<p>Cognitive hardiness refers to an individual’s ability to implement a mental appraisal process when faced with a stressor at work by assessing their level of commitment, control, and challenge to overcome the stressor effectively. The proliferation of studies on cognitive hardiness in the workplace over the past three decades that include multiple theories and measures provides the impetus for the current systematic review. We review 116 articles published from 1992 to 2024 to examine how cognitive hardiness has been defined, theorized, and measured in the workplace. We also map the nomological network of cognitive hardiness in relation to its antecedents, outcomes, mediators, and moderators to gauge our current understanding of the construct. As a result, our review provides recommendations for future research regarding theoretical and empirical advancement. In particular, the review calls on researchers to employ alternative research methodology when investigating cognitive hardiness, further explore antecedents of cognitive hardiness, and use the identified gold standard measure. Finally, we highlight implications for researchers and practitioners at the conclusion of our review. </p>

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

Cognitive hardiness in the workplace: a systematic review and call for future research

  • Sherrica Senewiratne,
  • Sen Sendjaya,
  • Asanka Gunasekara,
  • Alexander Newman

摘要

Cognitive hardiness refers to an individual’s ability to implement a mental appraisal process when faced with a stressor at work by assessing their level of commitment, control, and challenge to overcome the stressor effectively. The proliferation of studies on cognitive hardiness in the workplace over the past three decades that include multiple theories and measures provides the impetus for the current systematic review. We review 116 articles published from 1992 to 2024 to examine how cognitive hardiness has been defined, theorized, and measured in the workplace. We also map the nomological network of cognitive hardiness in relation to its antecedents, outcomes, mediators, and moderators to gauge our current understanding of the construct. As a result, our review provides recommendations for future research regarding theoretical and empirical advancement. In particular, the review calls on researchers to employ alternative research methodology when investigating cognitive hardiness, further explore antecedents of cognitive hardiness, and use the identified gold standard measure. Finally, we highlight implications for researchers and practitioners at the conclusion of our review.