Occupational Stress in the Modern Workplace: A Systematic Review and Research Agenda (2010-2025)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study presents a systematic review of occupational stress literature from 2010 to 2025, analyzing 244 peer-reviewed articles to map the evolution of this critical field. The analysis reveals a significant paradigm shift: from conceptualizing stress as an individual-level psychological response to understanding it as a complex, multi-level phenomenon deeply embedded in organizational structures, leadership practices, and macroeconomic contexts. We identify the emergence of novel stressors linked to digitalization and global crises, while traditional drivers like workload and role ambiguity persist. Crucially, our findings delineate a cascading effect of occupational stress, establishing its robust connections to deteriorated mental well-being, impaired organizational commitment, suppressed innovative work behavior, and counterproductive knowledge dynamics. The review synthesizes evidence on the moderating role of leadership particularly ethical, authentic, and agile style as well as the mediating functions of psychological capital and team dynamics. We conclude by proposing an integrated framework and a detailed agenda for future research, emphasizing the need for cross-cultural, longitudinal, and intervention-focused studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".