Introduction

Burnout is currently one of the greatest threats faced by working professionals. Despite the lack of a unified understanding of its nature and developmental mechanisms, it is most commonly defined as a complex syndrome of exhaustion, cynicism, and a loss of self-efficacy, which develops as a result of prolonged work-related stress that is not mitigated by effective coping strategies. According to Christina Maslach, a leading researcher on this phenomenon, burnout is considered a crisis in occupational engagement resulting from a mismatch between the individual and the job. The areas of mismatch that constitute risk factors for burnout include work overload, lack of control over work processes, insufficient rewards, breakdown of community, lack of fairness, and value conflict in the workplace (Maslach, Jack- son, and Leiter, 1996; Maslach and Leiter, 2005, 2021, 2022, 2023).

According to the second dominant theory, the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model of burnout (Demerouti and Bakker, 2022, 2023; Demerouti et al., 2001; Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004), burnout is a two-dimensional phenomenon consisting of physical, emotional, and cognitive exhaustion, and a lack of engagement in work. Burnout occurs due to an insufficient supply of resources (both individual and environmental) to meet the conditions and demands of the job. Researchers therefore attribute significant importance to both workplace resources and individual factors, which may act as modifiers of the stress process. Job demands are primarily associated with exhaustion, a key component of burnout, while the (lack of) job resources are primarily linked to disengagement (Demerouti and Bakker, 2022, 2023; Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004).

Another noteworthy conceptualization of burnout is the model by Pines and Aronson (1988), which emphasizes its existential dimension. In this framework, burnout is seen as a growing sense of disappointment with one’s work, eventually leading to a state of apathy and existential emptiness. According to the researchers, the risk of burnout increases when an individual views their professional work as the main source of self-actualization and meaning in life. Frustration and disappointment in this area quickly lead to burnout and a sense of meaninglessness (Pines and Aronson, 1988; Pines, 2011).

Finally, the researcher who conceptualized burnout based on Maslach’s three-dimensional model and the existential model of Pines and Aronson is Massimo Santinello (2008). He understands burnout as a psychological syndrome resulting from chronic stress caused by a lack of balance between an individual’s resources and the demands of the work environment (Santinello, 2008; Jaworowska, 2014). This syndrome is characterized by four symptoms: psychophysical exhaustion, lack of involvement in professional relationships, feelings of professional inefficacy, and disappointment. The first three symptoms relate to Maslach’s model, while the fourth symptom pertains to the existential dimension of burnout as defined by Pines and Aronson. This model, which represents a unique synthesis of the two aforementioned concepts, serves as the theoretical and methodological foundation for the current research project.

Moving on to the mechanisms of burnout, it is important to emphasize that the numerous studies indicate that organizational stress factors play a significant role as predictors of burnout (Maslach, 2005; Maslach and Leiter, 2005, 2023). However, many researchers emphasize not only the role of environmental resources (work conditions and demands) but also the role of individual resources in the development of burnout (Demerouti et al., 2001; Demerouti and Bakker, 2004, 2023). It turns out that specific individual factors can modify the course of the stress transaction, including the intensity of burnout (Huang, Wang, and You, 2016; Mańkowska, 2022; Ntasiobi et al., 2023; Semmer, 2006; Sęk, 2005). Therefore, it is valuable to identify these characteristics and utilize this knowledge in the recruitment and selection process of employees, as well as in developing support and burnout prevention programs in various workplaces.

Among the individual factors that buffer against burnout are mental resilience and self-efficacy beliefs (Azimi et al., 2024; Block and Block, 1980; Ntasiobi et al., 2023; Plemenova Djourova et al., 2019; Lang and Lee, 2005; Ogińska-Bulik, 2011; Smith and Brown, 2021). The concept of ego-resiliency as an individual trait was first introduced by Jeanne and Jack Block (Block, 1950; Block and Block, 1980). It refers to a relatively stable personal disposition that determines the course of flexible adaptation to changing life demands, both everyday and extremely challenging ones (Block and Kremen, 1996). These individuals exhibit self-confidence, independence in action, a strong goal orientation, and high levels of optimism, warmth, and openness to experience. They perceive stressful events and demands as challenges and opportunities to gain new and valuable life experiences, rather than threats or hostile intentions from others (Azimi et al., 2024; Connor, 2006; Ruiz and Odriozola-González, 2017; Semmer, 2006; Smith and Brown, 2021).

The second personality variable considered a significant modifier of the stress process is self-efficacy. This concept was introduced by Albert Bandura (1977). The construct encompasses two aspects: the expectation related to the belief in one’s ability to perform a specific action and the expectation regarding the outcome of the task, which is anticipated to yield the desired result. Research has confirmed its protective effect against burnout (Grandey, Fisk, and Steiner, 2005; Lang and Lee, 2005; Lu, Siu, and Cooper, 2005; Mehlawat and Soni, 2022; Ntasiobi et al., 2023; Perrewe et al., 2002). Self-efficacy and psychological resilience are positively correlated and contribute to well-being and work engagement (Dobrowolska, 2015; Hobfoll, 2002; Plamenova Djourova et al., 2019; Łaguna, 2006).

A corporation, as a professional environment, is undoubtedly filled with stressors that pose a threat of burnout. Although it has become more similar to other workplaces in recent years, it is still characterized by a race against time, the pursuit of maximum achievements, interpersonal competition, task overload, the never-ending nature of tasks, and often irregular working hours, all of which genera- te constant tension and pressure among employees (Blacharski, 2019; Jaworek, 2017; Pajewska, 2022; Solon, 2022; Stoković, 2019).

Therefore, the term “Mordor” is still more commonly associated with corporate work rather than Tolkien’s novel. Employees of large companies are often derogatorily referred to as “corporate rats” or “orcs.” These terms evoke extremely negative associations regarding the demands and conditions of work, interpersonal relationships, the individual characteristics of the people working there, and their mental state ^{1, 2, 3}.

Given the prevalence of burnout, the rapid increase in the number of individuals suffering from it, and its complex, still not fully understood mechanisms, any effort by researchers to explain these processes seems crucial for protecting the health of working professionals. Does the corporate environment foster burnout? What psychological traits of individuals can modify this process? To date, few studies have focused on this occupational area and the individuals employed within it. In response to the above dilemmas and the emerging questions, a research study was designed. The aim was to examine the relationship between psychological resilience and self-efficacy beliefs as individual factors recognized as significant in modifying the stress process, and to investigate whether they serve as predictors of occupational burnout in a selected group of corporate employees, within an environment already widely known for its high stress-generating work conditions and demands. Detailed research objectives and questions are outlined below.

Research Problem and Objectives

The research problem addressed in this study concerns the phenomenon of burnout and its selected personality determinants, such as mental resilience and self-efficacy beliefs. The aim of the research was to test the interrelationships between these variables, particularly the predictive impact of resilience and self-efficacy on burnout among a group of employees from a corporation.

The following research questions were formulated:

1. What level of burnout do corporate employees exhibit?
2. What level of mental resilience do the surveyed corporate employees demonstrate?
3. How strong is the self-efficacy belief among the surveyed individuals?
4. What are the correlations between mental resilience, self-efficacy, and burnout among the surveyed individuals?
5. Do self-efficacy beliefs and mental resilience serve as predictors of burnout?

Method

Study Sample

The sample consisted of 50 corporate employees from the Pomeranian Voivodeship, including 32 women and 18 men. The participants performed their daily tasks through client meetings and the use of information technology devices. The participants’ ages ranged from 21 to 50 years, with the largest group (14 individuals) aged between 21 and 29 years, and the smallest group (4 individuals) aged 50 years. Regarding professional experience, respondents reported work tenure ranging from 1 to 35 years. The largest group (13 individuals) had 1 to 5 years of experience, while the smallest groups (6 individuals each) reported 11–15 years and 26–35 years of experience. All participants held higher education degrees. In terms of marital status, the majority were married (31 individuals), followed by singles (14 individuals), divorced individuals (4), and one widowed individual.

Conducting the study required obtaining formal approval from organizational supervisors and informed consent from each participant. The research was carried out in 2022. The study was conducted anonymously, and each participant provided explicit informed consent to participate. Questionnaires were completed in group settings, with a total administration time of 40 minutes. Data collection involved the use of several self-report questionnaires, which were directly collected by the researcher, ensuring complete data return and researcher presence throughout the study.

 

Research Tools

The following measurement tools were used:

LBQ (Link Burnout Questionnaire) by Santinello (2008), in the Polish adaptation by Jaworowska (2014), consisting of 24 items describing the frequency of specific feelings towards professional work on a 6-point scale, where 1 means “never” and 6 means “every day” The LBQ questionnaire diagnoses four dimensions of burnout: psychophysical exhaustion, lack of involvement in professional relationships, feelings of professional inefficacy, and disappointment. The Cronbach’s alpha indicators for the tool are satisfactory, ranging from .70 to .84, except for one dimension: lack of professional effectiveness, where the indicator is .63. The tool has sten standards developed for professional groups such as teachers, therapists, nurses, doctors, uniformed services, and for a comparison group: IT specialists, engineers, and accountants (Jaworowska, 2014)

KNS (Hope for Success Questionnaire) by Łaguna, Trzebiński, and Zięba (2005) was used to measure self-efficacy beliefs in the professional domain. The questionnaire comprises two components. The first component is the belief in having strong willpower, which refers to the awareness of one’s effectiveness in initiating and persisting in goal-directed efforts. The second component pertains to the belief in problem-solving abilities, which refers to the awareness of one’s knowledge and competencies leading to goal achievement. According to the authors, these dimensions can be considered synonymous with self-efficacy beliefs and are used for this purpose in the present study.

The questionnaire consists of 12 statements through which respondents indicate the extent to which each statement applies to them, using a scale from 1 (“definitely untrue”) to 8 (“definitely true”). The Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient is .74 for the willpower scale and .72 for the problem-solving scale. The test has sten norms for the overall score and the two subscales (Łaguna, Trzebiński, Zięba, 2005).

SPP-25 is a questionnaire designed to examine mental resilience, created by Ogińska-Bulik and Juczyński (2008). The construction of the tool was based on the definition of resilience as a property of an individual’s personality. It con- sists of 25 statements grouped into 5 factors: 1) perseverance and determination in action, 2) openness to new experiences and sense of humor, 3) personal com- petences to cope and tolerance of negative emotions, 4) tolerance for failure and treating life as a challenge, 5) optimistic attitude to life and the ability to mobilize in difficult situations. Internal consistency, determined on the basis of Cronbach’s alpha, is .89 for the entire scale. The reliability of the five subscales is similar and ranges from .67 to .75. The overall test result has sten standards (Ogińska-Bulik, and Juczyński, 2008).

Data Analysis Methods

Data were analyzed with SPSS Statistics software, version 26. First, descriptive statistics of the studied variables were performed to check whether the results were normally distributed. The reliability of the tools used in the present study was also assessed. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranged from .68 to .84, which were considered satisfactory. At this stage, information about the average results of each variable was obtained.

The next step was to check the strength and sign of the correlation between the pairs of tested variables, and the last step was to test the predictive effect of resilience and self-efficacy for burnout. For this purpose, two univariate linear regression analyzes were performed for each of the tested predictors⁴.

Results

The average score for burnout – overall score is 68.72 (SD=17.29), including for the dimension – psychophysical exhaustion 19.84 (SD=5.25), which corresponds to the upper limit of the average score (sten 7), for lack of involvement in relation- ships 17.38 (SD= 4.96), which means an average result (sten 6), in the case of a sen- se of professional ineffectiveness 12.84 (SD=4.52), which also corresponds to an average result (sten 6), and for disappointment 18.42 (SD=6.79), which indicates a high result (sten 8). The analysis of the average results for the mental resilience variable showed for individual scales: perseverance and determination 14.66 (SD=3.39), openness 16.24 (SD=2.76), personal competences 14.36 (SD=3.33), tolerance for failure 14.76 (SD=2.81), optimistic attitude13/08 (SD=3.56). The overall score is

73.00 (SD=13.42), which corresponds to sten score 6 and indicates an average level of mental resilience of the respondents. The mean results for the belief in self-efficacy were: for the overall score, 49.38 (SD=7.25), and for the scale - belief in problem solving ability, it was 25.66 (SD=4.18), and for the scale - belief in having a strong willpower 23.72 (SD=3.89). Referring the raw results to the norms, it turned out that they were within the range of moderate values (sten 6).

Correlation analysis of the studied variables

Descriptive statistics conducted as a preliminary step indicated that the study results exhibit a distribution close to normal. The Shapiro-Wilk test revealed non-significant p-values for most variables, except for two indicators: psychophysical exhaustion and disappointment. However, even in these cases, the distribution fell within acceptable limits for skewness and kurtosis (-1 to 1), allowing the results to be considered as not significantly deviating from normality. Consequently, parametric tests were employed for all variables in subsequent analyses. Nevertheless, due to the small sample size, the results should be interpreted with caution.

The results of the Pearson’s r linear correlation analyzes for pairs of each of the tested variables are presented below.

Table 1 

Mental resilience and burnout in the study sample

		Perseverance and determination	Openness	Person	Tolerance for failure	Optimistic attitude	Mental resilience –total
LBQ – total		-.33**	-.28*	-.47**	-.22	-.49**	-.44**
Psychophysi- cal exhaus- tion		-.20*	-.23	-.36**	-.09	-.36**	-.30*
Lack of involvement in relationships		-.32*	.19	-.43**	-.19	-.45**	-.39**
Lack of pro- fessional ef- fectiveness		-.27*	-.33**	-.38**	-.43**	-.37**	-.43**
Disappoint- ment		-.21	-.15	-.33**	.10	-.34**	-.28*

* p<.05; ** p<.01 Source: own work

 

The general results indicate that as the level of mental resilience increases, bur- nout weakens, while the analyzes of individual scales showed that the dimension of resilience: the belief in having personal competences to cope with and tolerate negative emotions and the dimension: an optimistic attitude to life and the ability to mobilize in difficult situations, remain in the strongest relationships with all bur- nout scales and these relationships are negative and of moderate strength. In turn, tolerance for failure has the only significant relationship with lack of professional effectiveness as a burnout scale (a negative relationship of moderate strength), but does not show significant relationships with any of the other burnout scales.

Table 2

Self-efficacy and burnout	Belief in the ability to find solutions	Belief in having strong will	Hope of success – total
LBQ – total	-.35**	-.47**	-.46**
Psychophysical exhaustion	-.17	-.28*	-.25*
Lack of involvement in relationships	-.38**	-.54**	-.51**
Lack of professional effectiveness	-.47**	-.36**	-.47**
Disappointment	-.16	-.29*	-.25*

** p<.01; * p<.05 Source: own work

 

Self-efficacy is moderately negatively correlated with burnout, although self-efficacy does not seem to be related to exhaustion or disappointment, and these are the only non-significant correlations. The strongest correlation is between the belief in having a strong will and lack of involvement in relationships (r=-.54). Therefore, the belief in having a strong will is accompanied by investing in relationships with others.

Table 3 

Mental resilience and self-efficacy

	Belief in the ability to find solutions	Belief in having strong will	Hope of success – total
Mental resilience – total	.57**	.70**	.71**
Perseverance and determination	.43**	.64**	.59**
Openness	.50**	.37**	.49**
Personal competences	.51**	.63**	.63**
Tolerance for failure	.45**	.57**	.57**
Optimistic attitude	.45**	.71**	.64**

Source: own work

** p<.01

The results indicate a strong positive correlation between resilience and self-efficacy, both in terms of general results and most of the individual scales.

Mental resilience and self-efficacy as predictors of burnout

The final stage of the analyses involved examining whether mental resilience and self-efficacy beliefs serve as significant predictors of occupational burnout. To assess the strength of these relationships for each of the two independent variables being tested, two separate univariate linear regression analyses were conducted, with resilience and self-efficacy examined individually as predictors of burnout.

Shown below are the pooled results of both univariate linear regression analyzes for each of the burnout predictors tested.

Table 4    

Linear regression coefficients of the relationship between mental resilience and self-efficacy with burnout

	R2	F	p	β	t	p	df
Model 1. Mental resilience –total	.19	11.23	.002	-.44	-3.35	.002	1.48
Model 2. Self-efficacy – total	.21	12.73	<.001	-.46	-3.57	<.001	1.48

Source: own work

 

Model 1 indicates the predictive impact of resilience. The standardized coef- ficient β = -.44 indicates that resilience is moderately associated with burnout, and the regression model is well fitted to the data F (1.48) = 11.23; p=.002. The value of the coefficient of determination R2 indicates that 19% of the variance in burnout is predicted by resilience. The second linear regression equation (Model 2) also confirms the predictive influence of self-efficacy beliefs. Standardized coefficient β = -.46 also shows a moderate strength of the relationship between self-efficacy and burnout. This factor explains 21% of the variance in burnout scores (R2 = .21), and the regression model turned out to fit the data well F (1.48) = 12.73; p<.001. The findings revealed that both resilience and self-efficacy beliefs emerged as significant predictors of occupational burnout within the examined sample. However, the above results should be interpreted with caution due to the small sample size. Nevertheless, given the observed trend, the study itself is worth replicating in a larger population.

Discussion

The study results indicate a moderate level of occupational burnout, with the exception of the dimension of disappointment, which was found to be high. This partially aligns with findings reported in existing literature (e.g., Ślazyk-Sobor, 2016; Kogut, 2019), though further research is needed to generalize these results. Individual factors such as mental resilience and self-efficacy also displayed moderate levels and a strong positive correlation, consistent with findings by Plamenova Djourova et al. (2019). Furthermore, both self-efficacy and mental resilience serve as predictors of occupational burnout, moderately predicting its variance. Studies by Mróz (2014), Rożnowski and Kot (2016), Tucholska (2001), Perrewe et al. (2002), and Lang and Lee (2005) confirm the protective effect of self-efficacy, explaining that self-efficacy plays a crucial role in managing workplace stress, reducing it, and preventing depression (Dankiewicz, 2014). A high level of self-efficacy enables employees to face professional challenges and grow despite stressors, while a low level is associated with a pessimistic outlook, loss of enthusiasm, and a reinforced belief in one’s incompetence (Bandura, 1977; Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004). Ochronny wobec wypalenia wpływ tej zmiennej potwierdzają także badania prowadzone w ostatnich latach w różnych grupach zawodowych, zarówno wśród nauczycieli, w tym wykładowców uczelni wyższych, pracowników służby zdrowia, liderów i członków organizacji pozarządowych, przedsiębiorców i pracowników dużych i średnich organizacji (Chahar et al., 2024; Karakurt and Aydin, 2018; Matos et al., 2022; Mehlawat and Soni, 2022; Ntasiobi et al., 2023; Sharma and Kumar, 2022).

The predictive influence of mental resilience on occupational burnout has been confirmed by previous research by Ogińska-Bulik (2011), Mróz (2014), and Paliga, Chrupał-Pniak, and Pollak (2019), explaining the buffering mechanisms of its components. Persistence and determination maintain engagement in achieving assigned goals. Openness to new experiences and a sense of humor enable readiness to confront problems and maintain necessary cognitive and emotional control. Personal coping skills and tolerance of negative emotions, as well as tolerance of failures and viewing life as a challenge, are crucial. Lastly, an optimistic attitude and the ability to mobilize in difficult situations, viewing the world positively, make individuals happier and better equipped to handle challenges. Istotny wpływ ochronny prężności wobec wypalenia wykazało wielu badaczy eksploru- jących tę zależność wśród pracowników sektora zdrowia, szkolnictwa czy biznesu (Azimi et al., 2024; Borkowska, Borkowski, and Garczyński, 2023; Huang, Wang, and You, 2016; Abdumohdi, 2023; Ruiz, and Odriozola-González, 2017). This is also supported by Hobfoll’s theory (2006), which posits that individual resources balance demands, with resilience being one of the most critical buffers against burnout. Although the results of the current study confirmed the independent and signifi- cant predictive influence of self-efficacy and psychological resilience on burnout in the studied sample of corporate employees, due to the study’s limitation – small sample size – these results should be interpreted with caution and should be repli- cated in a larger sample. In the future, it would be valuable to investigate the combined impact of both predictors and to explore the interrelationships between resilience and self-efficacy, as these factors may play a crucial role in enhancing both individual and organizational resources as protection against burnout.

Conclusions

The study aimed to check the intensity of mental resilience, self-efficacy and occupational burnout among employees of corporations. The result indicate a moderate level of each of the tested variables except disappointment as a symptom of burnout, with turned out to be high. The studied variables are interconnected, and both mental resilience and self-efficacy appear to be important predictors of burnout.

This knowledge should be leveraged in recruitment, employee development, and training processes, as well as in the design of burnout prevention programs at both the individual and organizational levels. While the findings appear promising, it is advisable to replicate the study on a larger sample to enhance the generalizability of the results.

¹ Epidemia wśród pracowników korporacji: wypalenie zawodowe (hrnews.pl) [Epide- mic Among Corporate Employees: Burnout], dostęp: 22.01. 2024

²  Wypaleni przez Mordor. „Praca w korporacji doprowadziła mnie do skrajne- go wyczerpania...” – Dziennik.pl [Burned Out by Mordor. Working in a Corporation Led Me to Extreme Exhaustion”], dostęp: 24.01. 2024

³ https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ah UKEwiA16eanfGDAxV9FBAIHSRMADwQFnoECBoQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww. newsweek.pl%2Fpolska%2Fspoleczenstwo%2Fkorporacja-najszybciej-pozera-tych-ktorzy- pracuja-duzo-i-chetnie%2F9jc6emv&usg=AOvVaw3ws3SfyE_4EEpG4BtiDQVG&opi=899- 78449, dostęp: 28.01. 2024

⁴ The source data was collected as part of a master’s seminar conducted by the author who acted as a diploma thesis supervisor

References

Abdulmohdi, N. (2023). The relationships between nurses’ resilience, burnout, perceived organisational support, and social support during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic: A quantitative cross-sectional survey. BMC Nurs- ing, 22(1), 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-023-01078-4

Azimi, R., Al Sulaie, S., Yazdanirad, S., Khoshakhlagh, A.H., Park, J.W., and Ka- zemian, F. (2024). The role of resilience as a key player in mitigating job burnout’s impact on workplace safety. Scientific Reports, 14(3), Article 68042. https:// doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-68042-1

Bandura A. (1977). Self-efficacy. Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change.

Psychology Review, 84, 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191 Blacharski M. (2019). Zjawisko stresu w korporacjacjach, [The phenomenon of stress in corporations]. Niepublikowana praca magisterska, Uniwersytet Jagielloński.

Block J. (1950). An experimental investigation of the construct of ego-control. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.

Block J.H., and Block J., (1980), The role of ego-control and ego-resiliency in the organization of behavior. Development of cognition, affect, and social relations. The Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology, 13, 39–101.

Block J., and Kremen, A.M., (1996). IQ and ego-resiliency: Conceptual and empirical connections and separateness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(2), 349–361. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.2.349

Borkowska, N., Borkowski, B., and Gaszyński, T. (2019). Dystres moralny, prężność i wypalenie zawodowe personelu pielęgniarskiego oddziałów anestezjologii i intensywnej terapii. Anestezjologia Intensywna Terapia, 50(3), 236–245. https:// ejournals.eu

Chahar Mahali, S., Sevigny, P.R., and Beshai, S. (2024). Multicultural efficacy beliefs in higher education: Examining university instructors’ burnout and mental well-being. The Journal of Social Psychology, OnlineFirst. https://doi. org/10.1177/00332941241253599

Connor K.M. (2006). Assessment of Resilience in the Aftermath of Trauma. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 67, 46–49.

Dankiewicz, M. (2014). Wspólna droga do sukcesu: zarządzanie partycypacyjne a przekonanie o własnej skuteczności. In A. Hannel-Brzozowska (Ed.), Młody człowiek wobec pracy, wyzysku i bezrobocia. Perspektywy fidcs i ratio [A Young Person Facing Work, Exploitation, and Unemployment: Perspectives of Fides and Ratio]. Scriptum. http://pbc.up.krakow.pl/publication/5312.

Demerouti E., Bakker A.B., Nachreiner F., and Schaufeli W.B. (2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499–512. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499

Demerouti, E., and Bakker, A.B. (2022). The job demands–resources model: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(7), 1–20. https://doi. org/10.1037/apl0000897

Demerouti, E., and Bakker, A.B. (2023). The job demands–resources model: A review of the literature and future research agenda. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 44(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2640

Dobrowolska M., (2015). Occupational burnout as a consequence of workaholism in the context of selected psychological variables – an outline of the problem. Perspectives – Journal on Economic Issues, 2, 87-98. http://dx.doi.org/10.26417/ejes. v4i2.p35-40

Grandey, A.A., Fisk, G.M., and Steiner, D.D. (2005). Must “Service With a Smile” Be Stressful? The Moderating Role of Personal Control for American and French Employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 893–904. https://doi. org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.893

Haynes, N.S., and Love, P.E.D. (2004). Psychological adjustment and coping among construction project managers. Construction Management and Economics, 22, 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144619042000201330

Hobfoll S.E. (2006). Stres, kultura i społeczność [Stress, Culture, and Community]. Gdańskie Wydawnictwo Psychologiczne.

Huang, J., Wang, Y., and You, X. (2016). The job demands-resources model and job burnout: The mediating role of personal resources. Current Psychology: A Journal for Diverse Perspectives on Diverse Psychological Issues, 35(4), 562–569. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s12144-015-9321-2

Jaworek, M. (2017). Stres i wypalenie zawodowe wśród pracowników korporacji [Stress and Burnout Among Corporate Employees]. Nieublikowana praca magisters- ka, Uniwersytet Jagielloński.

Jaworowska, A. (2014). Kwestionariusz Wypalenia Zawodowego. [Occupational Burn-out Questionnaire]. Pracownia Testów Psychologicznych PTP.

Karakurt, G., and Aydin, S. (2018). General self-efficacy modifies the effect of stress on burnout in nurses: A cross-sectional study. BMC Health Services Research, 18(1), 347. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3478-y

Kogut, U. (2019). Wypalenie zawodowe pracowników organizacji w świetle badań własnych na przykładzie przedsiębiorstwa X [Occupational burnout among employ- ees of organizations in the light of our own research on the example of company X]. Niepublikowana praca magisterska. Wyższa Szkoła Biznesu. http://hdl.handle. net/11199/10529

Kuśpit, M. (2021). Postawa twórcza pracowników organizacji a ich nadzieja na suk ces [Creative attitude of organizational employees and their hope for success]. Kultura i Edukacja, 3(133), 227–243. doi: 10.15804/kie.2021.03.13

Lang J.C., and Lee C.H. (2005). Identity accumulation, others’ acceptance, job-search self-efficacy, and stress. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(3), 293–312. https:// doi.org/10.1002/job.309

Lu C., Siu S.L., and Cooper C. (2005). Managers’ Occupational Stress in China. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(3), 569–578. https://psycnet.apa.org/ doi/10.1016/j.paid.2004.05.012

Łaguna, M. (2006). Nadzieja i optymizm a intencja założenia własnej firmy [Hope and optimism and the intention to start one’s own company]. Przegląd Psychologiczny,49(4), 419–443. http://polona.pl/item/32286438

Łaguna M., Trzebiński J., and Zięba M. (2005). Kwestionariusz Nadziei na Sukces. [Success Hope Questionnaire]. Pracowania Testów Psychologicznych PTP. http:// dx.doi.org/10.18290/rpsych.2015.18.1-2pl

Mańkowska, B. (2022). Wypalenie zawodowe. Źródła, mechanizmy, zapobieganie [Occu- pational burnout. Sources, Mechanisms, Prevention ]. Wydawnictwo Harmonia.

Maslach C., Jackson S., and Leiter M. (1996). The Maslach Burnout Inventory (3rd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Maslach C., and Leiter M. (2005). Banishing burnout: Six strategies for improving your relationship with work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Maslach, C., and Leiter M.P. (2021). How to measure burnout accurately and ethically? Health and Behavioral Science. [Retrieved from] https://hbt.org/2021/03/ how-to-measure-burnout-accurately-and-ethicall (access: 30.08.2024).

Maslach, C., and Leiter, M.P. (2022). The Burnout Challenge: Managing the Stress of Organizational Life. Jossey-Bass. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119493262

Maslach, C., and Leiter, M.P. (2023). Preventing Burnout: A Guide for Managers and Leaders. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429026623

Matos, M. da M., Sharp, J.G., Iaochite, R.T., and Onyishi, C.N. (2022). Self-efficacy beliefs as a predictor of quality of life and burnout among university lecturers. Frontiers in Education, 7, Article 887435. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.887435 Mehlawat, D., and Soni, S. (2022). Investigating the relationship between perceived organizational support, self-efficacy, and burnout. International Journal of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 14(2), 123–135. https://psychopediajournals.com/index.php/ijiap/article/view/2514o

Mróz, J. (2014). Prężność i poczucie stresu a typy zachowań i przeżyć związa- nych z pracą wśród pielęgniarek [Resilience and Perceived Stress in Relation to Work-Related Behaviors and Experiences Among Nurses]. Hygeia Public Health, 49(4), 857–863.

Ntasiobi, C.N.I., Onyishi, C.N., Amujiri, B., and Binuomote, O. (2023). Raising leadership self-efficacy and minimizing organizational burnout: A conceptual framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 44(4), 567–580. https://doi. org/10.1002/job.2640

Ogińska-Bulik N., and Juczyński Z. (2008). Skala pomiaru prężności SPP-25 [Resil- ience Measurement Scale SPP-25]. Nowiny Psychologiczne, 3, 39–56.

Ogińska-Bulik, N. (2011). Rola prężności w zapobieganiu negatywnym skutkom stresu zawodowego. In L. Golińska, E. Bielawska-Batorowicz (Eds.), Rodzina i praca w warunkach kryzysu [Family and Work in Times of Crisis]. Wydawnictwo Un- iwersytetu Łódzkiego.

Pajewska P. (2022). Wpływ prężności psychicznej i przekonania o własnej skuteczności na wypalenie zawodowe wśród pracowników korporacji. [The impact of psycholog- ical resilience and self-efficacy beliefs on occupational burnout among corpo- rate employees]. Niepublikowana praca magisterska, Uniwersytet Gdański.

Paliga, M., Chrupała-Pniak, M., and Pollak, A. (2019). Prężność psychiczna i orientac- ja pozytywna a wydajność pracowników. Rola psychologicznego zespołowe- go klimatu bezpieczeństwa [Psychological resilience and positive orientation and employee performance. The role of psychological team safety climate]. Zarządzanie Zasobami Ludzkimi 3-4, 121–138.

Perrewe P.L., Hochwarter W.A., Rossi A.M., Wallace A., Maignan, I., Castro S.L., Ralston D.A., Westman M., Vollmer G., Tang M., Wan P., and Van Deusen

C.A. (2002). Are work stress relationships universal? A nine-region examination of role stressors, general self-efficacy, and burnout. Journal of International Management 8, (2), 163–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1075-4253(02)00052-2

Pines, A., Aronson, E. (1988). Career burnout: Causes and cures. New York: Free Press. Pines, E. (2011). Wypalenie w perspektywie egzystencjalnej. In H. Sęk (Ed.), Wypale- nie zawodowe. Przyczyny i zapobieganie [Occupational Burnout. Causes and Prevention]. Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.

Plamenova Djourova N., Rodríguez Molina I., Tordera Santamatilde N., and Abate G. (2019). Self-Efficacy and Resilience: Mediating Mechanisms in the Relationship Between the Transformational Leadership Dimensions and Well-Being. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 1–15. https://doi. org/10.1177/1548051819849002

Rożnowski, B., and Kot, P. (2016). Przenoszenie przekonania o własnej skuteczności w nową rolę życiową: model moderacyjny i mediacyjny [Transferring Self-Effi- cacy Beliefs to a New Life Role: A Moderation and Mediation Model]. Czasopis- mo Psychologiczne 22(2), 205–218. http://dx.doi.org/10.14691/CPPJ.22.2.205

Ruiz, F.J., and Odriozola-González, P. (2017). The predictive and moderating role of psychological flexibility in the development of job burnout. Universitas Psy- chologica, 16(4), 1–8. https://doi.org/https://dx.doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.upsy16- 4.pmrp

Santinello, M. (2008). LBQ Link Burnout Questionnaire. Manuale. Firenze: Giunti O.S. Organizzazioni Speciali.

Schaufeli W.B., and Bakker A.B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 293–315. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1002/job.248

Semmer N.K., (2006). Personality, Stress, and Coping. In M. E. Vollrath (Ed.), Handbook of personality and Health. John Wiley and Sons Ltd. https://doi. org/10.1002/9780470713860.ch4

Sharma, P., and Kumar, V. (2022). The role of self-efficacy against workplace stress, the intent to leave, and burnout among nurses. Journal of Nursing Management, 30(6), 1014–1023. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.13456

Smith, J., and Brown, K. (2021). Shifting focus from burnout and wellness toward individual and organizational resilience. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 33(4), 300–310. https://www.tandfonline.com

Solon N. (2022). Wpływ stresu zawodowego na poziom satysfakcji z pracy na przykładzie pracowników korporacji [The impact of occupational stress on job satisfaction: A case study of corporate employees]. Niepublikowana praca magisterska, Uniwersytet Jagielloński.

Ślazyk-Sobol, M. (2016). Young adults in corporations – psychological labour costs and their correlates based on some empirical research studies. Polish Journal of Applied Psychology 14, (3), 43–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/pjap-2015-0061

Stojković M. (2019). Metody zmagania się ze stresem, wypalenie zawodowe a proaktywność pracowników korporacji. [Methods of coping with stress, occupational burnout, and proactivity among corporate employees]. Niepublikowana praca magister- ska, Uniwersytet Jagielloński.

Terelak, J. (2020). Wypalenie zawodowe – uwarunkowania (część II: czynniki indy- widualne). [Occupational Burnout – Determinants (Part II: Individual Factors)]. Zawodowy SOS, 1(1), 1–10. https://zawodowysos.pl/wypalenie-zawodowe- uwarunkowania-czesc-ii

Tucholska, S. (2001). Christiny Maslach koncepcja wypalenia zawodowego: etapy rozwoju. [Christina Maslach’s concept of occupational burnout: stages of development]. Przegląd Psychologiczny,. 44(3), 301–317.

The article is available under the terms international 4.0 license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)