Work
           Engagement and Burnout
           
          Relationship 
          with Adaptive Job Performance
          :
           
          Role of Psychological Ownership

Muhammad Naveed

doi:10.31384/jisrmsse/2022.20.2.3

Work Engagement and Burnout Relationship with Adaptive Job Performance : Role of Psychological Ownership

1 Institute of Business Management, Karachi, Sindh, Pakistan

Abstract

This study aims to check the effect of job demands on employees burnout and job resources on employees work engagement with the moderating role of psychological ownership. Moreover, the direct and mediating role of burnout and work engagement in adaptive job performance. Data were collected through a survey questionnaire from a total of 311 four and five-star hotel employees and structural equational modeling was employed to test the hypotheses. The findings demonstrate the positive relation of job demands with burnout and job resources with work engagement. Furthermore, burnout has a direct negative as well as mediating relation with adaptive job performance whereas, work engagement has a direct positive as well as mediating relation with adaptive job performance. Lastly, the study has also found that psychological ownership weakens the relationship of job demands and employees’ burnout whereas, it stronger the relationship among job resources and employees’ work engagement. Theoretical and practical implications are also discussed.

Keywords

Job demands, work engagement, burnout, job resources, adaptive job performance

INTRODUCTION

In the contemporary dynamic business environment, adaption has become critical for survival and meeting the challenges of organisations (Park & Park, 2021). Therefore, organisations require employees to be capable enough to cope with uncertain business environmental challenges (Charbonnier-Voirin & Roussel, 2012). Employee performance is a critical criterion that facilitates organisational success (Campbell, Mccloy, Oppler, & Sager, 1993; Peng, Lee, & Lu, 2020). Adaptive job performance is a sub-facet and proactive form of response against change (Griffin, Greiner, Stansfeld, & Marmot, 2007; Joung, Hesketh, & Neal, 2006; Neal & Hesketh, 1999). Adaptive job performance enables employees to adapt fluctuating work situations and show excellence in solving problems (Jundt, Shoss, & Huang, 2015; Park & Park, 2019; Pulakos et al., 2002). Another serious issue is burnout, which impairs employees’ functioning i.e., job performance (Packirisamy, Meenakshy, & Jagannathan, 2017), and is considered the twenty-first century’s most significant occupational hazard (Leiter & Maslach, 2005). Previous literature has suggested about the adverse effect of burnout on employees’ job performance (Garcia et al., 2019). Burnout is a type of occupational syndrome that results in chronic work-related stress (Maslach & Leiter, 2016). In the present socioeconomic environment, researchers and practitioners are more concerned about burnout (Heinemann & Heinemann, 2017). (Harter, Schmidt, Agrawal, Plowman, & Blue, 2016) stated that more than 79% of employees experience burnout sometimes and 28% very often, which were estimated to attribute 120,000 deaths and $190 billion in healthcare spending per year in the US economy (Wigert, 2020).

Contra-wise, engagement is type of motivational aspect that explains employees ability to achieve higher performance (Bakker, Tims, & Derks, 2012; Heyns & Rothmann, 2018; Jain & Ansari, 2018), derived from the various factors (Demerouti, Cropanzano, Bakker, & Leiter, 2010). Hospitality industry researchers have also discussed work engagement (Karatepe & Olugbade, 2016). Despite the compelling arguments to restore the level of engagement, (Crabtree, 2013) also identified that 85% employees of the organizations are either not engaged or actively disengaged from work, which costs poor management and loss of productivity between $960 billion and $1.2 trillion, respectively per year in the USA economy.

Employees work engagement and burnout predicts through the various factors. The job demands-resources theory (JD-R) (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017) provides theoretical framework that describes the predictors and outcomes of the employees well-being (burnout and engagement). The theory proposes that a job consists of a combination of demands (workload, physical and emotional) and resources (feed-back, autonomy, and social support), which results in burnout and engagement accordingly (Bakker, Demerouti, Boer, & Schaufeli, 2003; Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001).

Personal resources remained a dominant factor influencing employees engagement (Airila et al., 2014; Schaufeli & Taris, 2014) and buffer, the undesirable influence of the job demands (Hakanen, Bakker, & Demerouti, 2005; Luthans & Youssef, 2007). Theoretically, personal resources are considered as a significant contributor to the original JD-R framework (Bakker, Demerouti, & Sanz-Vergel, 2014).

Employee ownership is a parsimonious (an explanation of a thing or event is made with the fewest possible assumptions) personal psychological resource that assists in attaining work engagement and helps to deal with the job demands (Rapti, Rayton, & Yalabik, 2017; Wang, Law, Zhang, Li, & Liang, 2019). Studies identified that psychological ownership has relation with employees attitudes, motivation, and behaviour (Degbey, Rodgers, Kromah, & Weber, 2021; Peck & Shu, 2018). The study used psychological ownership as a parsimonious personal resource barely discussed concerning employees’ work engagement (Dawkins, Tian, Newman, & Martin, 2017; Rapti et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2019) against the call to test the job descriptions and personal resources interaction (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017; Grover, Teo, Pick, Roche, & Newton, 2018). This study aims to fill two crucial gaps: first, employees are required to adapt to the change implemented by the organization (research has also taken attention to understand the nature and drivers of adaptive job performance) (Jundt et al., 2015; Park & Park, 2019; Shoss, Witt, & Vera, 2012); second, in terms of personal resource psychological ownership (Zhou et al., 2020) against the call to check the interaction of job demands and personal resources (Grover et al., 2018).

LITERATURE REVIEW

Job demands and employee burnout

Job demands are the job facets i.e., physical, psychological, and organizational which involve physical and mental efforts (Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2005). These include work and time pressure, including certain psychological and physiological costs (Jonge & Dormann, 2006). Job demands are the commonly known stressors (Tremblay & Messervey, 2011), associated with the different signs of job strains, i.e., depression, anxiety (Diestel & Schmidt, 2009; Griffin et al., 2007), which result in depletion of the employee energy and health issues (Yoo & Arnold, 2016). As per the JD-R theory, job demands linked with prolonged job efforts resulting in health impairment which lead to burnout. Once job demands persist for longer, employees cannot regulate their diminishing health (Demerouti, Veldhuis, Coombes, & Hunter, 2019).

H1: Job demands are positively related to burnout.

Job resources and employees engagement

Job resources are the job features i.e., physical, psychological and social (Demerouti & Bakker, 2011), which include job autonomy, feedback, social support, and personal growth. Such are the major contributing factors to the employees work engagement (Lesener, Gusy, & Wolter, 2019; Saks, 2006). The JD-R theory further postulates that job resources are the factors that facilitate employees work engagement (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). The JD-R theory explained the concept of employee work engagement by proposing personal/job resources as the predictors (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). The theory has also explained that a greater job resource persuades the motivational process which results in the higher employee work engagement (Kwon & Kim, 2020). Researchers have widely studied personal and job resources to improve the employee work engagement (Karatepe, Yavas, Babakus, & Deitz, 2018). Literature has also indicated that the job resources stimulate employee work engagement, growth, and the performance (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). Based on the suggestion of the recent literature, the study hypothesized to check the impact of job autonomy, feedback, and social support on work engagement.

H2: Job resources are positively related to work engagement.

Mediating role of burnout

Burnout denotes with a situation of job strain stem from the accumulated work-related stress (Cole, Walter, Bedeian, & Boyle, 2012). Burnout is an effective reaction to the ongoing stress that an individual gets from the job (Shirom, 2011). Employees who experience such prolonged strain start losing motivation for achievement, which impairs job performance (Halbesleben & Buckley, 2004). Moreover, a higher level of stress is produced through the job demands and results in the decreased performance (Devereux & Buckle, 2000). Employees in burned out conditions are unwilling to exert effort, resulting in minimal output (Maslach & Leiter, 2005). Literature has identified consistent relationship between employees’ burnout and job performance (Bentzen, Lemyre, & Kenttä, 2017; Demerouti, Bakker, & Leiter, 2014).

H3: Burnout is positively related to adaptive job performance.

Burnout is a situation under which employees cannot perform well and results in reduced job performance (Halbesleben & Buckley, 2004). Literature suggests that burnout is directly related to the different work outcomes and mediates the relationship among the predictors. Likewise, burnout mediates the association between job stress and overall job performance (Parker & Kulik, 1995). Studies identified that higher job demands lead to the impaired job performance of the employees (Demerouti et al., 2014; Devereux & Buckle, 2000). The current study postulates adaptive job performance as an extension of normal job performance resulting from the relation between job demands and burnout. Taris (2006) highlighted employees with higher burnout hold scarce resources to perform well in the workplace. While experiencing burnout, they are unable to provide satisfactory performance. The JD-R theory advocates that higher levels of job resources enable employees’ physical and psychological energy, which can mitigate burnout (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017).

H4: Burnout mediates the relationship between job demands and adaptive job performance.

Mediating role of work engagement

Kahn (1990) devised the term work engagement to explain employees’ psychology to harness them by participating in cognitive, physical, and emotional energies towards work outcomes. Further,Schaufeli, Bakker, and Salanova (2006) explained the concept of employee work engagement in three dimensions named as vigour, absorption and dedication. Recently,Sandhya and Sulphey (2019) expressed work engagement as an emotional attachment which can be positive or negative towards job.

Furthermore, work engagement enhances and impacts the employee job performance (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). The literature recommends that higher work engagement positively influences job performance (Christian, Garza, & Slaughter, 2011; Grobelna, 2019). Moreover, workplace performance is the employees’ ability, to adopt the new practices and to stay competitive, has become extremely important for organisational success. Adaptive job performance is employees’ ability to adjust and understand the change implemented at the workplace (Kim & Park, 2017). In this situation, versatile nature of employees can play a noteworthy role in the success of organisation. Therefore, organisations need employees capable of working effectively. Literature has identified that employees, who feel engaged, can quickly adapt to the changes introduced by the organisation and be more focused on performance (Breevaart, Bakker, & Demerouti, 2014).

H5: Work engagement is positively related to adaptive job performance.

Studies suggested employees’ engagement role as a mediator among job resources and different outcomes (Karatepe, 2013; Karatepe, 2014; Saks, 2006; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Organisations motivate the employees for work engagement by providing job resources and ultimately helping to improve job performance (Rich, Lepine, & Crawford, 2010). It is an essential mediator that allows individuals to move from action to attain greater performance (Demerouti et al., 2010). Moreover, prior literature have suggested the mediating role of employees’ work engagement between personal and job resources and job-related outcomes (Wingerden, Derks, & Bakker, 2017). Studies suggested a relationship between engagement with the greater task performance (Christian et al., 2011; Lichtenthaler & Fischbach, 2019). Scarce literature is available to discuss the connection between work engagement and adaptive job performance (Heuvel, Demerouti, Bakker, & Schaufeli, 2010).

H6: Work engagement prompts mediating positive relationship between job resources and adaptive job performance.

Moderating role of psychological ownership

Psychological ownership is a positive state of mind about ownership (Pierce, Kostova, & Dirks, 2001). It is the employee’s feeling of having a stake in the organisation. Individuals with higher psychological ownership perceive themselves as the “owners” (Tian & Belk, 2005). Literature characterizes psychological ownership as the shift from “this is my company” to “this is our company” (Dawkins et al., 2017). Psychological ownership is positive emotion that inspires the workplace (Brown, Pierce, & Crossley, 2014). To solve the problem of burnout, studies are recommended to discover possible interventions (Blanc et al., 2007; Shirom, 2011). Psychological ownership is an intrinsic mechanism that can lead to different positive outcomes, i.e., organisational commitment, job satisfaction, work performance, and low burnout (Jussila, Tarkiainen, Sarstedt, & Hair, 2015). Further, literature suggested that higher psychological ownership would create a positive attitude towards the job and the organization, resulting in higher work engagement and lower burnout (Dyne & Pierce, 2004). Hence, under a higher level of psychological ownership, employees accept greater job demands which diminishes the feelings of burnout. Thus, the study has hypothesised psychological ownership for reduced burnout and higher work engagement.

H7: Psychological ownership negatively moderates the relationships between job demands and burnout.

H8: Psychological ownership positively moderates relationships between job demands and work engagement.

https://typeset-prod-media-server.s3.amazonaws.com/article_uploads/9dc45346-94df-421d-b795-78ec62f816e5/image/a1384e26-27df-4e44-a76f-139ca8c983be-ufigure1-png.png — **Figure 1: Research Model**

METHODOLOGY

Sample and data collection

The data were gathered from the full-time employees and managers of the luxury 4- and 5-star hotels located in the major cities of Pakistan. The purposive sampling technique was used as it improved the probability of selecting a suitable sample. Out of 36 hotels, we got permission for data gathering from the management of 06 (5-stars) and 23 (4-star hotels). The study used the survey-based methodology, and an anonymous survey questionnaire for the data collection. Initially, there were 350 questionnaires distributed, out of which 323 were received. Upon screening, 12 were eliminated and discarded, because they had missing information. Therefore, 311 responses (88%) were found completed and useable for data analysis.

Instruments

Job demands include three dimensions, psychological, physical, and emotional demands. Psychological and Physical demands were assessed using five items scale established by Karasek et al. (1998). Emotional demands quantified with a six items scale developed by Bakker et al. (2003). Job resources have three dimensions; autonomy, feedback, and social support. These dimensions involve three items each and were taken from the scale developed by Hackman and Oldman (1980). Work engagement nine items scale based on three dimensions: dedication, vigor, and absorption (Schaufeli et al., 2006). A total of 22 items scale of the employees’ burnout was developed by Maslach, Jackson, and Leiter (1996). The burnout scale consists of three dimensions called de-personalisation (five items), emotional exhaustion (9 items), and reduced personal accomplishment (8 items), as confirmed by Prentice et al. (2013). Psychological ownership has measured from a six items scale established by Dyne and Pierce (2004). Lastly,Pulakos, Arad, Donovan, and Plamondon (2000) measured adaptive job performance with a ten-item scale.

RESULTS

Confirmatory factor analysis performs for establishing discriminant and convergent validity. The complete model, which consists of six factors, yielded a good model fit (X2/df =1.37, CFI = .95, TLI = .95, IFI = .96, SRMR = .043, REMSA = .034) as compared to several alternative measurement models (Bentler & Bonett, 1980). Thus, the study has no issue with discriminant validity as the baseline model fits presented in Table 1.

Descriptive and correlation analysis

The descriptive statistical results, which are obtained from the data presented in the Table 3. Job demands have positively correlated with burnout and a negative correlated with all the other constructs, and burnout is also negatively correlated to all the constructs except job demands. The highest positive correlation appears between job demands and burnout (r=.57, p<0.01), and the lowest positive correlation were found among job resources and work engagement (r=0.30, p<0.01). Similarly, the highest negative correlation exists between job burnout and adaptive job performance (r=-.46, p<0.01) and lowest negative correlation was found among burnout and psychological ownership (r= -.25, p<0.01).

Table 1: Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results

Model	X ² /df	CFI	TLI	IFI	SRMR	RMESA
1. Full Model (JDs, JRs, BO, WE, AP, PO)	1.37	0.95	0.95	0.96	0.043	0.034
2. Five-factor model (JDs+BO, JRs, WE, AP, PO)	1.86	0.87	0.85	0.87	0.065	0.056
3. Four-factor model (JDs+BO, JRss+WE, AP, PO)	2.01	0.85	0.84	0.86	0.082	0.057
4. Three-factor model (JD+BO, JRs+WE, AP+PO)	2.30	0.81	0.80	0.81	0.090	0.064
5. Two-factor model (JDs+BO+JRs, WE+AP+PO)	2.43	0.78	0.77	0.79	0.096	0.068
6. One-factor model (combined variables)	2.70	0.74	0.73	0.74	0.136	0.084

JRs= Job resources, JDs= Job demands, BO= Burnout, WE= Work engagement, AJP= Adaptive job performance, and PO= Psychological ownership

Table 2: Reliability and Factor Loadings

Construct	Items	Loadings	Composite Reliability	AVE
Job Demands
Psychological demands	PD1	.82	.893	.667
	PD2	.86
	PD3	.75
	PD4	.85
Physical demands	PyD1	.78	.889	.617
	PyD2	.88
	PyD3	.72
	PyD4	.75
	PyD5	.79
Emotional demands	ED1	.62	.861	.612
	ED2	.88
	ED3	.76
	ED3	.85
Job Resources
Autonomy	AT1	.79	.821	.604
	AT2	.79
	AT3	.75
Feedback	FB1	.78	.811	.588
	FB2	.75
	FB3	.78
Social Support	SS1	.65	.795	.566
	SS2	.80
	SS3	.79
Burnout
Depersonalisation	DP1	.65	.893	.628
	DP2	.88
	DP3	.78
	DP4	.90
	DP5	.73
Emotional Exhaustion	EE1	.90	.905	.659
	EE2	.67
	EE3	.91
	EE4	.79
	EE5	.77
Reduced Personal Accomplishment	RPA1	.65	.909	.626
	RPA2	.87
	RPA3	.72
	RPA4	.88
	RPA5	.82
	RPA6	.79
Work Engagement
Vigor	V1	.84	.828	.617
	V2	.73
	V3	.78
Dedication	DD1	.77	.819	.601
	DD2	.76
	DD3	.80
Absorption	AB1	.72	.789	.555
	AB2	.70
	AB3	.81
Pyschological Ownership	PO1	.78	.882	.514
	PO2	.74
	PO3	.73
	PO4	.70
	PO5	.68
	PO6	.69
	PO6	.70
Adaptive Job Performance	AJP1	.73	.922	.517
	AJP 2	.74
	AJP 3	.77
	AJP 4	.74
	AJP 5	.68
	AJP 6	.71
	AJP 7	.67
	AJP 8	.77
	AJP 9	.73
	AJP 10	.66
	AJP 11	.70

Table 3: Descriptive and Correlations Results

Construct	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. JDs	2.29	1.00	1
2. JRs	3.74	.68	-.32**	1
3. BO	2.23	1.06	.57**	-.28**	1
4. WE	3.67	.71	-.27**	.30**	-.33**	1
5. PO	4.02	.71	-.25**	.32**	-.25**	.33**	1
6. AJP	3.96	.84	-.41**	.42**	-.46**	.48**	.38**	1
7. Gender	1.36	.48	.021	-.01	.07	-.02	.05	-.061	1
8. Job Tenure	1.50	.68	-.10	.11*	.01	-.01	-.02	-.01	.09	1

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

Table 4: Summary of direct effects

Indirect Path		Estimate	S.E	C.R
H1	JDs $\to$ BO	.65***	.042	9.947
H2	JRs $\to$ WE	.49***	.033	8.143
H3	BO $\to$ AJP	-.36***	.059	-3.587
H4	WE $\to$ AJP	.42***	.038	8.549

JD= Job demands; BO= Burnout; WE=Work engagement; AJP= Adaptive job performance.

***p<0.001

Table 5: Mediation Analysis

Indirect Path		Estimate	LLCI	ULCI
H5	JDs $\to$ BO $\to$ AJP	-.28***	-.28	-.15
H6	JRs $\to$ WE $\to$ AJP	.17***	.12	.33

***p<0.001

Table 6: Moderation Analysis

Structural relationship		Estimate	C.R.	R ²
	JDs $\to$ BO	.48**	9.34
H7	PO $\to$ BO	-.09	-1.89	.36
	JDs $\times$ PO $\to$ BO	-.12**	-3.01
	JRs $\to$ WE	.23**	3.94
H8	PO $\to$ WE	.26**	4.72	.15
	JRs $\times$ PO $\to$ WE	.02	.564

JD= Job demands; BO= Burnout; WE=Work engagement; AJP= Adaptive job performance

**p<0.01

Structural model

The findings of direct hypotheses disclose that job demands has a positive association with burnout (β=.65, p<0.01) and job resource is positively associated to work WE (β= .49, p< 0.01), supporting H1 and H2. The findings also depicted that burnout (β= -.36, p<0.01) has a negative relation with adaptive job performance, whereas work engagement (β=.42, p<0.01) has a positive relation with adaptive job performance. Hence, hypotheses H3 and H4 are supported.

https://typeset-prod-media-server.s3.amazonaws.com/article_uploads/9dc45346-94df-421d-b795-78ec62f816e5/image/6c1fd1a0-3d43-4796-b6fc-e727926517b5-uresults.jpg — Figure 2: **Structural model**

For checking of the mediating role of burnout as well as work engagement, we performed the bootstrapping test with a 95% confidence interval (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). Table 5 indicates that burnout (β= -.28, p< .01, 95% CI= -.287, -.154) negatively mediates the linkage between job demands and adaptive job performance. In contrast, work engagement (β=.17, p< 0.01, 95% CI= .124, .326) positively mediates the linkage amongst the job resources and adaptive job performance. Thus, hypotheses H5 and H6 were accepted.

AMOS 24 was incorporated to perform the moderation analysis, moreover an additional variable was also created through SPSS by interaction of predictors and outcome (Zia, Bashir, Mangi, & Shamsi, 2021). Table 6 shows the result of the interaction of psychological ownership among job demands and burnout, and the results found significant (β= -.125, t= -3.01, p<0.001) and supports our hypothesis H7. Table 6 further shows that the result of the interaction effect of psychological ownership between job resources and work engagement which were found insignificant (β= .024, t= .564, p>0.05) which failed to support our hypothesis H8.

DISCUSSION

The study has investigated the effect of job characteristics (job resources and job demands) on adaptive job performance of employees via burnout and engagement. The study has also checked the role of psychological ownership as a moderator among the association of job demands and employee burnout in addition to job resources and employee engagement. Based on the results, H1 supported a way that employees experience higher burnout as job demands increase in the hotel industry. The hypothesis approves the assumptions of the JD-R theory and the results of previous studies that the degree of burnout increases with the increase in job demands (Khan, Yusoff, & Khan, 2014; Kim & Wang, 2018; Lee, Migliaccio, Lin, & Seto, 2020). In addition, the H2 supported the outcome that as much as the organisations providing job resources will improve employee work engagement. The study also confirmed that job resources encourage employee well-being (Bakker et al., 2003; Guest, 2017). The data analysis results also supported H3and H4 that confirm burnout and employees’ work engagement impact adaptive job performance in a contrasting way. The results warrant a significant negative connection between burnout and adaptive job performance, as identified in the previous studies (Asheghi & Hashemi, 2019). Contra wise, engaged employees are willing to perform adaptively, as already confirmed in the literature as well as aligned with the assumption of the JD-R theory (Bakker et al., 2014; Eldor & Harpaz, 2016; Kaltiainen & Hakanen, 2020).

The H5 and H6 also reflect the mediating role of employees’ burnout and work engagement towards job demands, resources, and adaptive job performance, respectively. Burnout is a psychological mechanism through which job demands influence adaptive job performance. Job demands from hotel employees can cause burnout, resulting in reduced adaptive job performance (Karatepe & Uludag, 2008). Alternatively, job resources will enhance employee engagement, ultimately improving adaptive job performance.

Lastly, H7 and H8 also supported the psychological ownership as a moderator to mitigates the hypothesis of job demands towards burnout and intensifies the influence of job resources towards work engagement. The study findings reveal and extend the current understanding of moderating variables (psychological ownership) over job demands and burnout along with job resources and engagement. This study fills the literature gap by explaining that when having higher ownership, they feel lower burnout and higher work engagement. The main contribution of the study is the identification of a psychological predictor known as ownership which can multiply with job demands to minimise the effect on burnout, and on the other hand, job resources maximise the impact on work engagement.

Conclusion

Based on the discussion, it can be concluded that the study aims to explore the relationship between different job factors, employees' well-being, and ill-being, and their impact on adaptive job performance within the context of the hotel industry. The study contributes to the existing knowledge by examining the role of psychological ownership, an intrinsic factor that drives individuals to put extra effort into their work. Additionally, the study measures adaptive job performance as an outcome and collects cross-lagged data to validate the relationships. The study finds that job demands have a negative impact on burnout and can cause reduced performance, while job resources have a positive motivational potential and can enhance performance. Therefore, managers must focus on providing job resources such as autonomy, feedback, and social support.

The study suggests that psychological ownership can foster work engagement, leading to improved overall performance in the hotel industry, which is facing higher burnout and low work engagement. Overall, the study provides valuable insights for managers in the hotel industry to cultivate job resources and foster psychological ownership to improve employee well-being and adaptive job performance.

Theoretical and practical implications

The study is to check the associations of different job factors, employees’ well-being, and ill-being and extend the knowledge about the role of psychological factors and, ultimately, employees’ job performance within the hotel industry context. As per the JD-R theory, the study has checked the association of job demands, job resources with adaptive job performance. The study first supplements the previous research, in addition to contributing to the knowledge, by uncovering the role of psychological ownership, which has rarely been tested empirically (Lange, Witte, & Notelaers, 2008; Xia, Yan, Zhang, & Chen, 2019). Moreover, the study prolongs the JD-R theory by including an ignored aspect of psychological ownership for work. Psychological ownership is an intrinsic factor that drives an individual to put extra effort into work along with previously well-established mechanisms of job demands and job resources to minimise burnout and maximise work engagement.

The second contribution of the study is to measure adaptive job performance as an outcome. Adaptive job performance is a sub-facet of the performance (Charbonnier-Voirin & Roussel, 2012), which is required more precisely in the hotel industry due to the addition of technologies in day-to-day practices (Luo et al., 2022). Additionally, the data has been collected two times with a gap of two months to ensure the appropriateness and validation of the relationships. Moreover, cross-lagged data is collected so that the managers have marked the adaptive job performance of the employees. Job demands have an impulsive impact on burnout that physical, psychological, and emotional needs enhance employees’ burnout and can cause reduced performance (Bakker & Vries, 2021). Whereas, job resources have an essential motivational potential (Hakanen et al., 2005) which can lead to enhanced performance. Therefore, managers must focus on cultivating job resources by providing autonomy, feedback, and social support. The study contributes by offering solution as psychological ownership to foster work engagement for improving overall performance for the hotel industry facing higher burnout and low work engagement.

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

The study also has certain limitations. The data has collected only from four- and five-star hotels, and future studies may also use all types of hotels and other hospitality businesses. The study collected data in Pakistan, future studies can collect data from different economies and perform a cross-comparison among developing and developed economies of the world. The study findings related to the JD-R theory, psychological ownership, and adaptive job performance require triangulation to confirm the results in a different context. The study suggested inspecting the other possible moderating factors, i.e., job embeddedness and psychological contract fulfilment which could contribute to job resources and employees work engagement. Future studies can use the finding of this study to empirically confirm the results from other contexts.

Moreover, a qualitative approach and a longitudinal research design may be used to identify specific industry-related job demands and resources to diminish burnout and enhance work engagement and, ultimately, performance to establish substantive relationships for the JD-R theory. Future studies can further extend the relationships by considering the other relevant variables that may affect outcomes in other industries (tourism, banking, IT, etc.). By using the current framework, future research can be suggested to perform cross-industry and cultural studies to offer supplementary empirical evidence to support the study's findings.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interests.

[1] Park, S & Park, S . 2021. How can employees adapt to change? Clarifying the AJP concepts Human Resource Development Quarterly 321:1–15.

[2] Charbonnier-Voirin, A & Roussel, P . 2012. Adaptive performance: A new scale to measure individual performance in organisations. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration 29(3):280–293.

[3] Campbell, J P, Mccloy, R A, Oppler, S H & Sager, C E . 1993. A theory of performance”. Personnel Selection in Organizations 35(70):35–70.

[4] Peng, X, Lee, S & Lu, Z . 2020. Employees’ perceived job performance, organisational identification, and pro-environmental behaviors in the hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management 90:102632.

[5] Griffin, J M, Greiner, B A, Stansfeld, S A & Marmot, M . 2007. The effect of self-reported and observed job conditions on depression and anxiety symptoms: a comparison of theoretical models. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 12(4):334.

[6] Joung, W, Hesketh, B & Neal, A . 2006. Using ‘war stories’ to train for AJP: Is it better to learn from error or success? Applied Psychology. Wiley Online Library 55(2):282–302.

[7] Neal, A F & Hesketh, B . 1999. Technology and performance . In: D Ilgen & Pulakos, D , eds. The Changing Nature of performance: Implications for Staffing, Motivation and Development. (pp. 21-55) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

[8] Pulakos, E D, Schmitt, N, Dorsey, D W, Arad, S, Borman, W C & Hedge, J W . 2002. Predicting AJP: Further tests of a model of adaptability. Human performance 15(4):299–323.

[9] Park, S & Park, S . 2019. Employee AJP and its antecedents: Review and synthesis. Human Resource Development Review 18(3):294–324.

[10] Jundt, D K, Shoss, M K & Huang, J L . 2015. Individual AJP in organisations: A review. Journal of Organizational Behavior 36(S1):S53–S71.

[11] Packirisamy, P, Meenakshy, M & Jagannathan, S . 2017. Burnout during early career: lived experiences of the knowledge workers in India. Journal of Enterprise Information Management .

[12] Leiter, M P & Maslach, C . 2005. Banishing BO: Six Strategies for Improving Your Relationship with Work. John Wiley & Sons

[13] Garcia, C D L, Abreu, L C D, Ramos, J L S, Castro, C F D D, Smiderle, F R N, Santos, J A D & Bezerra, I M P . 2019. Influence of burnout on patient safety: systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicina 55(9).

[14] Maslach, C & Leiter, M P . 2016. Understanding the burnout experience: recent research and its implications for psychiatry. World psychiatry 15(2):103–111.

[15] Heinemann, L V & Heinemann, T . 2017. BO research: Emergence and scientific investigation of a contested diagnosis. Sage Open 7(1):2158244017697154.

[16] Harter, James K., Schmidt, Frank L., Agrawal, Sangeeta, Plowman, Stephanie K. & Blue, Anthony . 2016. The powerful relationship between employee engagement and team performance. The Gallup Organization. https://www.gallup.com/services/191558/q12-meta-analysis-ninth-edition-2016.aspx

[17] Wigert, Ben . 2020. Employee burnout: The biggest myth. The Gallup Organization . https://www.gallup.com/workplace/288539/employee-burnout-biggest-myth.aspx

[18] Bakker, A B, Tims, M & Derks, D . 2012. Proactive personality and job performance: The role of job crafting and work WE. In: Human Relations. (Vol. 65, pp. 1359-1378) London, England: Sage Publications Sage UK http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0018726712453471

[19] Jain, L & Ansari, A A . 2018. Effect of perception for organisational politics on employee WE with personality traits as moderating factors. The South East Asian Journal of Management .

[20] Heyns, M & Rothmann, S . 2018. Volitional trust, autonomy satisfaction, and WE at work. Psychological Reports 121(1):112–134.

[21] Demerouti, E, Cropanzano, R, Bakker, A & Leiter, M . 2010. From thought to action: Employee work WE and job performance. Work WE: A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research 65(1):147–163.

[22] Karatepe, O M & Olugbade, O A . 2016. The mediating role of work WE in the relationship between high-performance work practices and job outcomes of employees in Nigeria. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management .

[23] Crabtree, Steve . 2013. Worldwide, 13% of Employees Are Engaged at Work. The Gallup Organization . https://news.gallup.com/poll/165269/worldwide-employees-engaged-work.aspx

[24] Bakker, A B & Demerouti, E . 2017. JDs-resources theory: taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 22(3):273.

[25] Bakker, A B, Demerouti, E, Boer, E De & Schaufeli, W B . 2003. JDs and JR as predictors of absence duration and frequency. Journal of Vocational Behavior 62(2):30–31.

[26] Demerouti, E, Bakker, A B, Nachreiner, F & Schaufeli, W B . 2001. The JDs-resources model of BO. Journal of Applied Psychology 86(3):499.

[27] Schaufeli, W B & Taris, T W . 2014. A critical review of the JDs-resources model: Implications for improving work and health. Bridging Occupational, Organisational and Public Health. Springer 43–68.

[28] Airila, A, Hakanen, J J, Schaufeli, W B, Luukkonen, R, Punakallio, A & Lusa, S . 2014. Are job and personal resources associated with work ability 10 years later? The mediating role of work WE. Work & Stress 28(1):87–105.

[29] Hakanen, J J, Bakker, A B & Demerouti, E . 2005. How dentists cope with their JDs and stay engaged: The moderating role of JR. European Journal of Oral Sciences 113(6):479–487.

[30] Luthans, F & Youssef, C M . 2007. Emerging positive organisational behavior. Journal of Management 33(3):321–349.

[31] Bakker, A B, Demerouti, E & Sanz-Vergel, A I . 2014. Burnout and work engagement: The JD-R approach. Annual review of organisational psychology and organisational behavior 1:389–411.

[32] Rapti, A, Rayton, B A & Yalabik, Z Y . 2017. Employee PO and work WE: a two-study approach. In: Academy of Management Proceedings. (Vol. 2017, pp. 13662) Academy of Management Briarcliff Manor

[33] Wang, L, Law, K S, Zhang, M J, Li, Y N & Liang, Y . 2019. It’s mine! PO of one’s job explains positive and negative workplace outcomes of job WE. Journal of Applied Psychology, American Psychological Association 104(2):229.

[34] Degbey, W Y, Rodgers, P, Kromah, M D & Weber, Y . 2021. The impact of psychological ownership on employee retention in mergers and acquisitions. Human Resource Management Review 31(3):100745.

[35] Peck, J & Shu, S B . 2018. Psychological ownership and consumer behavior. Springer

[36] Dawkins, S, Tian, A W, Newman, A & Martin, A . 2017. PO: A review and research agenda. Journal of Organizational Behavior 38(2):163–183.

[37] Grover, S L, Teo, S T, Pick, D, Roche, M & Newton, C J . 2018. Psychological capital as a personal resource in the JD-R model. Personnel Review .

[38] Shoss, M K, Witt, L A & Vera, D . 2012. When does AJP lead to higher task performance. Journal of organisational behavior 33:910–924.

[39] Zhou, Y, Yang, Y, Shi, T, Song, Y, Zhou, Y, Zhang, Z & Tang, Y . 2020. Prevalence and demographic correlates of poor sleep quality among frontline health professionals in Liaoning Province, China during the COVID-19 outbreak. Frontiers in Psychiatry 11:520.

[40] Bakker, A B, Demerouti, E & Schaufeli, W B . 2005. The crossover of BO and work WE among working couples. In: Human Relations. (Vol. 58, pp. 661-689) London, England: Sage Publications Sage UK https://doi.org/10.1177 /0018726705055967

[41] De Jonge, J & Dormann, C . 2006. Stressors, resources, and strain at work: a longitudinal test of the triple-match principle. Journal of Applied Psychology 91(6):1359.

[42] Tremblay, M A & Messervey, D . 2011. The JDs-Resources model: Further evidence for the buffering effect of personal resources. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology 37(2):10–19.

[43] Diestel, S & Schmidt, K.-H . 2009. Mediator and moderator effects of demands on self-control in the relationship between work load and indicators of job strain. Work & Stress 23(1):60–79.

[44] Yoo, J & Arnold, T J . 2016. Frontline employee customer-oriented attitude in the presence of JDs and resources: The influence upon deep and surface acting”. Journal of Service Research, SAGE Publications Sage CA 19(1):102–117.

[45] Demerouti, E, Veldhuis, W, Coombes, C & Hunter, R . 2019. BO among pilots: psychosocial factors related to happiness and performance at simulator training. Ergonomics 62(2):233–245.

[46] Demerouti, E & Bakker, A B . 2011. The JDs-resources model: Challenges for future research. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology 37(2):1–09.

[47] Lesener, T, Gusy, B & Wolter, C . 2019. The JDs-resources model: A meta-analytic review of longitudinal studies. Work & Stress 33(1):76–103.

[48] Saks, A M . 2006. Antecedents and consequences of employee WE. Journal of Managerial Psychology .

[49] Bakker, A B & Demerouti, E . 2007. The JDs-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology .

[50] Kwon, K & Kim, T . 2020. An integrative literature review of employee engagement and innovative behavior: Revisiting the JD-R model. Human Resource Management Review 30(2):100704.

[51] Karatepe, O M, Yavas, U, Babakus, E & Deitz, G D . 2018. The effects of organisational and personal resources on stress, engagement, and job outcomes. International Journal of Hospitality Management 74:147–161.

[52] Cole, M S, Walter, F, Bedeian, A G & Boyle, E H . 2012. Job burnout and employee engagement: A meta-analytic examination of construct proliferation. Journal of management 38(5):1550–1581.

[53] Shirom, A . 2011. Vigor as a positive affect at work: Conceptualising vigor, its relations with related constructs, and its antecedents and consequences. Review of General Psychology 15(1):50–64.

[54] Halbesleben, J R & Buckley, M R . 2004. BO in organizational life. Journal of Management 30(6):859–879.

[55] Devereux, J J & Buckle, P W . 2000. Adverse work stress reactions-a review of the potential influence on Work Related Musculoskeletal Disorders (WMSDS) In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. (Vol. 44, pp. 5-457) Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications Sage CA https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120004403056

[56] Maslach, C & Leiter, M P . 2005. Reversing burnout. Standford Social Innovation Review 34(4):43–49.

[57] Bentzen, M, Lemyre, N & Kenttä, G . 2017. A comparison of high-performance football coaches experiencing high-versus low-BO symptoms across a season of play: Quality of motivation and recovery matters. International Sport Coaching Journal, Human Kinetics, Inc 4(2):133–146.

[58] Demerouti, E, Bakker, A B & Leiter, M . 2014. BO and job performance: The moderating role of selection, optimisation, and compensation strategies. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 19(1):96.

[59] Parker, P A & Kulik, J A . 1995. BO, self-and supervisor-rated job performance, and absenteeism among nurses. Journal of Behavioral Medicine 18(6):581–599.

[60] Taris, T W . 2006. Is there a relationship between BO and objective performance? A critical review of 16 studies. Work & Stress 20(4):316–334.

[61] Kahn, W A . 1990. Psychological conditions of personal WE and disWE at work. Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Briarcliff Manor 10510(4):692–724.

[62] Schaufeli, W B, Bakker, A B & Salanova, M . 2006. The measurement of work WE with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement 66(4):701–716.

[63] Sandhya, S & Sulphey, M M . 2019. An assessment of contribution of employee WE, psychological contract and psychological empowerment towards turnover intentions of IT employees. International Journal of Environment, Workplace and Employment 5(1):22–31.

[64] Schaufeli, W B & Bakker, A B . 2004. Utrecht work WE scale: Preliminary manual version 1.1. Occupational Health Psychology Unit Utrecht University, pp. 1–60

[65] Christian, M S, Garza, A S & Slaughter, J E . 2011. Work WE: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology 64(1):89–136.

[66] Grobelna, A . 2019. Effects of individual and job characteristics on hotel contact employees’ work WE and their performance outcomes: A case study from Poland. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management .

[67] Kim, S K & Park, M . 2017. Effectiveness of person-centered care on people with dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Interventions in Aging 12:381.

[68] Breevaart, K, Bakker, A B & Demerouti, E . 2014. Daily self-management and employee work WE. Journal of Vocational Behavior 84(1):31–38.

[69] Karatepe, O M . 2014. Hope, work WE, and organizationally valued performance outcomes: an empirical study in the hotel industry. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management 23(6):678–698.

[70] Karatepe, O M . 2013. High-performance work practices and hotel employee performance: The mediation of work WE. International Journal of Hospitality Management 32:132–140.

[71] Rich, B L, Lepine, J A & Crawford, E R . 2010. Job WE: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Briarcliff Manor, NY 53(3):617–635.

[72] Van Wingerden, J, Derks, D & Bakker, A B . 2017. The impact of personal resources and job crafting interventions on work engagement and performance. Human Resource Management 56(1):51–67.

[73] Lichtenthaler, P W & Fischbach, A . 2019. A meta-analysis on promotion-and prevention-focused job crafting. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 28(1):30–50.

[74] van den Heuvel, M, Demerouti, E, Bakker, A B & Schaufeli, W B . 2010. Personal resources and work WE in the face of change. Wiley Blackwell .

[75] Pierce, J L, Kostova, T & Dirks, K T . 2001. Academy of Management Review, Academy of Management Briarcliff Manor. NY 10510(2):298–310.

[76] Tian, K & Belk, R W . 2005. Extended self and possessions in the workplace”. Journal of Consumer Research 32(2):297–310.

[77] Brown, G, Pierce, J L & Crossley, C . 2014. Toward an understanding of the development of ownership feelings. Journal of Organizational Behavior 35(3):318–338.

[78] Le Blanc, , Hox, P M, Schaufeli, J J, Taris, W B, Peeters, T W & M C . 2007. Take care! The evaluation of a team-based BO intervention program for oncology care providers. Journal of Applied Psychology 92(1):213.

[79] Jussila, I, Tarkiainen, A, Sarstedt, M & Hair, J F . 2015. Individual PO: Concepts, evidence, and implications for research in marketing. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 23(2):121–139.

[80] Van Dyne, L & Pierce, J L . 2004. Psychological ownership and feelings of possession: Three field studies predicting employee attitudes and organisational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organisational Psychology and Behavior 25(4):439–459.

[81] Karasek, R, Brisson, C, Kawakami, N, Houtman, I, Bongers, P & Amick, B . 1998. The Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ): an instrument for internationally comparative assessments of psychosocial job characteristics. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 3(4):322.

[82] Hackman, J & Oldman, G . 1980. Work Redesign. (adapted from pp. 80.81, 90 and 303-306) Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc

[83] Maslach, C, Jackson, S E & Leiter, M P . 1996. MBI: Maslach BO inventory. Sunnyvale (CA): CPP, Incorporated

[84] Prentice, R L, Pettinger, M B, Jackson, R D, Wactawski-Wende, J, Lacroix, A Z, Anderson, G L & Chlebowski, R T . 2013. Health risks and benefits from calcium and vitamin D supplementation: Women’s Health Initiative clinical trial and cohort study. Osteoporosis International 24(2):567–580.

[85] Pulakos, E D, Arad, S, Donovan, M A & Plamondon, K E . 2000. Adaptability in the workplace: development of a taxonomy of AJP. Journal of Applied Psychology 85(4):612.

[86] Bentler, P M & Bonett, D G . 1980. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin 88(3):588.

[87] Preacher, K J & Hayes, A F . 2008. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior research methods 40(3):879–891.

[88] Zia, M Q, Bashir, M A, Mangi, R A & Shamsi, A F . 2021. A person-situation perspective of informal learning: the role of supervisor feedback environment. European Journal of Training and Development .

[89] Lee, W, Migliaccio, G C, Lin, K.-Y & Seto, E Y . 2020. Workforce development: understanding task-level JDs-resources, BO, and performance in unskilled construction workers. Safety Science 123:104577.

[90] Khan, F, Yusoff, R M & Khan, A . 2014. Job demands, burnout and resources in teaching a conceptual review. World Applied Sciences Journal 30(1):20–28.

[91] Kim, S & Wang, J . 2018. The role of job demands-resources (JDR) between service workers’ emotional labor and burnout: New directions for labor policy at local government. International journal of environmental research and public health 15(12).

[92] Guest, D E . 2017. Human resource management and employee well-being: Towards a new analytic framework. Human Resource Management Journal 27(1):22–38.

[93] Asheghi, M & Hashemi, E . 2019. The Relationship of Mindfulness with BO and AJP with the Mediatory Role of Resilience Among Iranian Employees. Annals of Military and Health Sciences Research, Kowsar 17(1).

[94] Eldor, L & Harpaz, I . 2016. A process model of employee WE: The learning climate and its relationship with extra-role performance behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior 37(2):213–235.

[95] Kaltiainen, J & Hakanen, J . 2020. Fostering task and AJP through employee well-being: The role of servant leadership. In: BRQ Business Research Quarterly. (p. 2340944420981599) London, England: SAGE Publications Sage UK https://doi.org/10.1177/2340944420981599

[96] Karatepe, O M & Uludag, O . 2008. Role stress, burnout and their effects on frontline hotel employees’ job performance: evidence from Northern Cyprus. International Journal of Tourism Research 10(2):111–126.

[97] Xia, Q, Yan, S, Zhang, Y & Chen, B . 2019. The curvilinear relationship between knowledge leadership and knowledge hiding: the moderating role of psychological ownership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal .

[98] De Lange, A H, Witte, H De & Notelaers, G . 2008. Should I stay or should I go? Examining longitudinal relations among job resources and work engagement for stayers versus movers. Work & Stress 22(3):201–223.

[99] Luo, C Y, Tsai, C H K, Su, C H J, Kim, H J, Gao, J L & Chen, M H . 2022. How does hotel employees’ psychological capital promote adaptive performance? The role of change readiness. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 51:491–501.

[100] Bakker, A B & Vries, J D De . 2021. JDs-Resources theory and self-regulation: New explanations and remedies for job BO. Anxiety 34(1):1–21.