiencing stress and lacking core protective factors showed the opposite effect over time. Programmes employing a one‐on‐one delivery format (e.g., coaching) were most effective, followed by the classroom‐based group delivery format. Programmes using train‐the‐trainer and computer‐based delivery formats were least effective. Finally, substantially stronger effects were observed among studies employing single‐group within‐participant designs, in comparison with studies utilizing between‐participant designs. Taken together, these findings provide important theoretical and practical implications for advancing the study and use of resilience‐building in the workplace. Practitioner points: Resilience‐building programmes have had a modest effect in the workplace. The effect is weaker than that associated with secondary prevention techniques, but similar to those shown for other primary prevention techniques. Across primary studies, programme effects diminished substantially from proximal (≤1 month post‐intervention) to distal time points (>1 month). However, among those at greater risk of experiencing stress or who lack protective resources, weak proximal effects became stronger when measured distally. To optimize the effectiveness of resilience‐building programmes, developers should carefully conduct needs assessments, identifying individuals at elevated risk. Methodological decisions (i.e., the use of within‐ vs. between‐participant designs) may have a substantial impact on the conclusions researchers draw regarding the effectiveness of resilience‐building programmes. When evaluating the effectiveness of resilience‐building programmes, researchers and practitioners should compare observed effects to estimates of mean effects across studies using similar evaluative designs.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“A meta-analysis of workplace-based resilience-building programs found an overall modest effect size, which decreased significantly over a one-month period post-intervention (Vanhove etal., 2016).”
From Investigating state and trait aspects of resilience using Generalizability theory (2024) · cites this paper as Vanhove et al., 2016
In the citing paper
“Despite its potential, current resilience-building interventions have yielded inconsistent results.”
From Investigating state and trait aspects of resilience using Generalizability theory (2024) · cites this paper as Vanhove et al., 2016
In the citing paper
“suggesting that on the psychological outcome, digital mental health interventions have a comparable effect with other occupational interventions.”
From Improving Employee Well-Being and Effectiveness: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Web-Based Psychological Interventions Delivered in the Workplace (2017) · cites this paper as [66]
Citations
Cites
Eysenck, H. J. (1985) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/0005-7967(85)90087-7 · Cited by 32,038
“Stress: appraisal and coping,”
Folkman, S. (2013) · Encyclopedia of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1005-9_215 · Cited by 27,833
Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress.
Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276 · Cited by 12,910
Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach.
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.56.2.267 · Cited by 11,507
Positive psychology: An introduction.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.55.1.5 · Cited by 11,351
Wasserman, S. S., Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1988) · Journal of Educational Statistics · doi:10.2307/1164953 · Cited by 10,377
The Construct of Resilience: A Critical Evaluation and Guidelines for Future Work
Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00164 · Cited by 9,381
Handbook of Positive Psychology
(2001) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195135336.001.0001 · Cited by 9,158
The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.
Rosenthal, R. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638 · Cited by 9,068 · cited 1×
“A potential issue when conducting meta-analyses is an upward bias due to primary research showing significant effects being more likely to be published, and subsequently included in meta-analyses, than primary research showing non-significant effects (Rosenthal, 1979).”
BackgroundOrdinary magic: Resilience processes in development.
Masten, A. S. (2001) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.56.3.227 · Cited by 8,497
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Anthony E. J., 1974, The child in his family: Children at psychiatric risk, 3
- 10.3102/10769986006002107 · DOI · Paper page
- Hunter J. E., 1982, Meta‐analysis: Cumulating findings across research
- Mancini A. D., 2010, Handbook of adult resilience, 258
- Werner E. E., 1982, Vulnerable but invincible: A study of resilient children
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Much ado about grit: A meta-analytic synthesis of the grit literature
Credé, M., Tynan, M. C., & Harms, P. D. (2017) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/pspp0000102 · Cited by 1,653
“Meta-analytic evidence suggests similar effects for resilience interventions in working populations (Vanhove, Herian, Perez, Harms, & Lester, 2015).”
BackgroundSelf-citationFindings all psychologists should know from the new science on subjective well-being.
Diener, E., Heintzelman, S. J., Kushlev, K., Tay, L., Wirtz, D., Lutes, L. D., & Oishi, S. (2016) · Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne · doi:10.1037/cap0000063 · Cited by 786
“Although a follow-up of the participants from one of the loving-kindness meditation intervention mentioned above showed that the gains in positive feelings held 15 months later (Cohn & Fredrickson, 2010), most studies in the meta-analysis did not show such lasting effects (Vanhove et al., 2016).”
BackgroundChmitorz, A., Kunzler, A., Helmreich, I., Tüscher, O., Kalisch, R., Kubiak, T., Wessa, M., & Lieb, K. (2018) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2017.11.002 · Cited by 663
Leadership and stress: A meta-analytic review
Harms, P. D., Credé, M., Tynan, M., Leon, M., & Jeung, W. (2017) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.10.006 · Cited by 558
Self-citationResilience in the Workplace: A Multilevel Review and Synthesis
Hartmann, S., Weiß, M., Newman, A., & Hoegl, M. (2019) · Applied Psychology · doi:10.1111/apps.12191 · Cited by 639
Metadata
- Authors
- Vanhove, A. J., Herian, M. N., Perez, A. L. U., Harms, P. D., & Lester, P. B.
- Affiliations
- University of Nebraska–Lincoln (US)
- United States Army (US)
- Corresponding author
- Vanhove, Adam J.
- Venue
- Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2015-04-25
- Volume
- 89
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 278-307
- ISSN
- 0963-1798 (ISSN-L)
- 2044-8325
- OpenAlex
- W2005393701
- Cited by
- 443
- References
- 126
- Citations by year
- 2026: 38 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 62 · 2022: 56 · 2021: 54 · 2020: 44 · 2019: 48 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 25.65
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (publishedVersion)
- Lincoln (University of Nebraska) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- U.S. Army (D10PC20006)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Resilience and Mental Health
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Workplace Health and Well-being
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Stress and Burnout Research
- Keywords
- workplace resilience, occupational stress, absenteeism, counterproductive work behavior, primary prevention, secondary prevention, protective factors, coaching, trainer training, computer-based intervention, within-participant design, program effectiveness, needs assessment
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
