Burnout-Resistant Organisations: Designing Workplace Practices that Support Sustainable High Performance

Executive Summary

This whitepaper examines the growing challenge of occupational burnout and presents evidence-based approaches for creating organisational systems that simultaneously support wellbeing and sustained high performance. Drawing on recent advances in neuroscience, organisational psychology, and occupational health research, we demonstrate that burnout is primarily a systemic rather than individual issue, requiring structural rather than personal interventions. The paper presents a comprehensive framework for developing burnout-resistant organisations, addressing work design, recovery practices, leadership behaviours, and organisational policies. For executives and HR leaders seeking to build resilient, high-performing organisations, this paper provides actionable strategies to transform workplace practices from depleting to sustainable, ultimately enhancing both human flourishing and organisational performance.

Keywords: burnout prevention, workplace wellbeing, sustainable performance, organisational design, occupational health, workplace stress, recovery practices, psychological safety

Introduction: The Burnout Epidemic and Business Imperative

Occupational burnout has reached epidemic proportions, with significant costs for both individuals and organisations. The World Health Organization now recognises burnout as an occupational phenomenon characterised by “feelings of energy depletion or exhaustion; increased mental distance from one’s job; and reduced professional efficacy” (WHO, 2019). Recent research indicates that between 44% and 76% of employees experience moderate to severe burnout symptoms, depending on sector and geography (Gallup, 2020; HSE, 2021).

The business impact is equally concerning. Studies have linked burnout to:

• 376% increase in likelihood of turnover (Mayo Clinic, 2021)
• 37% higher absenteeism (Deloitte, 2020)
• 18% reduction in productivity (WHO, 2019)
• 23% decrease in work quality (Bakker et al., 2014)
• 63% higher incidence of workplace accidents (EU-OSHA, 2018)
• £42 billion annual cost to UK employers (Deloitte, 2022)

These statistics reflect a fundamental truth: organisations cannot sustain high performance through practices that deplete their most valuable resource—human cognitive, emotional, and physical energy. As Maslach and Leiter (2016) note, “Burnout represents an erosion in values, dignity, spirit, and will—an erosion of the human soul.”

Yet the conventional approach to burnout—treating it as an individual problem requiring personal resilience—fundamentally misdiagnoses the issue. As this paper will demonstrate, burnout is primarily a structural and systemic problem requiring organisational rather than individual solutions.

In the following sections, we examine:

• The neuroscience and psychology of burnout and sustainable performance
• The business case for burnout-resistant organisational design
• Evidence-based frameworks for creating sustainable work systems
• Implementation strategies across multiple organisational dimensions
• Measurement approaches for burnout prevention and mitigation

For leaders committed to building organisations that thrive over the long term, understanding and implementing burnout-resistant practices represents both an ethical imperative and a strategic advantage.

Understanding Burnout: From Individual Syndrome to Systemic Challenge

The Biopsychosocial Nature of Burnout

Burnout emerges from complex interactions between biological, psychological, and social factors:

• Neurobiological mechanisms: Research using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) by Golkar et al. (2014) demonstrates that burnout is associated with impaired functioning in the amygdala, which regulates emotional responses, and the medial prefrontal cortex, which manages executive functions. This neural dysregulation manifests as:
  • Impaired emotional regulation
  • Decreased cognitive control
  • Disrupted reward processing
  • Hyperactivation of stress response systems
• Allostatic load: McEwen’s groundbreaking research (2017) on allostatic load—the cumulative burden of chronic stress—shows that persistent workplace stressors create physiological changes that damage long-term health through:
  • Elevated cortisol patterns
  • Inflammatory responses
  • Telomere shortening (cellular aging)
  • Immune system dysregulation
• Psychological dimensions: Maslach’s three-dimensional model of burnout (2016) identifies:
  • Exhaustion: Depletion of emotional and physical resources
  • Cynicism: Psychological withdrawal and negative attitudes toward work
  • Inefficacy: Feelings of incompetence and lack of achievement
• Social and organisational context: Contemporary research emphasises that burnout emerges primarily from the mismatch between individuals and their work environment. Leiter and Maslach (2009) identify six key domains where misalignment drives burnout:
  • Workload (demands exceeding human capacity)
  • Control (insufficient autonomy or decision authority)
  • Reward (inadequate recognition or compensation)
  • Community (poor social support or belonging)
  • Fairness (perceived inequity or procedural injustice)
  • Values (conflict between personal and organisational values)

This evidence reveals that burnout is not primarily a failure of individual resilience but rather a predictable response to chronically depleting conditions.

From Pathogenic to Salutogenic Approaches

The field of organisational health has increasingly shifted from pathogenic approaches (focusing on treating dysfunction) to salutogenic models (creating conditions for thriving), as articulated by Antonovsky’s (1996) pioneering work.

This shift parallels research on high-performance athletics, where peak performance emerges not from continuous exertion but from the strategic oscillation between effort and recovery (Loehr & Schwartz, 2003). Similarly, sustainable organisational performance requires systems that facilitate appropriate oscillation between engagement and renewal.

Research by Sonnentag and Fritz (2015) identifies four essential recovery experiences that counteract burnout development:

• Psychological detachment: Mental disengagement from work
• Relaxation: Activities that reduce activation and increase positive affect
• Mastery: Engaging in challenging but enjoyable non-work activities
• Control: Having autonomy in how to spend non-work time

Organisations that systematically enable these recovery experiences demonstrate significantly lower burnout rates than those that don’t, regardless of industry or role demands (Bennett et al., 2018).

The Business Case for Burnout-Resistant Organisations

Beyond the Cost Avoidance Model

While preventing burnout offers clear cost avoidance benefits, the business case extends beyond mitigating negative outcomes:

• Performance sustainability: Research by Corporate Executive Board (2018) found that teams operating with sustainable work practices maintained high performance over time, while “burnout cultures” showed performance degradation after 4-6 quarters despite initial productivity spikes.
• Innovation capacity: Studies by Amabile and Kramer (2011) demonstrate that psychological states associated with burnout (exhaustion, cynicism) directly impair creative thinking and problem-solving. Conversely, organisations with lower burnout scores show 31% higher innovation metrics.
• Talent acquisition advantage: Research by LinkedIn (2021) indicates that workplace wellbeing has become the #1 priority for job seekers, with 63% of candidates investigating an organisation’s burnout reputation before accepting offers.
• Engagement economics: Gallup’s extensive research (2020) shows that units with high employee engagement (a counterpoint to burnout) achieve:
  • 23% higher profitability
  • 18% higher productivity
  • 81% lower absenteeism
  • 41% fewer quality defects
• Adaptive capacity: Studies by Lengnick-Hall et al. (2011) demonstrate that organisations with rested, psychologically secure workforces respond more effectively to crises and market shifts.

These findings suggest that creating burnout-resistant organisations isn’t merely about preventing harm but about creating sustainable competitive advantage.

Common Misconceptions About Performance and Burnout

Core Elements of Burnout-Resistant Organisations

Strategic Work Design

How work is structured fundamentally determines its potential to energise rather than deplete employees:

• Demand-control calibration: Karasek’s demand-control model (1979) demonstrates that high demands become harmful primarily when paired with low control. Research by Moen et al. (2016) found that increasing job control reduced burnout by 19% without changing workload.
  • Action: Audit job roles for appropriate autonomy relative to demands
  • Action: Implement structured flexibility around where, when, and how work happens
• Effort-reward alignment: Siegrist’s effort-reward imbalance model (2002) shows that perceived disparity between effort and rewards (compensation, recognition, meaning) directly predicts burnout. Studies by Boehm and Lyubomirsky (2008) found that frequent recognition reduced exhaustion scores by 23%.
  • Action: Create multiple, regular recognition channels
  • Action: Connect daily tasks to meaningful outcomes through impact visibility
• Cognitive load management: Research on attention restoration theory (Kaplan, 2001) demonstrates that cognitive resources deplete with concentrated use and require specific replenishment strategies.
  • Action: Design work patterns with cognitive rhythms in mind (e.g., focused work, collaborative work, administrative work)
  • Action: Create technology protocols that reduce information overload and task switching
• Job crafting infrastructure: Studies by Wrzesniewski et al. (2013) show that enabling employees to shape aspects of their work increases engagement and decreases burnout by enhancing meaning and leveraging intrinsic motivation.
  • Action: Train managers to facilitate job crafting conversations
  • Action: Create formal processes for evolving roles toward strength alignment

Recovery Architecture

Organisations must systematically enable recovery at multiple timeframes:

• Micro-recovery practices: Research by Fritz et al. (2011) demonstrates that strategic micro-breaks (5-15 minutes) during the workday restore attention, regulate emotion, and prevent resource depletion.
  • Action: Implement meeting-free blocks between longer meetings
  • Action: Create environmental cues that encourage periodic movement and breaks
• Daily detachment protocols: Studies by Sonnentag and Fritz (2015) show that psychological detachment from work during evenings predicts next-day performance and prevents cumulative fatigue.
  • Action: Establish clear communication boundaries outside work hours
  • Action: Create “transition rituals” that signal workday completion
• Leave and sabbatical systems: Research by Davidson et al. (2010) found that properly structured vacation periods deliver measurable cognitive and physiological recovery, with effects lasting 2-4 weeks after return.
  • Action: Implement minimum leave policies rather than unlimited time off
  • Action: Create sabbatical opportunities for long-term employees
• Energy management training: Studies by Loehr and Schwartz (2003) demonstrate that teaching employees to manage physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual energy yields sustainable performance improvements.
  • Action: Provide training in evidence-based recovery and energy management
  • Action: Equip managers to model and support effective energy practices

Leadership Approaches

Leadership behaviours strongly influence burnout development:

• Transformational leadership: Meta-analysis by Skakon et al. (2010) shows that transformational leadership behaviours (providing meaning, intellectual stimulation, individualised consideration) reduce burnout by 35%.
  • Action: Select and develop leaders specifically for transformational capabilities
  • Action: Create accountability for leadership behaviours that impact wellbeing
• Bounded availability: Research by Barling and Frone (2017) found that leader availability paradoxically increases subordinate stress when excessive or unpredictable.
  • Action: Establish clear leader accessibility protocols
  • Action: Create team coverage systems that reduce dependency on specific individuals
• Psychological safety: Edmondson’s research (2018) demonstrates that psychologically safe environments—where employees can express concerns without fear—significantly reduce emotional exhaustion.
  • Action: Measure and develop psychological safety at team level
  • Action: Train leaders in responding constructively to concerns and problems
• Authentic leadership: Studies by Laschinger and Fida (2014) show that leader authenticity and emotional intelligence buffer against workplace stressors.
  • Action: Develop leaders’ self-awareness and emotional regulation
  • Action: Encourage appropriate vulnerability and work-life boundaries

Organisational Systems

Effective burnout prevention requires aligned organisational systems:

• Performance measurement calibration: Research by Bakker et al. (2016) shows that how performance is measured significantly impacts burnout risk. Excessive metrics, unrealistic targets, or misaligned incentives directly contribute to exhaustion.
  • Action: Audit performance metrics for volume, relevance, and alignment
  • Action: Focus on outcome rather than activity measures where possible
• Capacity-aware planning: Studies by the American Productivity and Quality Center (2018) found that organisations that plan at 80% of theoretical capacity demonstrate better performance sustainability than those planning at 100% or higher.
  • Action: Implement planning models that account for human cognitive limits
  • Action: Build recovery and learning time into workload calculations
• Wellbeing governance: Research by Deloitte (2020) shows that organisations with formal wellbeing governance structures implement more effective interventions and achieve better outcomes.
  • Action: Create executive accountability for organisational health
  • Action: Develop wellbeing metrics with the same rigour as financial metrics
• Values congruence mechanisms: Maslach and Leiter (2016) identify values conflict as a primary burnout driver, particularly when organisational incentives misalign with stated values.
  • Action: Audit alignment between incentives, metrics, and values
  • Action: Create ethical escalation channels for values conflicts

Implementation Framework

Diagnostic Approach

Effective implementation begins with accurate diagnosis of current state:

• Multi-level assessment: Research by Maslach et al. (2001) demonstrates that burnout manifests at individual, team, and organisational levels, requiring multi-level diagnosis.
  • Tool: Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) or Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI)
  • Tool: Areas of Worklife Survey (AWS) to identify specific misalignment areas
• Cultural assessment: Studies by Dextras-Gauthier et al. (2012) show that organisational culture significantly moderates the relationship between work conditions and burnout.
  • Tool: Competing Values Framework assessment
  • Tool: Psychological safety measurement
• Work practices audit: Research by Bakker and Demerouti (2014) indicates that specific work practices create either resource depletion or resource enhancement.
  • Tool: Job Demands-Resources assessment
  • Tool: Recovery experiences questionnaire
• Leadership effectiveness evaluation: Meta-analysis by Harms et al. (2017) demonstrates that leader behaviours explain up to 35% of variance in employee burnout.
  • Tool: Transformational Leadership Questionnaire
  • Tool: Ethical Leadership Scale

Implementation Strategies

Research supports several effective implementation approaches:

• Whole-system design: Studies by Nasurdin et al. (2019) found that comprehensive approaches outperform isolated interventions by 3.2x.
  • Strategy: Address work design, leadership, and organisational systems simultaneously
  • Strategy: Create cross-functional implementation teams
• Participation-based change: Research by Nielsen and Randall (2013) shows that employee involvement in intervention design increases adoption and effectiveness by 26%.
  • Strategy: Establish co-creation processes for burnout interventions
  • Strategy: Create feedback loops between implementation and refinement
• Leader-focused approach: Studies by Kelloway and Barling (2010) demonstrate that leadership development can serve as a primary intervention for employee wellbeing.
  • Strategy: Begin with leader development and support
  • Strategy: Create leader accountability for team wellbeing outcomes
• Rapid prototyping: Research by Haines et al. (2018) found that iterative implementation with fast feedback cycles improved intervention uptake.
  • Strategy: Implement pilots with rapid evaluation
  • Strategy: Scale successful approaches with local adaptation

Case Studies: Successful Implementations

Organisations across sectors have successfully created burnout-resistant practices:

• Manufacturing sector: A global manufacturing firm implemented systematic recovery periods, resulting in a 24% reduction in burnout scores and 9% increase in quality metrics over 18 months (Järvelin-Pasanen et al., 2018).
• Professional services: A consulting organisation redesigned workflow to include explicit recovery periods, transforming their billable hours model to account for sustainable cognitive work. This resulted in 22% reduced turnover and 17% higher client satisfaction (Deloitte, 2020).
• Healthcare: A hospital system implemented team-based workload management and schedule control, achieving a 31% reduction in emotional exhaustion among nursing staff and 19% decrease in medical errors (Moen et al., 2016).
• Technology sector: A software company integrated “focus time” and collaboration boundaries into their work systems, resulting in 28% lower burnout scores, 19% higher coding quality, and 22% increased innovation metrics (Microsoft Research, 2021).

Measurement and Optimisation

Leading and Lagging Indicators

Effective burnout prevention requires comprehensive measurement:

• Leading indicators (predict future burnout risk):
  • Workload sustainability metrics (e.g., average hours, consecutive days without recovery)
  • Psychological safety scores
  • Work-related rumination levels
  • Meeting load metrics
  • Digital communication volume and timing
  • Recovery practice adherence
• Lagging indicators (confirm effectiveness or identify problems):
  • Validated burnout measures (e.g., MBI, CBI)
  • Absenteeism and presenteeism rates
  • Turnover and intent-to-leave metrics
  • Healthcare utilisation patterns
  • Performance sustainability over time
  • Quality and error metrics
• Return-on-investment metrics:
  • Implementation costs vs. retention savings
  • Productivity sustainability indices
  • Recruitment advantage metrics
  • Brand reputation benefits

Implementation Tools

Burnout Risk Assessment Matrix

Recovery Implementation Framework

Leadership Behaviour Checklist

• Explicitly discusses sustainable performance with team
• Models appropriate work-life boundaries
• Provides context and meaning for work demands
• Adjusts expectations during high-demand periods
• Recognises signs of developing burnout
• Intervenes early when sustainability issues arise
• Creates space for recovery without penalty
• Aligns recognition with both outcomes and sustainability
• Demonstrates authentic care for team wellbeing
• Advocates for team needs at organisational level

Conclusion: The Future of Sustainable Performance

As organisations navigate increasingly complex business environments, the ability to maintain high performance sustainably emerges as a critical strategic capability. The research presented in this paper demonstrates that burnout is not an inevitable consequence of high-performance cultures but rather results from specific organisational practices that can be redesigned.

The most forward-thinking organisations now recognise that human cognitive, emotional, and physical energy are their most precious resources. Just as environmental sustainability has moved from peripheral concern to core business strategy, human sustainability is becoming central to organisational effectiveness. As Pfeffer (2018) notes in his seminal work on human sustainability, “There are few business imperatives more important than taking care of the human beings who make organisations function.”

By implementing the evidence-based practices outlined in this paper, organisations can create environments where sustained high performance emerges not from depleting human resources but from systematically enabling people to bring their best selves to work over the long term. This transformation requires changes to work design, recovery practices, leadership approaches, and organisational systems, supported by appropriate measurement and governance.

In a business landscape where the primary source of competitive advantage is increasingly intellectual capital, creating environments where human flourishing drives organisational performance isn’t merely a wellbeing initiative—it’s a strategic imperative.

References

Amabile, T. M., & Kramer, S. J. (2011). The progress principle: Using small wins to ignite joy, engagement, and creativity at work. Harvard Business Review Press.

American Productivity and Quality Center. (2018). Preventing employee burnout. APQC.

Antonovsky, A. (1996). The salutogenic model as a theory to guide health promotion. Health Promotion International, 11(1), 11-18.

Arent, S. M., & Landers, D. M. (2003). Arousal, anxiety, and performance: A reexamination of the inverted-U hypothesis. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 74(4), 436-444.

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2014). Job demands–resources theory. In Work and wellbeing (pp. 37-64). Wiley-Blackwell.

Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Sanz-Vergel, A. I. (2014). Burnout and work engagement: The JD–R approach. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 389-411.

Bakker, A. B., Rodriguez-Muñoz, A., & Derks, D. (2016). Job crafting among health care professionals: The role of work engagement. Journal of Nursing Management, 24(8), 982-993.

Barling, J., & Frone, M. R. (2017). If only my leader would just do something! Passive leadership undermines employee well‐being through role stressors and psychological resource depletion. Stress and Health, 33(3), 211-222.

Bennett, A. A., Bakker, A. B., & Field, J. G. (2018). Recovery from work‐related effort: A meta‐analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(3), 262-275.

Boehm, J. K., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2008). Does happiness promote career success? Journal of Career Assessment, 16(1), 101-116.

Corporate Executive Board. (2018). The real impact of high performers. Gartner.

Davidson, O. B., Eden, D., Westman, M., Cohen-Charash, Y., Hammer, L. B., Kluger, A. N., & Spector, P. E. (2010). Sabbatical leave: Who gains and how much? Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 953-964.

Deloitte. (2020). Mental health and employers: Refreshing the case for investment. Deloitte.

Deloitte. (2022). Mental health and employers: The case for investment – pandemic and beyond. Deloitte.

Dextras-Gauthier, J., Marchand, A., & Haines, V. (2012). Organizational culture, work organization conditions, and mental health: A proposed integration. International Journal of Stress Management, 19(2), 81-104.

Edmondson, A. C. (2018). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. John Wiley & Sons.

EU-OSHA. (2018). Psychosocial risks and stress at work. European Agency for Safety and Health at Work.

Fritz, C., Lam, C. F., & Spreitzer, G. M. (2011). It’s the little things that matter: An examination of knowledge workers’ energy management. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(3), 28-39.

Gallup. (2020). State of the global workplace. Gallup Press.

Golkar, A., Johansson, E., Kasahara, M., Osika, W., Perski, A., & Savic, I. (2014). The influence of work-related chronic stress on the regulation of emotion and on functional connectivity in the brain. PloS One, 9(9), e104550.

Haines, V. Y., III, Doray-Demers, P., & Martin, V. (2018). Good, bad, and not so sad after all: An fMRI study of the performance of HR professionals. Human Resource Management, 57(6), 1399-1412.

Harms, P. D., Credé, M., Tynan, M., Leon, M., & Jeung, W. (2017). Leadership and stress: A meta-analytic review. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(1), 178-194.

HSE. (2021). Work-related stress, anxiety or depression statistics in Great Britain. Health and Safety Executive.

Järvelin-Pasanen, S., Sinikallio, S., & Tarvainen, M. P. (2018). Heart rate variability and occupational stress—systematic review. Industrial Health, 56(6), 500-511.

Kaplan, S. (2001). Meditation, restoration, and the management of mental fatigue. Environment and Behavior, 33(4), 480-506.

Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(2), 285-308.

Kelloway, E. K., & Barling, J. (2010). Leadership development as an intervention in occupational health psychology. Work & Stress, 24(3), 260-279.

Laschinger, H. K. S., & Fida, R. (2014). New nurses burnout and workplace wellbeing: The influence of authentic leadership and psychological capital. Burnout Research, 1(1), 19-28.

Leiter, M. P., & Maslach, C. (2009). Nurse turnover: The mediating role of burnout. Journal of Nursing Management, 17(3), 331-339.

Lengnick-Hall, C. A., Beck, T. E., & Lengnick-Hall, M. L. (2011). Developing a capacity for organizational resilience through strategic human resource management. Human Resource Management Review, 21(3), 243-255.

LinkedIn. (2021). Global talent trends. LinkedIn.

Loehr, J., & Schwartz, T. (2003). The power of full engagement: Managing energy, not time, is the key to high performance and personal renewal. Simon and Schuster.

Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2016). Understanding the burnout experience: Recent research and its implications for psychiatry. World Psychiatry, 15(2), 103-111.

Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2017). New insights into burnout and health care: Strategies for improving civility and alleviating burnout. Medical Teacher, 39(2), 160-163.

Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 397-422.

Mayo Clinic. (2021). Job burnout: How to spot it and take action. Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research.

McEwen, B. S. (2017). Neurobiological and systemic effects of chronic stress. Chronic Stress, 1, 2470547017692328.

Microsoft Research. (2021). The new future of work: Research from Microsoft on the impact of the pandemic on work practices. Microsoft Corporation.

Moen, P., Kelly, E. L., Fan, W., Lee, S. R., Almeida, D., Kossek, E. E., & Buxton, O. M. (2016). Does a flexibility/support organizational initiative improve high-tech employees’ well-being? Evidence from the work, family, and health network. American Sociological Review, 81(1), 134-164.

Nielsen, K., & Randall, R. (2013). Opening the black box: Presenting a model for evaluating organizational-level interventions. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22(5), 601-617.

Pencavel, J. (2014). The productivity of working hours. The Economic Journal, 125(589), 2052-2076.

Pfeffer, J. (2018). Dying for a paycheck: How modern management harms employee health and company performance—and what we can do about it. Harper Business.

Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi‐sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(3), 293-315.

Siegrist, J. (2002). Effort-reward imbalance at work and health. Historical and Current Perspectives on Stress and Health, 2(1), 261-291.

Skakon, J., Nielsen, K., Borg, V., & Guzman, J. (2010). Are leaders’ well-being, behaviours and style associated with the affective well-being of their employees? A systematic review of three decades of research. Work & Stress, 24(2), 107-139.

Sonnentag, S. (2012). Psychological detachment from work during leisure time: The benefits of mentally disengaging from work. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(2), 114-118.

Sonnentag, S., & Fritz, C. (2015). Recovery from job stress: The stressor‐detachment model as an integrative framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(S1), S72-S103.

WHO. (2019). Burn-out an “occupational phenomenon”: International Classification of Diseases. World Health Organization.

Wrzesniewski, A., LoBuglio, N., Dutton, J. E., & Berg, J. M. (2013). Job crafting and cultivating positive meaning and identity in work. Advances in Positive Organizational Psychology, 1(1), 281-302.