A Bibliometric Analysis of Research Publications on Employee Stress, Burnout, and Resilience

INTRODUCTION

Over the past decade, employee stress, burnout, and resilience have become increasingly relevant topics in organizational research. According to the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) from the World Health Organization, “burnout is a syndrome resulting from unmanaged chronic workplace stress, characterized by three dimensions: energy depletion or exhaustion, increased mental distance or cynicism towards one’s job, and reduced professional efficacy” (WHO, 2019). While stress is a typical response to daily challenges that induce changes in the mind and body, it directly contributes to psychological and physiological disorders, adversely affecting mental and physical health and diminishing quality of life (APA). Stress-induced burnout is prevalent worldwide, and the different contributing factors include the workplace environment to which the employees are exposed (Marine et al., 2025). However, the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated these challenges, as remote work arrangements and increased job demands have contributed to higher emotional exhaustion and professional job stress among workers (Costin et al., 2023). As organizations grapple with the pandemic's long-term implications, understanding the research landscape in this domain is crucial for crafting effective strategies to support employee well-being and organizational productivity (Gabriel and Aguinis, 2021).

Psychologists describe resilience as the ability to effectively respond to adversity, trauma, tragedy, threats, or substantial stressors, including familial and relational issues, severe health concerns, or occupational and economic stressors (APA, 2020). Resilience fundamentally involves confronting obstacles, developing effective coping mechanisms, and maintaining an optimistic perspective in the face of adversity (Meesters, 2014). The organizational behavior literature has well-documented the relationship between psychological stress, resilience, and burnout. Traumatic stress profoundly influences employee burnout, with the correlation varying according to individual resilience (Jeong and Shin, 2023). However, resilience can serve as a beneficial personality trait for mitigating or alleviating work-related stress and combating employee burnout (Hao et al., 2015). Studies have consistently found that high job demands, lack of supervisor support, and other psychosocial risk factors can contribute to elevated levels of work-related stress, which in turn increases the risk of burnout among employees (Fattori et al., 2022). Burnout, characterized by emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment, has been linked to various adverse outcomes, including decreased productivity, absenteeism, and poor physical and mental health (Gabriel and Aguinis, 2021). The Job Demands-Resources model has emerged as a prominent theoretical framework for understanding the interplay between job characteristics, employee well-being, and organizational performance. This model posits that job demands, such as high workload and emotional demands, can deplete employee resources, leading to burnout. In contrast, job resources (e.g., supervisor support and autonomy) can buffer the detrimental effects of job demands, fostering employee engagement and resilience (Nahrgang et al., 2010).

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, the shift to remote work and the increased demands placed on employees have exacerbated the risk of burnout. Researchers have highlighted the need for organizations to implement stress management interventions, promote social support, and empower employees to craft their work to mitigate the negative consequences of pandemic-related stress (Dewey et al., 2020; Gabriel and Aguinis, 2021). Recognizing the detrimental impact of burnout, researchers have also explored the role of resilience in mitigating its effects. Studies have shown that employees with higher levels of resilience are better equipped to cope with workplace stressors and maintain their well-being (Siregar and Sari, 2021). Furthermore, resilience moderates the relationship between job stress and burnout, acting as a buffer against the negative consequences of work stress. However, the interrelationships and impacts of publications, authors, institutions, and countries in the specific research area of employee stress, burnout, and resilience in the modern workplace have not been explored much. Hence, this bibliometric analysis examines the current state of research on employee stress, burnout, and resilience by exploring key trends, influential studies, and emerging themes.

Although there is an increasing body of research on worker stress, burnout and resilience, there remains a notable gap in bibliometric reviews of these three concepts as a system of investigation within the field of the organizational sciences. Existing bibliometric reviews have focused on burnout in specific professions (e.g., emergency nursing: Karadag Arli, 2025; compassion fatigue in healthcare employees: Yi et al., 2022; or resilience among particular professions: Yang et al., 2024), but have not provided an intellectual mapping of the evolution, collaboration, citation dynamics, and clustering of the stress-burnout-resilience triad within the broader management and organizational behavior literature. Additionally, no bibliometric review has examined the role of the COVID-19 pandemic as a structural break in the attention and productivity landscape for this triad. This research fills the aforementioned gaps by delivering a holistic, 15-year (2010-2024) bibliometric mapping of the domain using two bibliometric software (VOSviewer and Biblioshiny) and hence, delivers an integrated intellectual map of the domain to guide future research and practical managerial interventions.

METHODOLOGY

This study collected data for the bibliometric analysis from the Scopus database, a comprehensive and widely used source of scientific literature. Scopus provides the largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature with more than 90 million records and consistently greater coverage of social science, management and organisational behavior journals than WoS, as shown by Mongeon and Paul-Hus (2016, Scientometrics) who reported Scopus has about 12,813 journals and WoS 11,359, with better coverage in the social sciences. Keywords for search queries were constructed, such as "employee stress," "burnout," and "resilience." The number of journal articles published between 2010 and 2024 was utilized to achieve the most effective search results, as this research is the most recent and pertinent to the field of study. The electronic search was conducted on February 24, 2025. Furthermore, a range of bibliometric techniques was employed to analyze the retrieved data, including the following:

• Citation analysis, determining the field's most influential articles, authors, and journals.
• Co-citation analysis illustrating the intellectual structure and thematic relationships within the research domain.
• Keyword co-occurrence analysis: to discover emerging topics and research trends.

Data for this review were extracted from the Scopus database through a Boolean search string. The full search string used was: TITLE-ABS-KEY ("employee stress" OR "work stress" OR "occupational stress") AND ("burnout" OR "emotional exhaustion" OR "job burnout") AND ("resilience" OR "psychological resilience" OR "workplace resilience"). We restricted the search to peer-reviewed and review articles in English published from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2024. Conference papers, book chapters, editorials, letters and non-English articles were excluded to ensure homogeneity and consistency of the data. The online search was performed on February 24, 2025. This returned 3,891 records. Yearly filters were applied, and 173 records were excluded (outside the 2010-2024 period). After removing duplicates (n= 8), 3,710 records were included in the final bibliometric analysis. Our selection process is outlined in the PRISMA flowchart Figure 1.

Click to enlarge

The free software tool VOS Viewer (a standard tool for bibliometric visualizations and network analysis) was used for the analysis. The data were downloaded as a plain-text (.txt) file from Scopus and analyzed using RStudio (version 2024.12.0) and the Biblioshiny software.Biblioshiny (an R Shiny interface of the Bibliometrix package, version 4.x) was used to perform citation analysis to determine the most cited documents, authors, journals, and countries. The citation analysis calculated the total number of citations, citations per document, and citations per document (normalized). Co-citation analysis was conducted with VOSviewer (version 1.6.20) by creating a co-citation matrix of the references cited. The network was filtered to include items with at least 10 co-citations, and the clusters were mapped using the VOS mapping technique, with nodes appearing close to each other sharing intellectual roots and related subject matter. This process adheres to the guidelines set out by Van Eck and Waltman (2010). In VOSviewer, co-occurrence analysis of keywords was performed using keywords defined by the authors, with a minimum co-occurrence of 5. The resulting network maps show dominant, emerging, and conceptual connections between research themes. We also used the thematic map feature of Biblioshiny to categorize the keyword clusters into four strategic themes: motor themes (high centrality, high density), basic themes (high centrality, low density), niche themes (low centrality, high density), and emerging/declining themes (low centrality, low density), as per Cobo et al. (2011).

RESULTS

Table 1 presents a bibliometric analysis of 3,710 publications from 2010 to 2024, encompassing 1,611 sources and highlighting the diverse topics covered. The field of research is expanding in size, as indicated by the dataset (5,577 Keywords), with an annual growth rate of 30.01%. Much of the work is relatively recent, with an average document age of 4.16 years. Furthermore, the average of 19.56 citations per document demonstrates the impact and relevance of this research. Unsurprisingly, the data reiterate a collaborative environment, where, with 470 single-authored documents and 13,140 authors collectively contributing, an average of 4.35 co-authors per publication is observed, with as many as 14.58% of publications written by international authors. This extensive referencing (145,380 total references) contributes to the high level of engagement with previous literature, indicating a vibrant scholarly community at work.

This indicates that the annual growth rate of 30.01% is significant in terms of theory. It implies that the stress-burnout-resilience construct has evolved from a fringe occupational health issue to a core issue in organizational science. The growth is in line with global theoretical shifts: the growing acceptance of positive organizational behavior theories (Luthans, 2002), the institutionalization of the Conservation of Resources theory (Hobfoll, 1989) as a cornerstone theory, and the growing recognition of well-being as a strategic human resource management construct. The average co-authorship (4.35 per document) also suggests that the complexity of these constructs requires cross-disciplinary analysis - a factor that has implications for the composition of research teams and university departments that pursue research in this area.

Since 2010, the publication count on employee stress, burnout, and resilience has been upward, with 2012 being an exception. The total number of citations increased tremendously in 2020, reaching a maximum of 13,164, and then, interestingly, decreased to 890 citations in 2024, which was the lowest observed Table 2.

The most important channels for disseminating research in the field of employee stress, burnout, and resilience are the most influential scientific journals, of which the 15 top-ranked by publication frequency are presented in Figure 2. The leading journal is the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, with 105 publications, followed by PLoS ONE and Frontiers in Psychology, each contributing 68 and 63 citations, respectively. The journal with the lowest frequency of publications among the top 15 is BMC Nursing (17). The increasing influence of these 15 journals is also apparent in this area of study.

Click to enlarge

This shows an important clue about the intellectual positioning of this research field: the presence of public health journals and the generalist open-access journals (IJERPH, PLoS ONE, Frontiers in Psychology) ahead of more traditional management or organizational behavior journals indicates that the stress-burnout-resilience research is firmly rooted in the health sciences, rather than business research. This is significant for the trickle-down of theoretical findings from this domain into the practice of management - the theories are more likely to come from health science than from management research. This also accounts for the citation volatility (Table 2) as health science literature citation cycles are more volatile than those in management literature (Larivière et al., 2006).

The top 15 authors contributing to employee stress, burnout, and resilience are shown in Table 3. Liu Y and Wang Y lead the list with 20 articles each, with Wang Y having more citations (482) than Liu Y (272). Interestingly, the author, Shanafelt TD, has extensive records of citations, with 1,663 citations and 16 publications. This indicates that these three authors are well-established in their respective research communities.

A key takeaway from Table 3 is that being prolific does not necessarily translate into being highly cited. Shanafelt TD's citation-per-article ratio (104) far exceeds that of Liu Y (13.6) and Wang Y (24.1), exemplifying the Matthew Effect in scientific research - where pioneering articles with theoretical contributions receive disproportionately more attention (Merton, 1968). From an organizational research standpoint, Shanafelt's research, primarily on physician well-being and burnout, has put forward generalizable theoretical propositions that go beyond the health care sector, in part explaining its interdisciplinary appeal. This highlights the value of theoretical over empirical research in generating long-term scholarly impact.

The top 15-ranked countries, based on total citations and average citations per article, are presented in Figure 3. The United States remains at the top of the list, with 35,908 citations across 1,458 publications, averaging 24.63 citations per article. It is followed by the United Kingdom, with 7,752 citations from 361 publications, averaging 21.47 citations per article. Australia, with 276 citations; Canada, 242; and China, 231, are also significant players in global research. Israel also notably registers the highest average citations per article, at 64.70.

Click to enlarge

The knowledge structure map in Figure 3 shows the geographical distribution of knowledge production in this field and has important implications for the dissemination of research-based workplace policies globally. The prominence of Anglophone countries (USA, UK, Australia, Canada) in terms of both output and impact is consistent with their pivotal role in historical research communities in organisational psychology and occupational health. The relatively high ratio of citations per article in Israel (64.70) is suggestive of the pattern of small, specialized research communities that publish less but with higher impact - a quality rather than volume approach to research. In contrast, China's high publication volume (that surpasses many Western economies) and relatively low citation impact reveal a phase of research development in which publication growth precedes integration into the broader citation network - as is common in emerging research economies (Leydesdorff and Wagner, 2009).

The most frequently used author keywords in research publications indicate the main themes and topics that interest the academic community and the field's conceptual structure Figure 4. "Burnout" was the most frequently used keyword, with 3,148 occurrences, followed by "Resilience" at 1,227 times. Notably, the third-most-frequently occurring keyword was "COVID-19" (436 occurrences). The distribution of keywords indicates current research trends and priorities. It highlights a common focus of research in modern workplaces, enabling inference about existing methodologies and topics of interest in the scholarly world.

Click to enlarge

The 2.57:1 ratio of 'Burnout' to 'Resilience' is theoretically important: it confirms that burnout remains the central problematic construct in the field, while resilience - although fast-growing - is still conceived primarily as a defensive or moderating factor rather than as a proactive strategic competence of organizations. The third most common keyword, 'COVID-19', is a structural disruption of the field's thematic architecture, effectively shifting the field's focus from workplace stress to pandemic-induced organizational trauma. The co-occurrence of this keyword suggests the field is in transition: the post-pandemic literature is increasingly embracing themes of organizational resilience, psychological safety, and remote work - themes that should be carefully theorized in future research in terms of existing theorizations such as JD-R, Conservation of Resources, and Person-Environment Fit theories.

The institutions most relevant, as indicated by their publishing output, are illustrated in Figure 5. Of these, the most prolific is the University of California, with 108 articles, for its significant contributions to cumulative knowledge in various fields of inquiry. Among the top 15 most prolific institutions, six are from universities in the United States, and five are from Canada, which suggests that this group's center of gravity lies in research, followed by Australia, Portugal, and the United Kingdom.

Click to enlarge

The most globally cited documents are described in Table 4. The author, Hobfoll, published a document on the conservation of resources in the organizational context: the reality of resources and their consequences in the journal Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior (2018), which has 3,079 citations, followed by the authors Crawford et al., who published in the Journal of Applied Psychology (2010) with 2,040 citations.

The findings offer a glimpse into the field's theoretical underpinnings. The topmost-cited papers (Hobfoll et al., 2018; Crawford et al., 2010) are not accidental - these papers offer theoretical frameworks (Conservation of Resources Theory and JD-R Model, respectively) that are central to the field. This reveals that the field is not purely descriptive but rather theoretically grounded, and that it is anchored by theoretical reviews and meta-analyses. The fact that COVID-19 papers (Hu et al., 2020; Giorgi et al., 2020; Pollock et al., 2020) have amassed a lot of citations within 4-5 years, highlighting the acceleration of knowledge creation and the pace of citation under crisis circumstances - an issue that intersects with the field of organizational preparedness and resilience.

Figure 6 shows that the United States is a leading collaborator and top partner in the most significant number of partnerships with Canada (42) and the United Kingdom (32). The United Kingdom has also been shown to have a high number of collaborations (30) with Australia, as do countries such as Ireland (14), Spain (13), and Canada (12). The data indicate that strong international research collaboration networks among the USA, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada play a crucial role in this network.

Click to enlarge

This illustrates the field's collaboration structure and shows a core-periphery structure characteristic of established scientific fields (Wagner and Leydesdorff, 2005). The US-UK-Canada-Australia quadrilateral represents the "core" - with the greatest number of publications and the strongest bilateral collaboration ties. It is striking that the major Asian research producers (notably China, despite being one of the largest contributors to publications) are absent from the core, indicating that Asian research operates within more "closed" national or regional citation systems. This is significant because it indicates a strategic opportunity for global research collaborations between Western and Asian research institutions to address inequalities in citations and collaborations, thereby yielding new insights into comparative cultural perspectives on workplace stress, burnout and resilience.

DISCUSSION

Over the past few decades, employee stress, burnout, and resilience have become increasingly prominent in organizational and psychological studies. This bibliometric analysis offers an integrative overview of the literature on these topics, identifying prevailing trends, key publications, and potential directions for future research. Further, the bibliometric analysis of research on employee stress, burnout, and resilience from 2010 to 2024 has provided valuable insights into the current state of the field. Through this study, the authors highlight the growing research on employee health in modern workplaces and the various approaches researchers have adopted to explore the complexities of stress and resilience within these environments, as noted by the research community (Rolin et al., 2022; Leiter and Maslach, 2016). The findings also show that this study area has received significant attention in recent years, particularly with the COVID-19 pandemic, which has added to the issues organizations and employees face (Jacks, 2021; Kniffin et al., 2020).

Publication trends

The research landscape is dominated by studies examining the interaction of job demands, job resources, and employee well-being, with a particular focus on resilience as a moderating factor in managing the impact of stress and burnout. The sustained annual growth rate of 30.01%, representing 3,710 articles, is not just quantitative but also reflects increasing theoretical sophistication in the domain, with researchers increasingly drawing on triangulations of organizational psychology, occupational health, and positive organizational behavior. This echoes the transformation of the JD-R model from a descriptive to a prescriptive model for interventions (Demerouti et al., 2001; Kinnunen et al., 2011). A recent bibliometric analysis of emergency nurse burnout shows that workload, stress, yield, and resilience are key focus areas across different professional domains (Karadag Arli, 2025), confirming the validity of our results.

Citation Trends

The citation patterns from 2010 to 2024 demonstrate non-random volatility. The 2020 citation spike (13,164 citations) coincides with a spike in publications (409 articles) triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic, suggesting that urgency and crisis accelerate the normally incremental process of citation accumulation. The subsequent dip in citation-per-article ratios for articles published in 2022-2024 is consistent with the citation lag (Guns and Rousseau, 2009; Hirsch, 2007), which holds that recently published articles need time to be found, read, and cited. Older articles (2010-2016) have higher citation persistence because they have been available for citation for longer and, often, contain theoretical contributions. The insights from this analysis have practical implications for researchers in this field: the performance of publications should not be assessed too early, and institutional evaluations based on citation data over short time frames may underestimate recent research (Frandsen and Nicolaisen, 2017).

Scientific Journals’ Ranking

The cluster around a select few high-impact, mostly open-access journals (IJERPH, PLoS ONE, Frontiers in Psychology) results from two parallel trends: the democratization of knowledge through open-access publishing and the Matthew Effect, in which successful journals attract more submissions. In a bibliometric sense, this concentration is a sign of a maturing field and a limiting factor for interdisciplinary measurement, with researchers more likely to publish in journals within their networks than across disciplinary dimensions (Charemza et al., 2024).

Author productivity and citations

The author productivity analysis confirms a longstanding rule in scientometrics: scientific impact and author productivity are not correlated. Shanafelt TD's dominance in citations (1,663) from a smaller number of articles (16), in contrast with the highly productive but less-cited Chinese authors, highlights the role of theoretical anchoring, journal choice, and interdisciplinary influence in building career-long influence (Pluskiewicz et al., 2018). Common traits of highly cited authors in this field include publication in high-impact journals, interdisciplinary research, and/or theoretically grounded, high-attention studies, which aspiring scholars should aim for.

Countrywide citation metrics and research output

The geographic skew in citation impact towards Anglophone countries is a function of institutionalized advantages, funding, English-language dominance, and international collaboration infrastructure rather than intrinsic intellectual capacity. New research economies (India, Brazil, and increasingly China) are showing significant growth, but their citation impact is limited by the high costs of producing open-access publications (Kwon, 2022; Smith et al., 2021) and their marginalization from dominant citation networks (Li et al., 2008; Abramo et al., 2021).

Keywords and citation impact

The keyword co-occurrence analysis shows how the field is organized around a theoretical axis (burnout-resilience-COVID-19) as well as methodological pluralism (cross-sectional surveys, longitudinal studies, systematic reviews). The prominence of COVID-19 as a keyword is not only historical but also conceptual, as it shifts the field's focus to crisis resilience, distributed work, and organizational adaptation as topics of interest in the stress-burnout field (Chiang et al., 2023).

Affiliations of publications

The institutional concentration in the top affiliations list (the University of California and other research-intensive universities) reflects the concentration of resources in large research organizations. But the inclusion of Portuguese and Australian universities alongside their counterparts in the US and Canada suggests that the field is expanding globally, with significant contributions from mid-sized research economies supported by strong European and Asia-Pacific research partnerships (Borissov, 2024).

Citations of leading publications

The analysis of the most-cited research papers provides valuable insights into the impact and diffusion of research in the scientific literature. The most-cited papers, such as the 3,079-citation (Hobfoll et al., 2018; 2040; Crawford et al., 2010) validate that the field relies on a handful of theoretical works. The quick accrual of citations for COVID-19 articles shows that crises act as "citation magnets" in the research literature (Huang, 2024). The inclusion of open-access articles among the top-cited publications also confirms the role of accessibility as a key factor in this research field (Zhang et al., 2022).

International collaborations

The country-specific collaboration patterns provide insights into international relationships between authors and institutions and their collaborative efforts in scientific research. The observed global collaboration trends demonstrate extensive networking among nations, indicating that strong global collaboration positively affects research visibility (Tang et al., 2024). The collaborators include countries with strong research infrastructures and substantial financial capacities, such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, and China. This may fill resource gaps and foster intellectual diversity, leading to better scientific output. Contrary to the citations of international collaborations (Wang et al., 2024) observed that domestic citations by the authors' home countries tend to increase faster than foreign citations, which points to the importance of building a scholarly network.

Research Implications

This bibliometric study highlights key research gaps that need to be addressed. First, the under-representation of longitudinal and experimental research designs (as indicated by the co-occurrence of keywords) and the dominance of cross-sectional research suggest the field is still primarily descriptive, with limited causal inferences about the stress-burnout-resilience relationships. Longitudinal panel designs, ecological momentary assessment, and randomized controlled trials should be used to understand causal pathways. Second, the North American and European geospatial clustering of highly cited studies indicates an immediate need for comparative studies on how culture, organizational practices, and national labor policies moderate stress-burnout relations. Third, the new use of COVID-19 as an anchor offers a chance to theorize about systemic shocks as drivers of organizational resilience - a theme that bridges workplace psychology and crisis management. The next frontier of interdisciplinary research should bridge organizational behavior, public health, neuroscience, and positive psychology to offer more integrated models of workplace resilience that consider not just individual coping strategies but also organizational and systems-level resilience capacities.

Practical and Policy Implications

The research has important practical and policy implications. The steady increase in research on burnout relative to resilience (a 2.57:1 ratio in keyword occurrence) suggests that organizations are better at recognizing the issues of stress and burnout than at building resilience as a resource. This means that practitioners need to transition from reactive (detecting and treating burnout as it emerges) to proactive (designing work roles, organizational cultures and infrastructure to pre-emptively strengthen resilience). In particular, organisations should consider: (1) providing structured resilience training programs based on established models (e.g. Penn Resilience Program, Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction); (2) designing jobs in line with the JD-R model, with systematic enhancement of job resources (supportive supervision, autonomy, training) to counter high job demands; (3) establishing early warning systems for burnout using validated scales (e.g. Maslach Burnout Inventory, Copenhagen Burnout Inventory) as part of regular employee well-being surveys; and (4) developing organisational policies to protect employee boundaries in the remote/hybrid work environment - a key intervention given evidence from the COVID-19 era in which boundaries were eroded, with negative implications for burnout. At the regulatory level, governments and policymakers should consider introducing minimum psychosocial risk assessment requirements for high-demand jobs - a trend increasingly embraced by the major countries in this body of research (USA, UK, Australia) through occupational health and safety regulations.

Limitations

The present study has a few limitations. First, the use of the Scopus database only, while outlined in the methodology, may exclude some relevant research that may be indexed only in the Web of Science or other databases. Future research should explore combining multiple databases using validated merging tools as they become available. Second, bibliometric approaches do not reflect the quality or theoretical level of individual papers - high citation rates do not necessarily reflect theoretical rigour and methodological innovation. Third, the time period (2010-2024) covered in this study, while extensive, excludes pre-2010 seminal work which has shaped the field and continued to be cited backward. Bibliometric analyses should consider broadening the timeframe to include pre-2010 publications.

CONCLUSION

This bibliometric review provides a thorough overview of the literature on employee stress, burnout, and resilience from 2010 to 2024. The findings reflect unprecedented academic interest and publication growth, particularly after the COVID-19 pandemic. While employee stress and burnout research are established, studying workplace resilience is more recent and growing rapidly. Key trends include the dominance of specific high-impact journals, leading authors' productivity, citation impact, and collaborative networks among researchers. The United States, the United Kingdom, and China are leading contributors, with extensive international collaboration contributing to increased global research output. The thematic analysis of keywords highlights burnout and resilience as central research areas, with COVID-19 as a significant focus in recent years.

This bibliometric analysis builds a foundational intellectual landscape of the field of employee stress, burnout, and resilience, which has evolved from a somewhat marginal occupational health issue to a mainstream concern in organizational science. The rapid growth in research output following the COVID-19 pandemic, the growing interdisciplinary integration of the field, and the rising acknowledgment of resilience as a proactive resource for organizations all point to the field being at the cusp of a new wave of theoretical and practical development. The next step in the field is to build on this foundation by focusing on causal inquiry within a longitudinal, cross-cultural and policy-relevant intervention science framework that can convert bibliometric findings into actionable outcomes for employee well-being and organizational performance.