Reconceptualizing Workplace Thriving and Setting Future Research Agenda

Defining WPT

Thriving, a positive construct that exists as a continuum, is defined differently. In the psychology literature, flourishing is defined as a dynamic process of adapting to physical, psychological, or social adversity, resulting in favourable outcomes involving individual growth and improved conditions (Bugental, 2004; Jackson et al., 2007). According to Haight et al. (2002), thriving is “the ongoing process of growing through continuous human-environment interactions, resulting in social, physical, and psychological resilience and growth.” Schreiner (2010, p. 4) states that thriving occurs when individuals are “fully engaged intellectually, socially, and emotionally.” It is also “a desirable life condition” (Bundick et al., 2010) and can foster positive effects (Carver, 1998; O’Leary & Ickovics, 1995). It is the ability to bounce forward from stressful events, reaching a higher level of health or functioning (Haas, 2015; Smith et al., 2008). Haight et al. (2002) highlighted the importance of resilience when they defined thriving “as the ongoing process of growing through continuous human-environment interactions, resulting in social, physical, and psychological resilience and growth.” Spreitzer et al. (2005) proposed that individuals are more likely to thrive when specific enabling conditions are present in the workplace, while minimizing constraints.

According to Spreitzer et al. (2005), thriving is a second-order composite construct that jointly has vitality and learning at work. Vitality refers to the positive emotions and energy required to maintain enthusiasm (Nix et al., 1999). Learning encompasses the acquisition and application of knowledge and skills to enhance work competence and confidence (Carver, 1998). Vitality is the positive energy that effectively drives work. A thriving individual strives for a better life, which can be achieved with learning (Spreitzer et al., 2019). Spreitzer et al. (2005) state that the absence of either dimension will lead to limited WPT. By monitoring thriving levels, employees’ behaviors are fine-tuned to be effective (Spreitzer et al., 2005). The same opinion was expressed by Porath et al. (2012). They identify WPT as involving growth and momentum, characterized by feeling energized and alive and continually improving at work. While the former is known as vitality, the latter is known as learning. WPT involves employees’ psychological growth and advancement in the workplace. It differs from employee well-being, self-actualization, and other specific characteristics (Chang and Busser, 2019; Porath et al., 2012). Thus, during thriving, there are upward individual trajectories (Hall et al., 2009; Joseph & Linley, 2008; Thomas & Hall, 2008; Zhao et al., 2025).

A review of available definitions primarily highlights the multifaceted nature of thriving (Brassey et al., 2024; Spreitzer et al., 2005; Brown et al., 2017) and its self-sustaining mechanism (Ellaban et al., 2025; Goh et al., 2022). The literature highlights two recurring joint themes – development and triumph. While the former is associated with progressive enhancements that could be physical, psychological, or social, the latter denotes various temporally and contextually relevant outcomes. The two components work in tandem rather than in isolation. According to Su et al. (2014), achieving these two goals requires individuals to practice holistic functioning. Well-being refers to the state of succeeding in life and encompasses dimensions such as social (Haight et al., 2002; Keyes, 1998), physical (Scheier & Carver, 1987), emotional (Keyes, 2002), and psychological (Ryff, 1989). Performance is the quality displayed in executing an operation, process, or accomplishment (Simpson et al., 1989). It is measured across various motor, cognitive, or other work-related tasks. Task performance reflects an individual’s level of functioning, with superior performance leading to success (Brown et al., 2017; Sarkar & Fletcher, 2014). Haight et al. (2002) suggest that thriving can lead to social, physical, and psychological resilience and growth. It can be observed that the various definitions of WPT fail to converge, offering an array of domains and sub-variables. The key domains that emerged from the multiple definitions reviewed include vitality, learning, holistic functioning, engagement, mindfulness, and resilience.

Theoretical underpinnings

Multiple theories have been found to advance the concept of thriving (Paterson et al., 2014; Spreitzer and Porath, 2014; Usman et al., 2023). A few such theories are discussed in the following sections:

The theory of self-adaptation (Tsui and Ashford 1994) offers insights about thriving. Self-adaptation entails the process by which humans direct goal-oriented activities over time in response to changing circumstances. Self-adaptation regards individuals as rational and independent entities, focusing on goal formulation, self-monitoring, self-reward, and self-punishment, which they employ to manage their actions (Porath and Bateman, 2006). This view overlooks the idea that individuals can control their emotions. Thriving is a valuable subjective experience that empowers individuals to examine if their approaches and activities foster positive growth. Positive growth involves progress in the short term and adaptability to the work environment in the long term (Kolb, 1984). Individuals use thriving as a metric to determine the necessity and manner of their actions in the workplace to sustain or restore it.

The model developed by Spreitzer et al. (2005) describes thriving as a “desirable informative” state. It is ‘desirable’ because individuals are motivated to enhance their thriving, and ‘informative’ since it indicates whether they are on a positive developmental trajectory. They define flourishing as a “subjective meter” determining the direction of their professional progress. Thriving encourages people to pursue behaviors that facilitate progress, thereby enabling effective navigation of the work environment. This model links WPT with agentic behaviors.

Self-determination theory focuses on the social and contextual conditions that influence the natural processes of intrinsic motivation and healthy psychological development (Ryan & Deci, 2020). It examines the factors that could enhance or undermine motivation, self-regulation, and well-being. The theory postulates that basic psychological needs — autonomy, competence, and relatedness — are essential components without which thriving cannot occur. These components lead to agentic work, which refers to actions driven by individual initiative, ingenuity, autonomy, and self-direction, where individuals act independently. Agentic work also enables thriving through personal responsibility, proactive behaviors, and the ability to influence one’s work environments. Spreitzer and Porath (2014) used this theory to explain the relationship between work behaviors and thriving.

Another applicable theory is the Conservation of Resources (COR) theory. The theory posits that individual behaviors are influenced by the gain or loss of their resources (Hobfoll, 1989), as they voluntarily invest their available resources to gain additional resources. Based on COR, Usman et al. (2022) propose that individuals strive to conserve resources to link WPT and knowledge hiding. They opined that thriving would reduce knowledge hiding, as individuals with WPT will likely use the knowledge resource to trade off, expecting additional personal gains. Thus, WPT exerts its influence on discouraging individuals from withholding knowledge.

The socially embedded model is another central framework for studying WPT (Spreitzer et al., 2005). This model suggests that WPT is shaped by contextual factors, and resources generated through agentic work behaviors are controlled by exploration, task focus, and mindful interactions (Bandura, 2001). It also involves the social conditions that either enhance or reduce the positive features that promote intrinsic motivation. According to the model, thriving is a subjective indicator distinguishing whether positive development occurs (Spreitzer et al., 2005). Empirical evidence also supports the socially embedded model, as evidenced by the positive relationship between thriving and task focus, mindful relating, positivity, and exploration (Niessen et al., 2012; Paterson et al., 2014; Usman et al., 2022). Jiang (2017) observed that WPT reflects a proactive personality. Further, favorable contextual and personal aspects enhance WPT, reducing turnover intentions (Chang and Busser, 2020).

Distinguishing from other terms

Specific terms may appear similar to thriving, but they differ in fundamental ways. A few such terms include “prospering” and “resilience,” among others. Prospering involves the success component of thriving (Soanes & Stevenson, 2005) but not the developmental facet. Resilience is another term associated with thriving. It reflects a positive ability to adapt to adversity. Resilience enables continued functioning after an adverse event (Bonanno, 2004). However, thriving involves establishing enhanced functioning (O’Leary and Ickovics, 1995) and is not dependent on adverse events (Brown et al., 2017; Sarkar and Fletcher, 2014). It can occur following adversity and opportunity (Feeney and Collins, 2015). It can help individuals achieve optimal well-being, progress, resilience, and a sense of personal well-being in all their activities, enabling them to fulfill their mental and social responsibilities.

Spreitzer et al. (2019) related thriving to concepts such as flow, flourishing, subjective well-being, self-actualization, and resilience, while conceptualizing that WPT is distinct from these concepts. Flow involves a holistic sense of an individual absorbed in their activities. It is a state of holistic absorption in which an individual is fully engaged in their activities. In this state, individuals experience a deep sense of engagement and active participation (Piniel and Albert, 2019). Flourishing involves displaying positive emotions and functioning effectively in life, which are considered signs of mental health (Keyes, 2003). The two constructs differ, although they involve individual experiences of development and success (Benson and Scales, 2009; Spreitzer et al., 2005). Although both encompass subjective well-being (Keyes, 2007; Keyes & Waterman, 2003), flourishing involves both psychosocial and emotional well-being (Fredrickson, 2006). However, thriving is distinct in that it consists of both well-being (mental and physical) and performance components (Sarkar & Fletcher, 2014; Sheldon et al., 2001). WPT involves achieving optimal positive experiences — such as goodness, growth, and resilience — associated with human development, which manifest as vitality and learning. Thus, despite this apparent similarity, these are distinct constructs.

Several empirical studies have identified the antecedents and consequences of WPT, which are discussed in the following section.

Antecedents and consequences of WPT

Since thriving is multifaceted, a mere subjective perception of higher levels on a single index would not be ideal for achieving development and success (Brown et al., 2017). Hence, an individual who perceives high performance and experiences low well-being may still succeed. However, this could be accompanied by adverse outcomes, including impaired development and burnout (Spreitzer et al., 2005). On the contrary, if an individual experiences high well-being but perceives low performance, task execution may be impaired, hindering success. Thus, thriving is a unique state that responds to situations.

Social scientists have examined the outcomes derived from thriving. WPT produces “contagious” positive outcomes for employees, organizations, and other stakeholders (Porath et al., 2012). Cao et al. (2023) and Ryan and Frederick (1997) found vitality related to self-determination, well-being, self-actualization, and performance. Ellaban et al. (2025) and Peters et al. (2021) state that thriving individuals are less likely to have chronic health conditions. Some other outcomes include creativity and innovation, engagement, and career adaptability (Collins, 2014; Elsayed et al., 2025; Prem et al., 2017; Um-e-Rubbab et al., 2021). According to Jiang (2017), those with higher levels of WPT transmit proactive personality and career adaptability. Carmeli and Spreitzer (2009) found that thriving is related to innovative behaviour. Benson and Scales (2009) observed that thriving results in explicit spiritual development and prosocial orientations. Kleine et al. (2019) identified attitudinal, health, and performance-related outcomes of WPT. While attitudinal outcomes include commitment and reduced turnover intentions, health outcomes include subjective health and reduced burnout. A few performance-related outcomes include organizational citizenship behavior, creativity, and team performance.

Thus, thriving employees do not suffer burnout (Hall, 1998). Thriving also reduces job strain and increases general health and well-being. Since promoting thriving is cost-efficient as it reduces absenteeism and stress (Leiter & Maslach, 2005), managers must promote it (Rai et al., 2024; Porath et al., 2012). Further, thriving fosters engagement, and engaged individuals are energetic and strive to achieve organizational goals (Harter et al., 2002). Spreitzer et al. (2005) state that thriving is an adaptive developmental process. Hence, low thriving automatically triggers self-regulation adjustments. Chang and Busser (2020), Jiang et al. (2017), and Porath et al. (2012) identified WPT as socially embedded and associated it with career adaptability and retention. Thus, WPT is a potent force that ignites sparks and energizes, driving healthy, high-performing employees and fostering human sustainability (Ding and Chu, 2020). A lack of thriving will reduce an individual’s appetite to grow and impair personal and professional development (Ding and Chu, 2020; Umm-e-Rubbab et al., 2021).

Operationalization

An in-depth literature review revealed that WPT was primarily operationalized using the two-factor measure developed by Porath et al. (2012). The factors are Vitality (“a psychological state marked by enthusiasm and spirit”) and Learning (“the sense that one can acquire and apply valuable knowledge and skills”). Their measure consisted of five items derived from Ryan and Frederick’s (1997) subjective vitality scale and five newly developed items for a “momentary sense of learning at work” (Porath et al., 2012, p. 256). Atwater and Carmeli (2009) also developed and validated similar operationalizations. Rozkwitalska (2016) and Basinska (2017), in line with previous operationalizations, examined the learning dimension using the “Learning goal orientation scale” developed by Vandewalle (1997).

Though adequate literature on WPT has accumulated over the past few years, it remains scattered (Table 1). A lack of comprehensive knowledge of the nomological network of WPT prevents the development of specific, consistent conceptualizations and recommendations for future research and organizational practice. This calls for creating common ground through conceptual dialogue regarding the philosophically and empirically identified assumptions, as Eigenbrode et al. (2007) proposed.

The table shows that the factors of thriving fail to converge, with the number ranging from 1 to 7. The factors are also different for those who attempted to conceptualize it. For instance, Smith et al. (2023) identified WPT as a single-factor instrument with six items. A recent short-form scale by Neidlinger et al. (2024) had a single factor with eight items. Spreitzer et al. (2005) proposed WPT as a two-dimensional construct comprising vitality and learning. In line with this, Porath et al. (2012) and Na-Nan et al. (2020) identified thriving as vitality and learning. Porath et al. (2012) modeled WPT as a second-order factor, viewed subjective experience, and identified learning as a stable personality trait. Learning orientation examines the general desire to learn. They developed five items that reflect a momentary sense of learning. According to self-determination theory, vitality is conceptualized as the energy emanating from individual actions. They developed five items under vitality. However, the scale by Na-Nan et al. (2020) identified 12 items. The scale by Neidlinger et al. (2024) had six factors with 27 items. Peters et al. (2021) developed an 87-item, 6-factor scale. The factors of all the social scientists were different, with no convergence.

Thus, prior research shows that thriving is essential because it enhances performance, innovation, and employee well-being. It has been identified as a psychological state limited to vitality and learning, and the literature has remained conceptually and dimensionally fragmented. Most studies have been narrowly focused on individual predictors, treating them in isolation rather than as synergistic psychological resources, including variables such as resourcefulness, mindfulness, or resilience. Mindfulness enhances alertness, regulates emotions, and impacts thriving. Resilience serves as a buffer against burnout. However, its contribution to thriving is scarcely examined. Only a limited number of empirical studies have examined resourcefulness and its complementarity with self-regulatory resources that promote adaptive functioning and thriving. These extreme divergence in factors and items calls for reconceptualizing WPT. The present study addresses these gaps in the literature by adopting an integrative approach that considers mindfulness, resourcefulness, and resilience as mutually reinforcing components of WPT. By positioning these three components within an integrated framework, this study seeks to resolve inconsistencies and extend understanding of how several psychological resources converge to support sustained well-being and enhance performance.

Reconceptualization

Workplace thriving is a macro-indicator that helps individuals develop in a positive direction. A synthesis of the available literature suggests that thriving is associated with high levels of well-being and may facilitate development (Ryan and Deci, 2001). Chang and Busser (2019) proposed that a series of specific work contexts create conditions that facilitate thriving. The reconceptualization is thus grounded in a comprehensive literature review and a robust methodology. As discussed in the methods section, this study adopted a pluralist approach to reconceptualization. The linguistic method (Berenskoetter, 2016; Guzzini, 2013; Ish-Shalom, 2021), the “ladder of abstraction” (Sartori, 1970), and constructive discourse were utilized to reconceptualize WPT. These approaches helped replace scholarly disagreements and foster constructive discourse about WBT, thereby reconsidering its current boundaries (Knott and Alejandro, 2024). It has also helped refine and redefine the construct, presenting a comprehensive framework.

The literature suggested that the combined effect of a few contextual, proximal, and resource factors promotes WPT. Contextual factors include a climate of trust and respect, information sharing, and the discretion to make decisions. In addition to these predictors, there are proximal factors, including “agentic work behaviors” such as task focus, exploration, and mindful relating. These predictors are proximal because individuals who act agentically experience instant vitality and learning. Other variables that enhance WPT include workplace resources—such as knowledge, positive meaning, and affect—and relational resources. Unlike contextual features, these characteristics are renewable because they are endogenously created through workplace social interactions. These factors are presented below:

1. Contextual factors: Contextual work factors involve external or situational elements that shape employees’ experiences and behaviors at work. The mindfulness context factor is a mental state characterized by focused awareness and presence, shaping how individuals perceive and respond to their work context (Alruwayti and Sulphey, 2024; Jiang et al., 2022; Shapiro and Carlson, 2017). It directly affects how individuals engage with their work environment (Jnaneswar and Sulphey, 2021) and enhances emotional regulation, creativity, stress management, and task attention, impacting workplace interactions, decision-making, and overall well-being (Byrne and Thatchenkery, 2019; Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara et al., 2019). Hence, although mindfulness originates internally, it influences an individual’s approach to the external work context, making it a relevant contextual work factor that fosters a positive work environment and thereby enhances resilience and performance.

2. Proximal factors: Proximal work factors refer to personal characteristics or capabilities that directly impact individual behavior and performance. Resourcefulness is a proximal factor that directly influences an individual’s immediate approach to challenges and problem-solving. It involves enduring generic competencies that enable adaptive responses to organizational demands (Scheidgen et al., 2025). Resourcefulness involves using resources creatively to solve organizational problems (Rubaca and Khan, 2022) and is closely linked to an individual’s current decisions and actions. Individuals with higher levels of resourcefulness tend to experience greater empowerment in their work environments (Kanungo and Menon, 2004). Resourcefulness, as a proximal factor, enhances resilience, innovation, and success in routine tasks, equipping individuals to address immediate challenges effectively.

3. Resource factors: These are personal or environmental assets that support individuals in achieving their goals or maintaining well-being. Resilience is an internal resource that helps to cope with and adapt to stress, adversity, and challenges (Masten and Reed, 2002; Treves et al., 2025). Resilience enables individuals to recover from stress, demonstrating dynamic psychological adaptation and essential coping traits (Masten, 2001). It is a valuable resource that provides a psychological buffer, helping individuals recover from setbacks, persist through difficulties, and maintain productivity (Sulphey, 2020). It is a resource factor that strengthens one’s ability to handle pressures and contributes to sustained performance, well-being, and adaptability.

Based on the literature, the authors derive mindfulness, resourcefulness, and resilience as contextual, proximal, and resource factors, respectively. The dimensions are presented in Table 2 and the following sections.

Mindfulness is derived from Jnaneswar and Sulphey (2021) and Shapiro and Carlson (2017). It is a meta-cognitive variable that is strongly associated with meta-emotion. Meta-emotion is being aware, responsive, and regulating emotional states. It strongly connects to meta-emotion, as it empowers individuals to be more aware of their feelings and emotions and respond to and regulate them. Mindfulness involves attention and non-judgmental awareness, enabling individuals to recognize their internal experiences and cultivate a growth mindset without automatically reacting or becoming overwhelmed (Holloway, 2025; Kabat-Zinn, 1990), and to bring about the required behavioral change (Schuman-Olivier et al., 2024). It is achieved when an individual is alert and accepts thoughts and emotions arising from focused attention (Treves et al., 2025). Hence, as a meta-emotive variable, mindfulness reflects why individuals experience emotions, how they regulate or alter them, and their awareness of emotional responses. There exist multiple standardized scales to measure mindfulness. A few of them include Baer et al. (2006), Brown and Ryan (2003), He et al. (2023), Khoury et al. (2022), and Zheng et al. (2022).

Social scientists define resourcefulness in multiple ways (Li et al., 2018). Resourcefulness involves utilizing resources creatively to address organizational challenges. Closely linked to current decisions and actions, this variable is derived from the work of Rubaca and Khan (2022). It involves how “an individual responds to a situation in his or her life that causes the individual stress” (Zauszniewski et al., 2005). In the organizational context, resourcefulness is defined as a cluster of generic competencies that enable adaptive responses to the demands of managerial roles (Sahin et al., 2015). Rosenbaum (1990) defined it as “a repertoire of cognitive-behavioral self-control skills acquired by individuals throughout their lives to cope effectively with stressful life events and to execute self-control behaviors successfully.” It is a critical component of “meta-cognitive competence,” which involves finding timely and clever ways to deal with situations that require creativity, adaptability, and problem-solving. Resourcefulness requires cognitive awareness, which is the knowledge of one’s relevant mental resources and problem-solving strategies. In short, being resourceful involves effectively using one’s cognitive resources to solve issues. It is a complex interplay of various thought processes, including reasoning, appraisal, strategy realignment, and adaptation to situations, to achieve desired goals. Resourcefulness also helps individuals regulate and direct their behaviors to endure adverse environments and sustain various coping behaviors (Rosenbaum, 1990). A few scales used to measure resourcefulness include those by Harris et al. (2006), Kanungo and Menon (2004), Rossetti and Zlomke (2021), and Zauszniewski et al. (2006).

Resilience is derived from the work of Haight et al. (2002). It involves the “capacity and dynamic process of adaptively overcoming stress and adversity while maintaining normal psychological and physical functioning” (Russo et al., 2012). When faced with various psychosocial and organizational challenges and demands, resilient individuals better understand their potential and abilities to navigate and confront demanding situations, thereby learning and responding more effectively. Such individuals also exhibit long-term orientation and risk propensity (Sulphey, 2020) and retain robust confidence, abilities, and mental well-being (de la Fuente et al., 2017). Hence, resilience is identified as a meta-motivational variable (de la Fuente and Amate, 2019). Meta-cognition involves knowledge about knowledge and the control of cognitive processes (Pintrich, 2002; Schneider, 2008). It encompasses knowledge of personal characteristics and strategies that facilitate the addressing and accomplishment of tasks (de la Fuente et al., 2017). Learning is a process that requires significant motivation. On the positive side, learning ensures meeting all adaptive demands and responses. The meta-motivation framework examines whether individuals recognize distinct types of motivation that facilitate achieving goals in response to situational requirements (Miele et al., 2020). This framework proposes performance trade-offs that can be relatively beneficial for some tasks but detrimental for others. It also diminishes the exacerbation of emotional distress, helplessness, and apathy (Alvarez-Ramírez and Cáceres, 2010). Resilient individuals also possess energy and vitality, and can effectively deal with adversity (Cohn et al., 2009; Porath et al., 2012; Na-Nan et al., 2020; Sulphey, 2020; Sulphey and Jasim, 2025). Energetic and vital individuals perform their tasks effectively. The most common scale for measuring resilience is the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (2003). A few other scales include those of Ruparel et al. (2022) and Smith et al. (2008).

Thriving individuals will be able to meta-cognize (manage their thinking), be meta-emotive (aware of their emotions), and meta-motivate (remain motivated or realign their motivation levels based on their goals and objectives). Integrating these three processes forms a holistic and resilient self-regulation system for individuals. This holistic self-regulation system enables individuals to monitor, regulate, and optimize their thought processes, emotions, and motivations, thereby fostering resilience and achieving their goals more effectively. Thus, this integrated system is crucial for adaptive functioning and resilience in complex and dynamic environments. Furthermore, this integration enables better and more effective performance. Musil et al. (2021) identified that these three variables are theoretically discrete but related constructs essential for enhancing well-being.

Based on these, WPT is construed as a higher-order construct involving mindfulness, resourcefulness, and resilience (Figure 1), which can be positively associated with positive relational attributes, such as vitality, good interpersonal relationships, resources, social interactions, and high-quality connections among subordinates, peers, supervisors, and other stakeholders. Hence, a new definition of WPT is proposed. This study defines WPT as “a state of positive engagement and well-being derived when employees are mindful, resourceful, and resilient, enabling them to navigate organizational challenges and achieve effectiveness.” This reconceptualization, consistent with prior social science research, assumes that WPT can shape an organization’s social and relational atmosphere, influencing citizenship behavior, engagement, overall organizational culture, and success. It is an adaptive function that enables individuals to navigate and adapt their work contexts to foster positive development. When there is WPT, employees exhibit agentic behaviors (Wrzesniewski and Dutton, 2001), which enable them to continually focus on tasks, enhance exploratory behavior, and mindfully build additional resources, further fueling, sustaining, and reinforcing WPT.

Figure 1

Future research agenda

This study develops a renewed understanding of WPT and its dynamics by proposing a reconceptualized, comprehensive framework that showcases its intricate interplay at the workplace. This framework explains the concept in the backdrop of contextual, proximal, and resource factors, deriving from mindfulness, resourcefulness, and resilience, respectively. The lack of these could impair WPT and manifest in counterproductive workplace outcomes. Thus, this work contributes to the literature by integrating the interdimensional connexions and agentic behaviors inherent in the WPT concept into the theory of self-adaptation (Tsui and Ashford 1994). There exist multiple opportunities for qualitative and quantitative examination of WPT. Researchers can make further distinctive and valuable contributions by empirically examining it. Detailed qualitative studies could also identify the facilitators and constraints that facilitate WPT. Further studies could be undertaken to develop a comprehensive WPT scale.

This study has multiple implications. The reconceptualized WPT represents a paradigm shift from how this concept was outlined, understood, and applied. This study provided a fresh perspective, revisiting the concept’s foundations, challenging earlier assumptions, and proposing a new definition. This reconceptualization has implications across various theoretical, practical, and academic domains. Theoretically, since the study employed an innovative, pluralistic methodological approach, it enhanced clarity of the concept. The reconceptualized WPT can help scholars, practitioners, social scientists, and management experts develop a practical, effective, and nuanced approach to address complex organizational issues. Although applying the revised definition and model may pose challenges, this paper provides valuable insights into WPT by highlighting its dynamic nature. Additionally, future research could examine how the three components of WPT (mindfulness, resourcefulness, and resilience) temporally interact to influence other workplace resources. Studies could also explore various behavioural moderating factors, including the work environments that could impact thriving. Cross-cultural studies could help identify how cultural values and norms shape the three components in promoting WPT. Researchers could also attempt to develop and validate a tool to measure the construct. Empirical studies could also be conducted to determine whether the synergy between the various components varies across industries or cultural contexts.