Sustaining Well-Being in the Post-Crisis Era: Minimizing Conflict Through Autonomy, Resilience, and Informational Support Among SME Employees

Abstract

Enhancing employee well-being and performance has become a top priority for SMEs as a result of both economic and sociopolitical turmoil. This study investigates the effect of job autonomy on employee resilience while also evaluating how the outcomes of this study relate back to employee well-being and performance. In addition, it investigates whether sustainable leaders and providing informational support will moderate these associations in the context of the current crisis impacting Lebanese SMEs. A questionnaire was designed to collect the data. The sample comprised 204 employees representing 10 SMEs in Lebanon. PLS-SEM was used to analyse the collected data. The results of this study demonstrate that when SMEs provide employees with job autonomy, it increases employee resilience, which, in turn, positively impacts employee well-being and performance within a crisis recovery culture. Further, sustainable leadership and providing informational support to employees are important factors to strengthen the aforementioned associations. As such, this study will aid in building on the literature about resilience and sustainable management in post-conflict environments, as well as providing useful insights for SME leaders who wish to build healthy, sustainable, high-performing workforces within fragile economic systems.

1. Introduction

In Lebanon, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are essential components of the national economy as they generate employment, innovation, and social stability [1]. Lebanon has recently experienced a series of overlapping crises: a prolonged economic collapse, political instability, the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, and regional wars [2,3]. The crises created substantial pressure on organizations and upon SMEs, specifically those SMEs that typically function with limited financial and structural resources [4]. Understanding how an organization can sustain both employee performance and employee well-being under great duress and brain drain is an urgent challenge because employees in organizations face increased stress, decreased well-being, and less capacity to work [5,6].

The classification of SMEs in Lebanon is established based on one main characteristic, which is the number of employees employed. Micro enterprises employ less than 10 employees; small enterprises employ less than 50 employees; and medium enterprises employ less than 100 employees [1]. Each of these classifications has a corresponding threshold for revenue that can be assigned as part of the classification criteria [4]. However, there is no single, nationally agreed-upon, legally binding definition for SMEs within the Lebanese legislation [1,4].

Given the conditions post-crisis, employees’ ability to deal with work demands is an important factor. Employee resilience is highly needed in such situations to cope with pressure and stressful situations and is essential for work performance and well-being during uncertain conditions [7]. But in part, employees’ ability to use adaptive coping is reliant on the control and discretion they have over their work, or in other words, job autonomy [8]. In the case of SMEs, formal resources and financial incentives may be limited; therefore, autonomy is important because it allows them to engage in a variety of fringe activities, set priorities, and manage competing responsibilities [9].

While the salience of autonomy and resilience is unmistakable, the particularities of the post-crisis Lebanese environment approach obstacles that past literature has less reliably addressed. Downsizing, depletion of resources, brain drain, and a lack of organizational continuity all add to the complexity of the employee work environment, but there are very few studies that empirically examine how job autonomy may assist employees in coping with such contexts. Most studies pertaining to job autonomy and resilience have emerged from research conducted in stable economies, and thus, little is known about how this operating system may be configured in SMEs beset by ongoing, chronic instability. Similarly, coping mechanisms have often been assessed and studied in health-related environments, and as a result, there is a scarcity concerning research conducted on the positionality that coping occupies in supporting both employee performance and well-being within emerging-market workplaces [10,11,12].

Organizational elements, such as sustainable leadership and support systems, also influence an employee’s coping capabilities and outcomes in addition to individual capabilities [13]. Sustainable leadership that is likely to positively promote an ethical responsibility to employees, long-term employee development, and resilience is capable of creating work environments that allow employees to be reinforced in their ability to use their autonomy successfully and their capacity to cope adaptively [14,15]. Informational support, which refers to providing support, feedback, and knowledge or experience that is timely, is very important in SMEs where organizational capacities and resources are quite limited [16]. In Lebanon, where organizations do not have the funding to make significant competitive rewards or infrastructure investments, some sort of informational support can have a positive effect on employees, thus protecting their well-being in the face of challenges that are surrounded by vagueness.

While this topic is inherently important, research that has directly addressed job autonomy, resilience, sustainable leadership, and informational support in post-crisis or resource-constrained SMEs is scarce. To our knowledge, there are no empirical studies examining these associations with respect to how they impact employee performance and employee well-being in unstable, resource-constrained environments and in disrupted organizations. Practically, SME leaders in Lebanon and other regions in emerging markets need research-based evidence on how to build employee resilience and maintain employee performance without additional monetary resources.

To address these gaps, the present research investigates the role of job autonomy in employee coping resources that influence employee performance and well-being, including the moderating roles of sustainable leadership and informational support. The study seeks to answer the following research questions:

• What is the influence of job autonomy on employee resilience for employees in Lebanese SMEs in the post-crisis context?
• What is the influence of employee resilience on employee performance and well-being?
• Does sustainable leadership moderate the association between job autonomy and employee resilience?
• Does informational support moderate the association between employee resilience and employee outcomes, specifically performance and well-being?

Therefore, through these questions, the study contributes theoretically and practically by examining the ways in which small- and medium-sized enterprises can foster employee well-being and performance during a post-crisis context through strategic organizational practices that support employee autonomy and coping, sustainable leadership, and informational support.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Job Autonomy and Employee Resilience

Job autonomy, defined as the level of independence employees can exercise in scheduling, structuring, and executing their work-related responsibilities, is recognized as an important job resource [17]. In the Conservation of Resources (COR) perspective of autonomy, job autonomy is a valued resource that enables employees to avoid resource loss and develop personal adaptive capacities under pressure [18,19]. According to the Self-Determination Theory (SDT), autonomy is a basic psychological need, and satisfaction of the basic psychological need for autonomy fosters intrinsic motivation and facilitates adaptive capacities, both of which are important for resilient adaptation [20,21]. Moreover, evidence reliably shows that job autonomy has a direct link to workplace well-being, engagement, and positive affect. For example, Refs. [17,22] found that autonomy acted like a psychological resource and positively strengthened the role of psychological capital on performance, highlighting autonomy’s role in converting personal resources through resilience to performance.

Moreover, autonomy has also been shown to impact job crafting, which is the voluntary modification of the elements of one’s work, namely the tasks and interactions, and can be conceptually related to the behavioral aspect of the principles of resilience [23]. According to [24], it has been reported that autonomy in the workplace directly influenced state mindfulness in employees, which then supported more adaptive behaviours; other studies have found that autonomy impacts the buildup of psychological capital in positive areas, like self-efficacy and optimism, which will then provide a buffer to the amount of stress experienced by the employee [25]. This provides a clear pathway, albeit indirect, that autonomy aims to build personal and motivational resources, which then build resilience and adaptive behaviours through these personal and motivational resource outputs. Data from Lebanon provides evidence of how autonomy behaves in extreme contextual pressures. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Lebanese nurses demonstrated varied levels of resilience; those who reported possessing comparatively higher levels of control over their own work produced stronger adaptive capacities [10]. Autonomy is a salient consideration within a fragile context that contains political instability, economic crisis, lingering effects of trauma, and chronic strain. Autonomy in these contexts provides employees with space to preserve minimal psychological resources and potentially reinforces their resilience in the process. Accordingly, based on the literature, the following hypothesis is derived:

H1. 

Job autonomy enhances employee resilience.

2.2. Employee Resilience and Employee Well-Being

Resilience at work, often defined as the ability of individuals to adapt, recover, and even develop in the face of adversity, has become a focus of research as a proximal resource that may protect and foster employee well-being in contemporary workplaces [26,27]. The study was foundational because Connor and Davidson developed a useful resilience measure (CD-RISC) and also showed that resilience can be measured, varies by person, and relates to mental health outcomes. This has also developed a standard measure useful for empirical research that linked resilience with well-being indicators.

Resilience can be understood as a subset of well-being; mechanistically, it supports well-being through affective, cognitive, and behavioral processes [28]. Seminal experimental and correlational studies [29] determined that individuals high in resilience can hold onto their positive feelings and utilize adaptive coping, allowing them to recover more quickly from negative experiences, and protect their psychological resources and subjective well-being. This notion of the “positive emotion bounce-back” provides rationale for why resilient workers experience less distress and more life satisfaction within stress management.

Studies and reviews show an obvious pattern: higher individual resilience results in more work-oriented well-being and buffers the harmful effects of job demands associated with job stress [30]. For example, studies on job-based populations, examining workers who work a range of occupations, often report positive associations of resilience with job satisfaction or an inhibition of strain and burnout within the context of occupational well-being [31,32]. The connection to employee resilience also has a conceptually relevant connection to Conservation of Resources (COR) theory [18]. The COR theory assumes that individuals pursue the accumulation, retention, and protection of valued resources, including psychological resources that can be consumed and exhausted, such as energy, optimism, and coping capacity. Resilient staff members will be able to conserve and mobilize valued resources in response to workplace stressors, leading to lower strain and higher employee well-being outcomes. By mitigating the negative outcomes of depletion, such as burnout, resilience can also promote positive employee experiences of well-being, such as job satisfaction and psychological flourishing. Empirical evidence exists to support this explanation, showing that resilient employees have better levels of well-being with great work demands [33]. In fact, systematic reviews and meta-analyses of resilience training programmes, most of which are based on CBT, mindfulness, stress-management, and skills training, have found fairly consistent evidence that interventions increase resilience measures and decrease stress, burnout symptoms, and improve subjective well-being [33,34,35]. The findings imply that resilience is both a predictive and malleable quality; therefore, resilience is clearly a workable outcome of organizational well-being interventions. Based on the aforementioned, the following hypothesis is developed:

H2. 

Employee resilience enhances employee well-being.

2.3. Employee Resilience and Employee Performance

Academic research on employee resilience has become an important focus because of how it shapes workers’ abilities to effectively continue to operate in fast-paced, unpredictable work environments that frequently put them in situations that undermine their motivation [36,37]. A common theme across studies is that resilient employees have greater adaptive capacity, which equates to greater performance; hence, they perform better when faced with uncertainty and demanding situations [38,39,40,41]. Earlier studies indicated that resilience is one positive psychological resource among many that allowed individuals to sustain motivation and push through barriers and ultimately supported performance outcomes across numerous fields [7,33,42].

Resilience contributes to performance in many ways. Employees who bounce back from setbacks quickly maintain their engagement and motivation, keeping their energy for the purpose of core tasks instead of devoting their energy to coping with strain [43,44]. Furthermore, a study demonstrated that resilience impacts job satisfaction and work engagement and that both job outcomes in turn contribute to both in-role and extra-role job performance benefits [45]. In the JD-R model [46], personal resources (resilience in this case) are the lever for engagement and also function as a buffer against high demand and are especially important during crisis times. Concurrently, several studies confirm that resilience will lead to performance benefits. In addition, it has been found that resilient employees reported lower levels of stress during challenging situations and self-rated higher productivity and performance [47]. In addition, meta-analysis found resilience-building interventions may improve performance-based outcomes, though the effects were modest and context-specific [48].

The theoretical considerations also buttress the position that performance is fostered through resilience. Conservation of Resources (COR) theory suggests that individuals are motivated to conserve and accumulate resources [18]. Resilience offers protection against resource loss, while also providing the opportunity for recovery and development. With respect to JD-R, resilience is also a personal resource that can motivate engagement and sustain performance in difficult circumstances [46]. Together, the two theories suggest that resilient employees perform better than non-resilient employees because they protect critical resources better during times of difficulty, the recovery process is much quicker, and resilient employees then access their strengths to undertake high-quality, motivated work that maintains their essential resources. Accordingly, the following hypothesis is derived:

H3. 

Employee resilience enhances employee performance.

2.4. Impact of Sustainable Leadership

Job autonomy is seen as a key job resource enabling employees to adapt to their circumstances and make proactive investments [23,24,49]. Yet, the types of organizational climate, especially around quality of leadership, may determine whether autonomy can yield strong, sustainable psychological outcomes. Sustainable leadership is leadership that balances short-term performance with an organization’s long-term social, environmental, and organizational obligations. It emphasizes trust, ethical behavior, stakeholder commitment, and developing human and organizational capabilities to generate sustainability and resilience [50,51].

This is in contrast to traditional performance-oriented leadership models that focus merely on performance and compliance. Sustainable leadership merges people-centric practices with sustainability principles in an organizational culture that fosters, enables, and supports employees’ relations with broader organizational and societal issues [52]. Sustainable leadership will also enhance trust, meaning, and encouragement frameworks to help support employees in transforming autonomy into resilience [51,53].

From the standpoint of conservation of resources (COR) theory, engagement provides the primary avenue for resource acquisition, while sustainable leadership is the practice that shelters and builds resource gains [18]. When leaders invest in competence development, empower involvement in authentic decision-making, and offer psychological safety, they uphold employees’ discretionary authority, even in the presence of stressors and perceptual uncertainty. This buffer is evidenced by studies showing that employees under sustainable leadership do a better job of weathering external turbulence and maintaining well-being and adaptive coping, despite the context of autonomy being a stressor [14]. Moreover, sustainable leaders enable employees to derive more meaning from their autonomy by contextualizing their independent efforts toward shared organizational and social objectives, which potentially enhances the chances that autonomy will facilitate adaptive coping [54]. More recently, studies provide some empirical support for this integrated perspective by demonstrating that leaders’ behaviors supporting a longer-term viewpoint of support and collective purpose strengthened positive pathways from autonomy to several resilience-oriented outcomes such as engagement, well-being, conflict initiation, and proactive performance [24,55]. As per the recommendations of the authors in these studies, it is suggested that autonomy will leverage the most benefits for enhancing resilience when autonomy can be operationalized in an organizational context that is afforded by trust, opportunities for growth, and organizational sustainability. Based on the above, the following hypothesis is synthesized:

H4. 

Sustainable leadership moderates the association between job autonomy and employee resilience.

2.5. Impact of Informational Support in Post-Crisis

The ability of employees to have resilience enables them to adapt and thrive in the face of organizational challenges. However, while individual factors are involved, each outcome, including individual employee well-being and performance, will also be influenced by work environment resources available to employees [56].

Informational support, which can be defined as direction, feedback, and timely information that assists employees in interpreting the stimuli and responding appropriately, can be a powerful workplace resource [57]. Social support theory identifies informational support as an important aspect of coping support to aid employees in successfully managing stressors [58]. Conservation of resources (COR) theory goes on to explain that the ability to access that support serves to preserve psychological resources by reducing uncertainty and allowing for more successful allocation of energy to adaptive behaviors [19].

The significance of informational support is especially evident during a crisis and in post-crisis recovery. Employees directly or indirectly affected by crises face greater ambiguity, a shifting set of expectations, and changing routines and procedures [59]. Even the most resilient employees can feel significant pressure. There is empirical evidence that employees experience a range of challenges due to instability, often resulting in uncertainty, ambiguity, and feeling they have lost control of their work environment [60]. Researchers have generally identified that employees receiving informational support at times of change allow for the opportunity to reduce the feeling of uncertainty or ambiguity while allowing performance energy to be directed toward productive coping and good decision making [61,62,63]. After a crisis phase, informational support that is specific and aligned with future priorities and organizational norms provides an opportunity for employees to synthesize their learnings, orient to new norms after the disruption, and transform the elements of resilience into meaningful and sustainable well-being and performance improvements. Alongside, it has been noted that for SMEs experiencing external shocks, the provision of informational support in the form of organizational policy packets, skill resource capacity, and task firm priorities reduced work-family conflict and supported employee well-being during and following a crisis [61]. Likewise, resilience can sustain performance behaviours; however, its usefulness is most realized when employees receive and act on specific information [64]. An employee who exhibits resilience while receiving detailed, clear, and ongoing support/instruction or feedback can operate in adaptive behaviours that align with performance objectives and can also avoid ambiguity about effort and misdirected efforts. A resilient employee can continue high-quality performance with actionable information, even during organizational restructuring immediately following a crisis or in high-pressure situations [65]. To summarize, informational support acts as a contextual buffer, so that resilience can be tapped into for well-being and performance, especially as employees engage with the ambiguity and instability associated with crises and recovery. Hence, the following hypotheses are developed:

H5. 

Informational support moderates the association between employee resilience and employee well-being.

H6. 

Informational support moderates the association between employee resilience and employee performance.

Based on the aforementioned hypotheses, the theoretical framework is illustrated in Figure 1.

3. Methodology

3.1. Research Design

The current research utilized a quantitative, cross-sectional design to validate the hypothesized associations between job autonomy, employee resilience, employee performance, and employee well-being, while considering sustainable leadership and informational support as moderators. An online, structured questionnaire was utilized to collect data for this research, which contributed to minimizing variability in administration and avoiding the potential for interviewer bias. The quantitative method was selected as the approach of choice because it lends itself to empirical examination of mediation and moderation effects within organizational behavior research.

3.2. Data Sampling and Collection

The employee sample was drawn from employees in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Lebanon from various industries, including manufacturing, finance, education, consultancy, and real estate. This is relevant as SMEs are the backbone of the Lebanese economy in terms of business and employment [1]. They are also disproportionately impacted by the compounding and severe crises in the country, i.e., the financial collapse, hyperinflation, the COVID-19 pandemic, war, and the Port of Beirut explosion. The study also preserves the perspectives of those closely involved in the economy during an epoch of unprecedented crisis by collecting information from respondents in this category, detailing the resilience, challenges, and experiences of those most directly engaged with the motor of the Lebanese economy. Purposive and convenience sampling methods were used to select employees working in regular office-based jobs. A priori power analysis was conducted to determine an appropriate sample size using G*Power software (version 3.1.9.6) [66], based on the parameters mentioned in [67]. The minimum R² was set at 0.10, the effect size was set at 0.01, and the significance was set at 0.01, with an overall power of 80%. The suggested sample size was between 130 and 180 surveys. The study’s emphasis on analyzing the effect sizes used in conjunction with the sample’s adequacy gives the findings increased practical and substantive significance. The study gives an effect-size interpretation that follows established guidelines for small (f² ≈ 0.02), medium (f² ≈ 0.15), and large (f² ≈ 0.35) effect sizes. This allows for a better assessment of relationship magnitudes above and beyond statistical significance [58] and is particularly relevant to SMEs, where managerial decision-making is typically constrained by limited financial and human resources. Reporting effect size magnitudes provides results to SME managers to enable the identification of which specific organizational practices have the most influence on employee resilience, performance, and well-being, and subsequently to identify the organizational practices that should be prioritized for intervention based on having the most significant practical implications.

Additionally, a pilot study was used to enhance understanding and refinement of the instrument with 30 employees from one of the SMEs in the study; their data was not included. The complete set of final questionnaires was then sent electronically to the same 10 SMEs that were selected. Of those, 255 surveys were sent to employees in the 10 SMEs, 212 were returned for a return rate of 83.13%. After the subsequent re-coding to remove unusable and biased responses, a total of 204 usable questionnaires were included in the data analysis. The model was tested using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), given its suitability for complex models and predictive research.

Although this study is centered around a theory-driven model, Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) was chosen as the primary analytical method because it can provide both confirmation of established associations and an explanation for the variance of the latent constructs, as well as predictive relationships between latent constructs that are inherent in a complex model [67]. Furthermore, PLS-SEM performs well with multiple latent variables and indirect paths because it has lower requirements for the data distribution than other methods and has good results with moderate sample sizes that are often found in studies conducted in developing or crisis-affected economies [67].

The demographic data revealed a composition of 57% male and 43% women, and the average age of participants was 37.3 years (SD = 5.4). Age and gender were included in the study as control variables. Participation was voluntary, anonymity was promised, and no sensitive personal information was collected from participants. To control for common method bias, procedural tactics such as randomizing the order of items and assuring confidentiality were used. Collinearity checks revealed that all of the variance inflation factor (VIF) values were below 3.3, thereby confirming the absence of multicollinearity concerns [68,69].

3.3. Measurement

Job autonomy: Measured through a [70] scale that assesses three dimensions: work scheduling autonomy, decision-making autonomy, and work methods autonomy. Employee resilience: Measured through a [71] scale that assesses the employees’ capacity for positively adapting to or coping with stress and workplace challenges in a positive manner. Employee performance: Adapted from a [72] scale that focuses on task performance, goal attainment, and overall productivity. Employee well-being: Measured through a [73] scale that assesses psychological well-being, work engagement, and emotional stability. Sustainable leadership: Adapted from the scale followed by [74], which governs questions related to sustainable learning behavior, leaders’ collaboration and support, and leaders’ developmental perspectives. Informational support: Adapted from [57] for measuring the degree to which employees receive information that is helpful, timely, and relevant from coworkers and supervisors.

All items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 “strongly disagree” to 5 “strongly agree” (Appendix A). Reliability and validity of the scales were established and represented in

Table 1. Measurement Model.

Constructs	Sub-Dimensions	Indicators	Outer Loadings	Alpha	Rho A	CR	AVE
Job Autonomy	Work Scheduling	WS1	0.725	0.841	0.836	0.891	0.732
		WS2	0.931
		WS3	0.877
		WS4	0.704
	Decision Making	DM1	0.804	0.783	0.829	0.776	0.748
		DM2	0.865
		DM3	0.846
		DM4	0.942
	Work Methods	WM1	0.868	0.735	0.747	0.733	0.729
		WM2	0.762
		WM3	0.811
		WM4	0.985
Employee Resilience	-	ER1	0.825	0.806	0.834	0.852	0.787
		ER2	0.756
		ER3	0.755
		ER4	0.882
		ER5	0.816
		ER6	0.812
		ER7	0.746
		ER8	0.834
Informational Support	-	ES1	0.876	0.892	0.928	0.862	0.585
		ES 2	0.809
		ES3	0.808
		ES4	0.736
Sustainable Leadership	-	SL1	0.709	0.774	0.758	0.733	0.680
		SL2	0.882
		SL3	0.709
		SL4	0.769
Employee Performance	-	EP1	0.844	0.801	0.909	0.842	0.581
		EP2	0.887
		EP3	0.801
		EP4	0.727
		EP5	0.736
Employee Well-Being	-	WB1	0.852	0.877	0.851	0.863	0.741
		WB2	0.826
		WB3	0.877
		WB4	0.753
		WB5	0.776
		WB6	0.891
		WB7	0.711

.

4. Findings

The measurement model demonstrates adequate psychometric properties. Work schedule autonomy, decision-making autonomy, work-methods autonomy, employee resilience, employee well-being, and employee performance indicators had outer loadings higher than the acceptable cut-off of 0.70 [75], which means that the indicators can be seen as acceptable indicators of their latent constructs. Internal consistency reliability was validated based on the defined acceptable Cronbach’s alpha, Rho_A, and Composite Reliability values, which, for all model constructs, were higher than the 0.70 acceptance level [67]. Convergent validity was supported based on Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values exceeding the 0.50 threshold for all constructs [76], suggesting that each of the measured latent variables explained an adequate amount of variance in their indicators. Although some outer loadings are high (such as WS2 = 0.931 and WM4 = 0.985), no multicollinearity issues are reported, since the VIF values were all below 3.3, thereby confirming the absence of multicollinearity concerns [68,69].

In sum, the measurement model is found to be valid and appropriate to be used in further structural modelling.

The HTMT results in

Table 2. Heterotrait–Monotrait ratio (HTMT).

	JA	ER	IS	SL	EP
JA
ER	0.736
IS	0.609	0.655
SL	0.701	0.704	0.692
EP	0.688	0.805	0.556	0.583
WB	0.743	0.745	0.561	0.589	0.738

provide strong evidence of discriminant validity. The HTMTs all clearly fall below the thresholds of HTMT < 0.85, indicating that all constructs are distinct, although theoretically related [77]. Importantly, HTMT benchmarks—JA–ER (0.736), ER–EP (0.805), and JA–WB (0.743)—meet the expectations of “related but not redundant” in behavioral research [78]. This solidifies the results as evidence that the constructs measure different aspects of employees’ work experiences, and the discriminant validity of the model is well supported.

The structural equation model shows that the associations between the study constructs have strong explanatory and predictive abilities. Based on the data in

Table 3. Structural Model Assessment and Hypothesis Testing.

Effects	Relations	β	t-Statistics	Ƒ2	Decision
Direct
H1	JA → ER	0.312	5.311 ***	0.129	Supported
H2	ER → WB	0.421	6.892 ***	0.158	Supported
H3	ER → EP	0.306	5.243 ***	0.122	Supported
Interaction
H4	JA*SL → ER	0.342	1.251 *	0.117	Rejected
H5	ER*IS → EP	0.337	1.206 *	0.113	Rejected
H6	ER*IS → WB	0.321	1.193 *	0.109	Rejected
R2ER = 0.38/Q2ER = 0.22 R2EP = 0.47/Q2EP = 0.29 R2WB = 0.61/Q2WB = 0.37 SRMR: 0.027; NFI: 0.953

*** 0.001, * 0.05.

, we can conclude that the association between Job Autonomy and Resilience showed a positive and significant association (β = 0.312, t = 5.311), which supports Hypothesis 1. Therefore, employees who had higher levels of Job Autonomy were more able to adapt when faced with stressors. Employee Resilience had positive predictive power for Well-Being (β = 0.421, t = 6.892) and Performance (β = 0.306, t = 5.243), thus supporting Hypotheses 2 and 3. These findings indicate that Resilience acts as a key psychological mechanism through which Work Environment Conditions produce positive Work Outcomes. Moderation analyses revealed that Sustainable Leadership did not significantly moderate the association between Job Autonomy and Resilience (β = 0.342), thus rejecting Hypothesis 4. Also, Informational Support did not significantly increase the positive effect of Resilience on Performance (β = 0.337) and Well-Being (β = 0.321), hence rejecting hypotheses 5 and 6.

Although the t-values for the moderation paths were somewhat modest, they were reported by the model’s internal benchmarks and should be interpreted accordingly. The amount of variance explained by the model was high: R² = 0.38 for Employee Resilience, R² = 0.47 for Employee Performance, and R² = 0.61 for Well-Being. Q² values ranging from 0.22 to 0.37 indicate good predictive power. The overall fit indices for the model indicated excellent fit (SRMR = 0.027; NFI = 0.953), further confirming the strength of the structural model.

5. Discussion

Strong associations exist between job autonomy and psychological resilience, which jointly influence critical employee performance and well-being. Together, these findings serve to support existing theoretical frameworks, including Self-Determination Theory [20], Conservation of Resources Theory [19], and the social learning theories of how we adapt our behaviours and regulate our behaviours [79].

As an essential resource for developing resilience in the workforce, job autonomy is consistent with past research on how discretionary control serves as an essential personal resource in providing employees with freedom to schedule their work and make work-related decisions regarding methods of doing their work. Employees who are afforded the opportunity to exercise autonomy over their work enjoy a heightened sense of competence and psychological ownership of that work, which enables them to more effectively adapt to challenges. This is consistently supported in the literature during times of uncertainty, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic [61]. Job autonomy creates a foundation of control and participation in the workplace. The result is that employees develop coping strategies from within themselves that enhance their resilience overall. The findings of our study provide additional corroborating evidence to the current body of literature that supports the theory of autonomy as a key job resource that enhances employee capacity to resist the effects of stress and thus promote the development of employee resilience. Within the academic realm of autonomy, researchers have established that autonomy provides the basis for satisfying the need for basic psychological needs that facilitate adaptive coping behaviours and promote resilience; Ref. [20] provided a theoretical framework for autonomy satisfying basic psychological needs through the job design and self-determination perspectives. The results of this study also reconcile with the study of [80], who presented evidence that autonomy is a predictor of resilience and reduces burnout when controlling for role overload. Therefore, the findings of this research work further support the theory that autonomy is an antecedent resource to resilience for employees in the workplace.

Resilience, as it relates to the employee workforce, provides the greatest prediction for overall well-being and performance, indicating that resilience is an important mediator between job autonomy and each of employee performance and employee well-being, especially in challenging work environments, as well as in situations where there are low resources, high instability, and uncertainty. The COR Model supports this assertion in that resilience provides a mechanism through which resiliency-based employees generate their own resources, so they can continue to positively support themselves through the accumulation of resources, the regeneration of their psychological energy resources, the protection of lost resources, and the ability to leverage resources externally more effectively [19]. Thus, while resilience has a stronger correlation with employee well-being (compared to Performance), the greater correlation with well-being indicates that employees have a greater resource bank of well-being and will achieve better Performance outcomes as a result of resource accumulation. The association found between resilience and employee performance, as well as employee well-being, closely mirrors findings from reviews and longitudinal studies in which researchers have shown that, in addition to providing employees with a better chance of achieving their mental health goals, it also has an impact on employee job performance. For instance, Ref. [81] found that increasing resilience in the workplace was correlated with increases in overall employee subjective well-being. In addition, this study aligns with a substantial body of evidence that reinforces the relationship between resilience and employee performance. For instance, personal resources, including the proximal construct of resilience, served to mediate the effect of workplace resources on employee engagement and performance [38,82]. Thus, resilience acts as a mediator to protect the psychological well-being of employees, as well as to enable employees to make sustained efforts and adapt to change, thereby achieving higher levels of productivity in the workplace.

Further support for our research model, stimulated by the previous research into the effects of crises and the emergence of emerging economies, has been provided through our analysis of autonomy, demonstrating how it affects employee resilience and eventual employees’ performance. Job autonomy established through empirical research was shown to derive from increased levels of employee happiness and improved production, as well as through reduction in employee stressors created by uncertainty during a time of crisis (e.g., COVID-19) when the typical stressors of employees in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) were exacerbated by work–life conflict due to the transition to remote working conditions [13,61]. Further support for the research on resilience in the context of various crises has demonstrated that resilient employees are able to sustain their performance and maintain their psychological well-being throughout periods of stress. The combined research has led to the development of the model we propose, which shows how autonomy leads to employee resilience and ultimately contributes to employee performance and mental well-being. In this way, we are contributing to the body of knowledge that exists related to research on resilience in various economic times and in various situations [6].

Moreover, evidence provided within this model demonstrates a few moderation effects that affect how much autonomy and resilience are impacted positively by the most significant contextual variables, although these factors were not statistically significant. In the case of increased job autonomy and its association with greater adaptive capacity and resilience of employees, when framed within the context of sustainability-oriented leadership, we would predict that the proactive approach to leadership supports the employee’s performance and leads to improved employee well-being. For example, previous research has indicated that when practicing sustainable leadership, leaders can establish a lasting relationship with employees, which involves facilitating the employee’s empowerment and transparency, providing ethical conduct, and ongoing developmental support to employees, allowing them to flourish and perform at their best. In the same vein, the literature has consistently emphasized the role of information support in the enhancement of the connection between job resources and employee outcomes, where obtaining timely, relevant, and work-related information creates opportunities for employees to adopt adaptive responses to change and disruption [83]. Contrary to predictions, the findings from this study did not indicate any statistically significant moderating effect of either sustainable leadership or information support on the connections analyzed. Although all of the interaction coefficients were positive, none of the coefficients achieved conventional levels of statistical significance. One potential reason is that employees in small and medium enterprises heavily rely on their own resources and autonomy, rather than relying on the informational or leadership support of their superiors. The COR theory contends that an employee’s priority when acquiring and maintaining job-related resources should be on job-related resources, particularly in an environment that is both uncertain and constrained in terms of available resources. Given the absence of a statistically significant moderating effect of sustainable leadership on the relationship between job autonomy and employee resilience, the implication of the repeated positive direction of job autonomy on employee resilience reinforces extant literature through the development of job-related resources [13,14]. Informational support, although lacking statistical significance, has been demonstrated to play a minor role in understanding, providing support and guidance, and providing access to pertinent information, which have together proven beneficial in enhancing employees’ adaptive capacity and in alleviating the ambiguity individuals experience during disruptive times [58,84]. As resiliency is discussed relative to the adjustment of personal behaviors when confronted with change, and thus affects both the degree of stability and continuity of an organization, it appears that employees who receive accurate and timely information will be slightly better at changing their behaviors to adapt to an ever-changing and emergent workplace.

Although employee resilience, employee well-being, and sustainable leadership share common roots in psychological resources and developmental support, they remain theoretically and functionally distinct constructs. Employee resilience is conceptualized in this study as a dynamic adaptive capacity that enables individuals to recover, persist, and grow in response to adversity, particularly under prolonged crisis conditions. In contrast, employee well-being reflects a broader evaluative state encompassing affective, psychological, and functional experiences at work, representing an outcome rather than an adaptive process. Sustainable leadership, meanwhile, operates at the contextual level by shaping long-term supportive structures and values that may facilitate employee development, but does not equate to individual adaptive capability. Conceptualizing resilience as a distinct mechanism is therefore theoretically justified, as it captures how employees mobilize psychological resources in response to stressors, whereas well-being reflects how employees feel and function as a result of such processes. This distinction is particularly salient in crisis-driven organizational settings, where resilience serves as an enabling mechanism that transmits the effects of autonomy into performance and well-being outcomes rather than constituting well-being itself. The empirical support for discriminant validity further reinforces this theoretical separation.

6. Conclusions and Recommendations

This research demonstrates how resilience, the level of autonomy afforded to employees, leadership, and the ability of leaders to provide information or resources can be viewed as components of one larger interdependently related development of resources rather than simply as separate environmental factors. The findings of this study are aligned with the resource caravan model of the COR theory and SDT, where resources typically build upon and reinforce themselves over time. The foundation of the study indicates that providing job autonomy to employees is an essential resource because it empowers employees to mobilize, as well as invest the time needed to build many other resources to meet their work responsibilities. As a result of this study, it was established that employee resilience is a critical resource for enabling employees to maintain their health and performance in the face of change and uncertainty. The study demonstrated that while leadership practices and informational resources had not been identified as significant influences on employee behaviors, they do provide minor supportive resources to create environments that enable predictability and support for employees. Thus, the findings of the study stress that an organization can be better served by adopting a systems approach to employee wellness and performance. In particular, organizations should invest their resources in core job or personal resources and provide the leadership and informational resources that support the ongoing investment of employees into the resources available to employees, especially in the resource-constrained context of SMEs. This study provides a different theoretical perspective than the work of others, such as [85], by focusing on resilience as a mediator between SDT and employee outcomes, versus work/life balance, and by assessing the broader moderating influences of sustainable leadership and informational support in relation to the SDT framework. Thus, what we have introduced in this current study is an even broader perspective on how organization-level support systems that promote autonomy and competence can foster resilience, performance, and overall employee well-being, providing a more comprehensive understanding of the relationship between contextual factors and intrinsic motivation. As well, this new perspective allows for new insights to be gained into the SDT literature and organizational practices.

The study’s findings guide stakeholders, including SMEs, toward creating systems and processes for developing both Human Capital (Human Resource Development) and Non-Human Capital (e.g., technology investments). Therefore, Organizations should strategically develop job roles with defined levels of autonomy for the employee. For example, job roles should outline how much authority employees have to make decisions; how flexible they can be regarding the scheduling of their work; and what responsibilities they will have for completing assigned tasks. By designing jobs in this manner, organizations can create a work environment that empowers individuals and reduces uncertainty related to the employee’s role within the organization. Simultaneously, organizations are encouraged to invest in developing leaders with a focus on sustainable methods of leadership, including ethical decision making, open communication, investing in long-term employee development, and ongoing skills/competency development. Although these methods do not appear to have significantly impacted the relationships analyzed, they are nevertheless critical to establishing an organization’s ability for employees to use resources effectively. Also, organizations must create an accurate, consistent way of sharing information between themselves and employees, through both local and electronic means, to build employee confidence in themselves and ultimately foster a forward-moving capability.

To sum up, this research builds upon prior studies that explored the role of psychological resources during crises and further develops our understanding of the specific nature of employee resilience within crisis-driven organizations. For instance, while [86] found that Psychological Capital and the mechanisms of Emotional Buffering work together to help employees cope with COVID-19-related stressors, our findings suggest that autonomy is a more immediate and structural antecedent of resilience for employees who are engaged in prolonged crises. Furthermore, unlike the broader theoretical definition of psychological capital, the findings from our study suggest that resilience is a dynamic capacity developed by employees through feelings of autonomy—in effect, allowing employees to manage their performance and psychological well-being in uncertain times. This adds to the crisis literature by illustrating how resilience can not only protect employees from the negative effects of stress but can also be an important mechanism of transmission for the association between autonomy and the tangible performance and well-being outcomes that employees achieve. In addition, our finding that the moderating effects of sustainable leadership or information support are not statistically significant for the resilience of employees operating in severely constrained or resource-poor environments indicates that, in those contexts, employees’ relative autonomy typically plays a greater role in developing their ability to respond to stress than do contextual cues from their leaders. Thus, while resilience is a unique construct that is in many ways complementary to psychological capital, it is more specifically applicable to the context of emerging economies and chronic crisis environments, where formal leadership development initiatives are frequently ineffective. Moreover, the current work provides a different configuration HRM perspective from other studies, focusing on employee-level HR-related situational aspects instead of the system level. While [87] studied how the HRM system’s alignment with its surroundings leads to higher performance, we provide a micro-foundational configurational view. Specifically, we show that both performance and well-being outcomes are driven by the configuration/autonomy-resilience relationship. Additionally, the weak enhancing impacts of sustainable leadership and informational support refine ongoing HRM assumptions; when in resource-limited environments impacted by a crisis, the influence of autonomy-resilience configurations on employees is likely to exceed that of leadership-contingent HRM configurations. As a result, through this work, we contribute to developing a configurational HRM theory through the psychological resilience component’s application under chronic crisis conditions.

Accordingly, regarding economic growth, investing in employees who can help build resilience, as well as investing in emotional control, adaptable behavior, and stress, these types of training investment provide high levels of potentially useful return on sustainable/long-term performance and wellness. In addition, organizations can gain the ability to thrive in the face of uncertainty and maintain high-level effectiveness by enabling their employees to conserve and even continually build up additional resources of their own over a long period of time.

7. Limitations and Future Research

There are clearly some limitations that require reflection and consideration, as follows: The moderation effects, although statistically significant, have relatively low t-values. Replication of these results with larger samples is needed before any conclusions can be drawn about their significance; alternatively, other methods of estimating the moderation effect could be employed (for example, latent moderated structural equations). The use of cross-sectional data also makes it impossible to draw any causal conclusions. Longitudinal studies that examine how resilience and well-being develop over time would likely provide insights into how people adapt to changing conditions and how the relationships between resilience and well-being dynamically evolve. Also, future studies should consider the interaction of individual differences (i.e., proactive personality, emotional intelligence) with leadership and job autonomy to determine their impact on resilience. Furthermore, future studies can gain insight from supervisor ratings or objective performance indicators rather than solely relying on self-reported employee performance measures. In addition, sector comparisons would provide information on whether or not the results are applicable across different industries experiencing varying levels of structure, uncertainty, and digitalization. Alongside, causal relationships between the variables under study cannot definitively be determined due to limitations on cross-sectional research designs. While it is likely that reverse causation and omitted variable bias exist, future studies that utilize more rigorous methodologies, including longitudinal or experimental designs, will provide stronger support for causal inference. Finally, exploring additional research opportunities with different types of design that emphasize cross- or cultural comparisons (especially between countries in prolonged instability/armed conflict) could also strengthen the external validity of these findings by testing the extent to which those relationships maintain when examining data in varied sociopolitical contexts.