Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Organizations have increasingly sought to adopt resilience‐building programmes to prevent absenteeism, counterproductive work behaviour, and other stress‐related issues. However, the effectiveness of these programmes remains unclear as a comprehensive review of existing primary evidence has not been undertaken. Using 42 independent samples across 37 studies, the present meta‐analysis sought to address this limitation in the literature by summarizing the effectiveness of resilience‐building programmes implemented in organizational contexts. Results demonstrated that the overall effect of such programmes was small ( d = 0.21) and that programme effects diminish over time ( d proximal = 0.26 vs. d distal = 0.07). Alternatively, moderator analyses revealed that programmes targeting individuals thought to be at greater risk of experiencing stress and lacking core protective factors showed the opposite effect over time. Programmes employing a one‐on‐one delivery format (e.g., coaching) were most effective, followed by the classroom‐based group delivery format. Programmes using train‐the‐trainer and computer‐based delivery formats were least effective. Finally, substantially stronger effects were observed among studies employing single‐group within‐participant designs, in comparison with studies utilizing between‐participant designs. Taken together, these findings provide important theoretical and practical implications for advancing the study and use of resilience‐building in the workplace. Practitioner points Resilience‐building programmes have had a modest effect in the workplace. The effect is weaker than that associated with secondary prevention techniques, but similar to those shown for other primary prevention techniques. Across primary studies, programme effects diminished substantially from proximal (≤1 month post‐intervention) to distal time points (>1 month). However, among those at greater risk of experiencing stress or who lack protective resources, weak proximal effects became stronger when measured distally. To optimize the effectiveness of resilience‐building programmes, developers should carefully conduct needs assessments, identifying individuals at elevated risk. Methodological decisions (i.e., the use of within‐ vs. between‐participant designs) may have a substantial impact on the conclusions researchers draw regarding the effectiveness of resilience‐building programmes. When evaluating the effectiveness of resilience‐building programmes, researchers and practitioners should compare observed effects to estimates of mean effects across studies using similar evaluative designs.
Vanhove et al. (Sat,) studied this question.