Exploring The “double-edged sword” effect of high pressure culture in SME:Evidence from China

Exploring The “double-edged sword” effect of high pressure culture in SME:Evidence from China | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Exploring The “double-edged sword” effect of high pressure culture in SME:Evidence from China Xin Guan, Xinyu Liu, Lingyu Su This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9121603/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 16 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract High pressure culture is an important source of workplace stress. In the global environment, the high-pressure culture of enterprises is one of the crucial factors leading to turnover.However, are high-pressure cultures all negative effects?This article interprets employees' response logic from the perspective of social exchange theory rather than simply stress, and proposes a "double-edged sword" model: on the one hand, high-pressure culture causes employees to experience the burnout, the results is to bring the rate of turnover; on the other hand, under the moderating effect of emotional labor, high-pressure culture increases employees' work engagement, leading to an increase in organizational commitment.The researchers tracked 265 employees in batches, collected data through questionnaires, then tested the hypotheses in the article and drew conclusions.The study explores the double-edged sword effect of high-pressure culture and the boundaries of its application, applies social exchange theory to the exploration of cultural factors. high pressure culture burnout turnover intention emotional labour organizational commitment Figures Figure 1 Introduction High-pressure culture refers to a management atmosphere that emphasizes absolute obedience, high-intensity investment and rigid assessment within an organization. It is often manifested in forced overtime, strict reward and punishment system, elimination of the last position and erosion of employees 'private time. In today's market environment of pursuing rapid growth, high-pressure culture is especially prevalent in many small and medium-sized enterprises. Managers often use words such as "fighting spirit" and "wolf culture" to regard it as an effective means to stimulate potential, quickly screen talents and improve organizational effectiveness (Ren et al., 2024 ). However, although this culture can drive some employees to fully engage and regard it as a "fast track" to prove their own value and obtain promotion, it also makes a large number of employees feel tired due to continuous emotional and physical exhaustion, and finally choose to escape, resulting in brain drain and loyalty decline (Agarwal & Farndale, 2017 ). Employees react to high-pressure culture with a high degree of complexity. This complexity is vividly reflected in reality. For example, on social media and career forums, topics such as "How do you view the company's 996 system?" and "Is high-pressure management a cultivation or a oppression?" always trigger tens of thousands of resonances and heated debates, reflecting employees 'ambivalence. At the same time, the ambivalence prevailing in the workplace reveals employees' divergent positions on high-pressure culture. Under the collision of "struggle doctrine" and "anti-inversion" and "lying flat", some employees still agree that they can grow rapidly under high pressure; while others are increasingly aware of the physical and mental health costs it brings, and regard it as an unequal exchange relationship. Thus, employees generally interpret high-pressure culture with an "exchange perspective" in which they weigh the "excess costs" of being exposed to high-pressure environments (e.g., physical and mental health, personal time) and the expected rewards (e.g., salary promotion, career development) that may be obtained from the organization. Especially, this kind of reward often has uncertainty and lag, which further intensifies the complexity of employees 'cognitive and behavioral choices. Therefore, it is of great theoretical and practical significance to deeply reveal the internal mechanism and boundary conditions of high pressure culture affecting employees' attitudes and behaviors. Although scholars in the field of organizational behavior and occupational health have begun to pay attention to the consequences of high stress environment and discussed its relationship with job burnout and turnover intention, there is no systematic explanation for the internal mechanism of its "double-edged sword" effect, and there are inconsistent research conclusions. A large number of studies have confirmed that high-stress environments can continuously deplete employees 'cognitive and emotional resources, induce emotional exhaustion, cynicism and low personal accomplishment, and then lead to job burnout, organizational commitment decline and turnover behavior (Hobfoll et al., 2018 ., Halbesleben & Buckley, 2004 ; Taris, 2006 ). Although some scholars speculate theoretically that some challenging stressors may also stimulate employee engagement and growth, most studies still classify high-pressure culture simply as an obstructive stressor due to its "high loss" attribute, ignoring its potential path to obtain "relational benefits" and "developmental benefits" through social exchange (Cavanaugh et al., 2000 ; LePine et al., 2005 .,Grandey & Gabriel, 2015 ). Second, when discussing boundary conditions, previous studies focused on the size of individual resource stocks, such as psychological capital and emotional regulation capacity, and found that resource-rich individuals were more resilient, but rarely examined whether employees were "willing" to make sustained emotional investments in such unequal situations (Avey et al., 2011 ). In addition, existing studies have focused on stress itself or employee personality traits, ignoring the key role that employees may play in emotional regulation strategies actively adopted in high-stress situations (Crawford et al., 2010 ). Social exchange theory holds that individuals are engaged in a series of reciprocal exchanges of tangible and intangible resources, and their subsequent behavior is determined by their assessment of gains and losses (Cropanzano et al., 2017 ). First, this study clarifies the nature of exchange under high-pressure culture. Therefore, high-pressure culture can be regarded as a social exchange situation between employees and organizations (Christian et al., 2011 ; Rich et al., 2010 ). Secondly, based on the logic of positive reciprocity and negative reciprocity in social exchange, this study constructs the outcome and mediation mechanism of high-pressure culture (Maslach et al., 2001 ; Podsakoff et al., 2005). Successful exchange and exit exchange are two basic outcomes of social exchange, and this study selects organizational commitment and turnover intention as their representatives respectively. High-pressure culture can affect the above outcomes through two parallel mediation paths: On the one hand, when employees interpret high pressure as a "growth opportunity" and perceive the organization's recognition, it will trigger a positive exchange cycle to enhance organizational commitment by increasing work input (Hom et al., 2017 ; Kurtessis et al., 2017 ). On the other hand, when employees believe that high pressure is only "unilateral demand" and unfair, they will perceive "exchange imbalance" and trigger a decline in turnover willingness and commitment by aggravating burnout (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005 ., Sulistiyani et al., 2022 ). Interestingly, emotional labor, as the behavior of employees managing their emotions to meet organizational requirements in the workplace, may play a key role in the exchange process. Emotional labor strategies such as surface acting or deep acting may be regarded as both emotional costs paid by employees under high pressure and investment means for returns (Grandey, 2000 ; Brotheridge & Lee, 2003 ). It may strengthen or weaken the intensity of high pressure culture affecting final results through work engagement or burnout (Hülsheger & Schewe, 2011 .,Gabriel et al., 2018 ). Under high emotional labor, employees may be more sensitive to organizational reward signals due to higher emotional engagement, thus amplifying the positive or negative effects of high stress culture (Diefendorff et al., 2011 ). The model studied in this paper is shown in Fig. 1 . Based on this, this study constructs a regulated double-mediated model within the framework of social exchange theory, aiming to systematically reveal how high pressure culture exerts opposite effects on organizational commitment and turnover intention through two pathways of job engagement and burnout, respectively, and to examine the moderating role of emotional labor in the above pathways. Firstly, the social exchange perspective is introduced into the study of high-pressure culture, which provides an integrated theoretical framework for explaining both its positive and negative effects, breaking through the limitation of treating it as a source of stress in the past. Thirdly, emotional labor is introduced as a key behavior regulating variable, which expands the contingency conditions of high pressure culture effect from the level of employee active emotional management strategy, and provides new enlightenment for small and medium-sized enterprises to understand and manage employee behavior under high pressure environment. Theoretical background and Literature review In his seminal work published in 1958, George Homans(Homans, 1958 )posited that social interactions closely mirror economic exchange activities. Specifically, individuals engage with one another by incurring certain costs, such as investing time, energy, money, and emotions, in anticipation of reaping corresponding rewards. These rewards can encompass material benefits, social status, respect, friendship, and beyond. Throughout the interaction process, individuals meticulously weigh the costs and benefits, thereby determining whether to persist in and how to proceed with the interaction. Generally speaking, if the anticipated benefits surpass the costs, the interaction has a greater likelihood of progressing positively and steadily. In 1968, Peter Blau(Blau,1964) further expanded the scope of social exchange theory. His influential book,“Exchange and Power in Social Life,”applied the theory to broader social structures and institutions. Blau provided insights into the formation of social hierarchies and power relations. Importantly, he argued that social exchanges encompass not only material interests but also immaterial ones, such as emotions and support.Social Exchange Theory (SET) has recently emerged as a highly influential conceptual framework in the field of organizational behavior (Cropanzano & Mitchell,2005). The theory suggests that just as individuals in a market context are driven by the desire to maximize gains and minimize losses, the same motivations apply to interpersonal relationships (Kim et al.,2016). Anchored in Social Exchange Theory (SET), this study conceptualizes emotional labor as employees' emotional investment and a key situational variable. Against the backdrop of such investment, it explores the dual-edged effects of high-pressure culture by simultaneously testing two parallel mediation routes,"engagement" versus "burnout",thereby extending SET's explanatory boundary in the emotional-labor domain. Specifically, when employees convey organizationally desired emotions to customers, colleagues and supervisors through deep acting or by suppressing negative feelings, the organization interprets this as reliable, dedicated and role-conforming "extra input." Following SET's reciprocity norm, firms reciprocate with "relational rewards" (leadership empowerment, peer trust, customer praise), which enhances employees' work engagement. This engagement, in turn, acts as a positive reward signal that stimulates a long-term exchange orientation and prompts employees to repay the organization with higher organizational commitment. If, however, emotional labor fails to elicit equivalent returns leaders question employees' sincerity, customers remain indifferent, or colleagues ostracize them,the exchange ratio becomes unbalanced. SET posits that individuals first intensify their inputs to restore equilibrium; hence emotional labor may still boost short-term engagement. Yet if these heightened efforts continue to lack reciprocal rewards, employees regard the additional exertion as a sunk cost and form an intention to quit. In this scenario work engagement transmits a "positive" impact of emotional labor on turnover intention, constituting a positive rather than negative mediation. The mediating role of work engagement Over past few decades,there are lots of articles focusing on work engagement.Work engagement is commonly described as a"positive, satisfying, work-focused mindset marked by energy, commitment, and deep involvement" (Schaufeli et al., 2004 ) .Engaged employees feel highly energetic, enthusiastic about their tasks, and fully absorbed in what they do. Most research has compared people to each other, demonstrating that average engagement levels differ across individuals depending on job conditions, personal traits, and coping strategies (Bakker et al., 2014 ).there are lots of articles studying the mediation role of work engagement,one of these aims to examine the mediating role of work engagement in the relationship between supervisor support and turnover intention (kissi, 2024). Additionally, High-pressure culture describes a management climate in which firms believe their workforce falls short of corporate needs and therefore impose coercive tools, mandatory overtime, financial penalties and forced rankings,to upgrade employee quality and identity. These practices, widespread among Chinese SMEs and internet companies, include the “996” work schedule, wage deductions for rule violations and periodic dismissal of the lowest performers. Although such measures may yield short-term productivity gains, they do so by exploiting legal loopholes and shifting business risk onto employees, thereby undermining long-term health, morale and the firm's social-responsibility obligations.it is believed in the high pressure cultural atmosphere,employees are forced to improve their work engagement. Regarding the outcome of high pressure culture,organizational commitment emphasizes the loyalty between the employee and the organization .(Kim et al., 2017 ). Scholars in HRD, OB, management and psychology have kept work engagement and organizational commitment on the research agenda for decades (Jeung et al., 2018). Beyond treating work engagement and organizational commitment as stand-alone ideas, researchers have zoomed in on how the two relate, first by demonstrating that they are empirically distinct (Hallberg & Schaufeli, 2006) and then by embedding the pair in broader nomological nets. Istiningsih et al. ( 2020 ) investigated the relationship between work engagement and Organizational Commitment in SMEs by using techniques of structural equation modeling, finding employee engagement have a direct positive effect on the commitment of craftsmen organizations. Turnover intention was another outcome variable.Turnover intention reflects how employees feel about their work; those feelings shaped by the work environment or their level of job satisfaction can drive a desire to leave (Sazili et al.,2022). Gupta ( 2017 ) believed that one of the ways to address the high turnover rate in India is to understand the factors that have a negative impact on employee turnover intentions, such as job engagement and personal resources.scholars in China explored the relationship between job engagement and turnover intention,The results of the structural equation model indicate that job engagement partially mediates turnover intention (Xiong & Wen,2020).A total of 571 survey responses collected from Korean organizations were utilized in the study of Kim ( 2017 ) and the results showed that work engagement had a negative impact on turnover intention.As mentioned in the relationship between emotional labour and work engagement,it should believed that via enhancing work engagement,the employee who have emotional labour in their workplace will decrease the turnover intention. Based on this, the following hypothesis H1a and H1b were been proposed. H1a: work engagement mediates the relationship between high pressure culture and organizational commitment H1b: work engagement mediates the relationship between high pressure culture and turnover intention The mediating role of burnout Burnout is a chronic response to persistent emotional and interpersonal workplace stressors and is defined by three inter-related dimensions: emotional exhaustion and reduced personal accomplishment (Lee & Ashforth, 1990 ). Its aetiology is multi-level: individual traits, job characteristics, organizational practices, and broader social factors jointly determine risk (Lewandowski, 2003 ). Contemporary work (Demerouti, 2024 ) emphasizes that burnout almost never stems from a single cause; rather, risk emerges from the dynamic interplay among several domains. According to social exchange theory, employment relationships are a form of "reciprocal exchange": employees contribute time, skills, and loyalty in the hope of receiving fair pay, respect, growth, and long-term support. When this exchange is imbalanced and expectations cannot be repaired, rational choice is to "terminate the exchange".Several researchers have suggested that withdrawal behaviors among employees maybe an outcome of burnout. For example, Hong & Lee ( 2016 ) argued that emotional labor could increase burnout in the high pressure workplace, which in turn can have negative outcomes such as the intention to quit. Moreover,burnout may also lead to other outcomes(Bayes et al.,2021).For the physical function,meta-analytic evidence (k = 32, N = 150 000) shows that in a high intensive workplace, high emotional exhaustion predicts a 1.5- to 2.3-fold increase in the incidence of metabolic syndrome, coronary-heart-disease events, and hospitalization for musculoskeletal disorders after controlling for baseline health (Melamed et al., 2022 ).In the organizational field, Job burnout functions as a key mechanism that translates individual-level attitudinal construct into observable workplace behaviors(Swider & Zimmerman,2010).mentioning about the variable belongs to this level,organizational commitment should not be neglected.Organizational commitment is the psychological bond between individuals and organizations, reflecting whether employees are willing, need, and feel that they should continue to maintain this employment relationship(Reichers,1985).Organizational commitment is viewed as a more enduring construct than job satisfaction because it exerts lasting influence on employees' loyalty and sense of attachment (Mathieu & Kohler, 1990 ). Strong organizational commitment is associated with reduced turnover (Price & Mueller, 1981 ),burnout erodes organizational commitment and, in turn, increases the likelihood of quitting.When employees feel drained, cynical, and ineffective, their enthusiasm for the organization's goals fades, their willingness to pursue those goals weakens, and psychological as well as physical withdrawal becomes more probable (Jackson et al., 1986 ).In other words, it strengthens employees' sense of organizational commitment.burnout may be an important mediating variable between interpersonal aspects of the work environment and organizational commitment (Leiter, & Maslach ,1988).Earlier studies have consistently found that the stronger an employee's organizational commitment, the lower the likelihood of quitting (Cohen & Lowenburg, 1990 ; Mobley, 1977 ), with meta-analytic evidence pointing to a modest negative correlation (r = –.20, p < 0.05). Subsequent research has likewise treated commitment,alongside job involvement,as a proximal job attitude that directly forecasts voluntary turnover (Blau & Boal, 1987 ). Thus,hypothesis H2a and H2b were been proposed: H2a: burnout mediates the relationship between high pressure culture and turnover intention H2b: burnout mediates the relationship between high pressure culture and organizational commitment The moderating role of emotional labour emotional labor was first proposed by American sociologist.Arlie Russell Hochschild (1983) and was used in a hospitality atmosphere. He defines emotional labor as“managing one's emotions to create a fair and visible facial and physical expression”.According to Hochschild ( Hochschild,1983), there are two main types of emotional labour. The first is surface acting, which occurs when employees modify or fake their outward expressions without changing their inner feelings (Yang et al., 2023). In contrast, deep acting is the second one, which involves genuinely experiencing required emotions, shows a more complex relationship. A study (Yikilmaz et al., 2024 )on health professionals found that surface acting predicted depressive symptoms over a two-year period, while deep acting's impact was moderated by factors like psychological capital and organizational support.although deep acting is a exhausted way to work,surface acting means putting more energy and passion in the workplace,In real-world work situations, employees are often required or assigned to perform tasks with high productivity,thus,this article considers "emotional labour" as a moderation variable of work engagement. Within this multi-domain space, emotional labour,especially surface acting,has emerged as a consistent job-level predictor. Brotheridge and Lee ( 2003 ) first showed that surface acting maps directly onto the three burnout facets: it heightens exhaustion and depersonalization while eroding feelings of personal accomplishment.the study results of Lee(2017) indicated that burnout rose alongside surface acting but declined with authentic emotional expression; moreover, greater burnout predicted stronger intentions to quit. Mediation tests demonstrated that burnout entirely explained why emotional labor strategies translate into turnover intentions.Grandey(2003) subsequently provided experimental evidence that surface acting increases emotional exhaustion. Longitudinal and sector-specific studies have replicated the linkage: Kim ( 2008 ) found that surface acting predicted burnout among hotel employees, and a 2025 survey of obstetric nurses (Lv, 2025) reported significant positive correlations between both surface and deep acting and the emotional-exhaustion component of burnout. Taken together, the literature indicates that emotional labour, particularly surface acting, functions as a proximal, job-level driver that amplifies burnout risk within the wider constellation of individual, organizational, and social antecedents. Social Exchange Theory (SET) frames the employment relationship as a reciprocal “input-reward” contract: employees contribute emotions, time and energy, while the organization returns recognition, support and growth opportunities. In a high-pressure culture, emotional labor is often treated as a “default input”; to secure scarce relational rewards,leader trust, team acceptance, performance bonuses,employees must intensify either surface or deep acting. Here, emotional labor is not merely passive drain; it acts as a valve that regulates the “from high-pressure to work engagement”path. When employees believe extra emotional displays will yield visible returns, they interpret pressure as “challenge and compensation” and their engagement rises; if emotional effort brings no symmetrical payoff, they see pressure as “exploitation and imbalance” and their willingness to engage plummets. Thus, emotional labor serves as an exchange gatekeeper: it amplifies or dampens the strength and even the direction of high-pressure culture's impact on work engagement, creating divergent patterns of “high mask-high engagement” and “high mask-low engagement” within the same pressurized climate. H3 : emotional labour moderates the relationship between high pressure culture and work engagement. From a social exchange perspective, the employment relationship is a reciprocal "input-reward" contract. In a high-pressure culture, organizations treat emotional labor as the hard currency required to obtain scarce resources,bonuses, promotions, or the chance to stay. Employees must intensify surface or deep acting to earn these relational returns. Emotional labor is therefore not a passive drain, but a lever that amplifies the the chain from high pressure to work engagement to outcomes" : when employees believe that extra emotional displays will produce visible rewards, they interpret pressure as "challenge and compensation" and raise their work engagement; the higher the emotional labor, the larger the engagement gain generated by the same level of pressure, which is then converted into stronger affective and normative commitment. Wang et al. ( 2022 ) have shown in a multi-level SEM that deep acting significantly increases commitment through higher engagement, and their Chinese hotel sample demonstrates that this positive indirect effect grows monotonically with emotional labor intensity. Under high pressure, work engagement becomes an "exit switch": highly engaged employees stay because their opportunity cost of quitting rises sharply, whereas low-engaged employees face the threat of being ranked out and their turnover intention spikes. Emotional labor strengthens this indirect path in two ways: on the one hand, high-level acting magnifies the energy invested under pressure, expanding the "from high engagement to low turnover" group; on the other hand, when emotional investment is not reciprocated, even highly engaged employees may quickly switch to exit in order to restore exchange balance, further pushing up turnover intention. According to this,the H5a and H5b were been proposed: H4a : Emotional labor strengthens the effect of high-pressure culture on organizational commitment via work engagement. H4b : Emotional labor strengthens the effect of high-pressure culture on turnover intention via work engagement. Methodology Participants An online questionnaire survey was adopted. Researchers conducted a two-wave survey among 300 employees of several small- and medium-sized enterprises across China, with a 15-day interval between waves. In Wave 1 the independent and moderating variables were measured, yielding 284 valid questionnaires; Wave 2 assessed the mediating and dependent variables, producing 265 valid questionnaires. The participants were evenly distributed across all regions of China.Every participant who completed both waves received a RMB 10 incentive. Data collection All constructs were measured with established scales on a 5-point Likert scale. Emotional labor was assessed with the 5-item scale used by Tse Yao Huang (2021); a representative item is “I feel I am playing the role I like in my work.” High-pressure culture was captured by a 5-item scale adapted from Monique Van Der Hulst & Sabine Geurts (2001); a classic item reads “The organization imposes economic sanctions on employees who are late or fail to meet targets.” Work engagement was measured with an adaptation of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES),which was used by Schaufeli et al. ( 2006 ). The original UWES contains 17 items rated on a 7-point Likert scale from 0 (never) to 6 (always); for our study the item was re-worded to “When I'm studying, I feel bursting with energy.” Burnout was tapped with items adapted from Demerouti ( 1999 ); typical statements include “There are days when I feel tired before I arrive at work” and “It happens more and more often that I talk about my work in a negative way.” Organizational commitment was measured with the scale developed by Richard T. Mowday ( 1979 ), the authoritative instrument in the field; sample items are “I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond that normally expected” and “I talk up this organization to my friends as a great place to work.” Turnover intention was assessed with the 6-item Turnover Intention Scale (TIS-6) created by Roodt & Bothma ( 2012 ). This brief, public-domain scale predicts actual resignation with high accuracy (Cronbach's α = 0.80) and has been cross-validated across numerous languages and sectors. Results Data reliability and validity This study uses Cronbach's α to assess the reliability of each variable. Results reveal that the Cronbach's α values for emotional labour, high pressure culture,work engagement,burnout,organizational commitment and turnover intention are 0.889 , 0.880 , 0.807 , 0.808 , 0.806 and 0.806 respectively. All values exceed 0.70 , demonstrating good reliability of the variables . Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Item Deleted Scale Variance if Item Deleted Corrected Item-Total Correlation Squared Multiple Correlation Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted Emotional labour 16.6925 25.508 .341 .754 .889 High pressure culture 16.6714 25.049 .392 .758 .880 Work engagement 16.6186 20.673 .805 .853 .807 burnout 16.6091 21.048 .802 .866 .808 Organizational commitment 16.6648 20.480 .807 .860 .806 Turnover intention 16.6148 20.628 .810 .878 .806 Table 1 . reliability analysis KMO and Bartlett's Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .800 Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 1808.838 df 15 Sig. .000 Table 2 . validity analysis Descriptive statistics and correlation analyses Descriptive statistics and correlation analyses are performed using SPSS 27.0, and the means, standard deviations, and correlation coefficients of the variables are shown in Table 3 and Table 4 .From this table,Work engagement, burnout, organizational commitment, and turnover intention all show a very strong positive correlation with each other (correlation coefficients ranging from 0.883 to 0.908), indicating that these four variables have a high degree of covariation in the sample, which may share core influencing factors or have complex interaction effects. The correlation between high-pressure culture and work engagement, organizational commitment, and turnover intention is stronger than that between emotional labor and these variables, suggesting that high-pressure culture may be a more important influencing factor. Correlations Emotional labour High pressure culture workengagement burnout organizationalcommitment turnoverintention Emotional labour Pearson Correlation 1 .874 .143 .136 .150 .137 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .020 .027 .014 .026 N 549 549 265 265 265 265 High pressure culture Pearson Correlation .874 1 .196 .174 .190 .190 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .001 .005 .002 .002 N 549 549 265 265 265 265 Work engagement Pearson Correlation .143 .196 1 .893 .891 .888 Sig. (2-tailed) .020 .001 .000 .000 .000 N 265 265 265 265 265 265 Burn out Pearson Correlation .136 .174 .893 1 .883 .908 Sig. (2-tailed) .027 .005 .000 .000 .000 N 265 265 265 265 265 265 organizational commitment Pearson Correlation .150 .190 .891 .883 1 .904 Sig. (2-tailed) .014 .002 .000 .000 .000 N 265 265 265 265 265 265 Turn over intention Pearson Correlation .137 .190 .888 .908 .904 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .026 .002 .000 .000 .000 N 265 265 265 265 265 265 . Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). . Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). Table 3 . correlation analysis Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation emotionallabour 549 1.00 5.00 3.3607 1.22535 highpressureculture 265 1.00 5.00 3.3529 1.17847 workengagement 265 1.00 5.00 3.3557 1.22462 burnout 265 1.00 5.00 3.3651 1.18184 organizationalcommitment 265 1.00 5.00 3.3094 1.24697 turnoverintention 265 1.00 5.00 3.3594 1.22448 Valid N (listwise) 265 Table 4 . Descriptive statistics Mediation effect analyses To examine the mediating effects in this study, the methodological framework proposed by Preacher and Hayes (2008) as well as Wen and Ye (2014) was adopted. Distinct from the traditional three-step approach for mediating effect testing, this procedure posits that the total effect coefficient (c) is not a prerequisite for the existence of a mediating effect. The testing process proceeds as follows: First, the total effect coefficient (c) is assessed. A non-significant c may indicate the presence of a covered effect or other exceptional scenarios. Second, coefficient a (the association between the independent variable and mediating variable) and coefficient b (the association between the mediating variable and dependent variable) are tested. If both coefficients are significant, the significance of the product ab is reported to confirm the existence of the mediating effect. If at least one coefficient is non-significant, either the Bootstrap method is employed to verify whether the mediating effect holds. Finally, the significance of the direct effect (c') is tested to classify the type of mediation. A non-significant c' implies complete mediation; a significant c' with the same sign as ab denotes partial mediation; and a significant c' with the opposite sign to ab indicates a specific covered effect . The mediating role of work engagement organizational commitment work engagement organizational commitment constant 10.607 (11.908) 10.755 (12.310) 0.878 (1.699) high pressure culture 0.199 (3.138) 0.202 (3.244) 0.016 (0.551) work engagement 0.905 (31.143) simple 265 265 265 R 2 0.036 0.038 0.795 Adjusted R 2 0.032 0.035 0.793 F  F (1,263)=9.848 , p=0.002 F (1,263)=10.525 , p=0.001 F (2,262)=508.005 , p=0.000 p<0.05 porganizational commitment 0.183 0.052 3.507 0.000 0.074 0.276 Sum of indirect effect 0.183 0.052 3.507 0.000 0.074 0.276 Table 6 . Bootstrapping results for the mediating effect(work engagement1) Table 5 summarizes the ordinary-least-squares results for the mediation model. In the first step, high-pressure culture is positively related to work engagement (Model 2: b = 0.20, p < 0.01), satisfying the a-path requirement. When organizational commitment is regressed on both high-pressure culture and work engagement (Model 3), the previously significant coefficient for high-pressure culture drops to b = 0.02 (p = 0.55) while work engagement strongly predicts commitment (b = 0.91, p < 0.01). The substantial increase in explanatory power (R² rising from 0.04 to 0.79) and the non-significant direct effect indicate that work engagement fully mediates the influence of high-pressure culture on organizational commitment.table 6 shows that The bootstrap test (5,000 iterations) revealed a significant positive indirect effect of high-pressure culture on organizational commitment through work engagement, with an effect size of 0.183 (SE = 0.052). The 95% bias-corrected confidence interval [0.074, 0.276] does not contain zero, and the corresponding z-value is 3.51 (p < 0.001). These results indicate that higher levels of high-pressure culture enhance employees' work engagement, which in turn significantly increases their organizational commitment, supporting a full mediation pathway. turnover intention work engagement turnover intention constant 10.852 (12.407) 10.755 (12.310) 1.338 (2.598) high pressure culture 0.196 (3.142) 0.202 (3.244) 0.017 (0.575) work engagement 0.885 (30.542) simple 265 265 265 R 2 0.036 0.038 0.789 Adjusted R 2 0.033 0.035 0.787 F  F (1,263)=9.871,p=0.002 F (1,263)=10.525,p=0.001 F (2,262)=488.830,p=0.000 p<0.05 pturnover intention 0.179 0.052 3.434 0.001 0.074 0.274 Sum of indirect effects 0.179 0.052 3.434 0.001 0.074 0.274 Table 8 . Bootstrapping results for the mediating effect ( work engagement 2 ) As shown in Table 7 , high-pressure culture positively predicted work engagement (Model 2: b = 0.202, p < 0.01). When both high-pressure culture and work engagement were entered to predict turnover intention (Model 3), the direct path from high-pressure culture to turnover intention became non-significant (b = 0.017, p = 0.575), whereas work engagement exerted a significant negative effect on turnover intention (b = –0.885, p < 0.01), and the model's explanatory power jumped from 3.8% to 78.9%. Table 8 further reveals that the total indirect effect of high-pressure culture on turnover intention through work engagement was –0.179 (SE = 0.052), with a 95% bias-corrected confidence interval of [–0.274, –0.074] excluding zero (z = 3.43, p < 0.001). Taken together, work engagement fully mediates the relationship between high-pressure culture and turnover intention: higher high-pressure culture enhances employees' work engagement, which in turn significantly reduces their intention to quit. The mediating role of burnout turnover intention burnout turnover intention constant 10.852 (12.407) 11.180 (13.203) 0.397 (0.827) high pressure culture 0.196 (3.142) 0.173 (2.862) 0.034 (1.275) burnout 0.935 (34.512) simple 265 265 265 R 2 0.036 0.030 0.826 Adjusted R 2 0.033 0.027 0.825 F  F (1,263)=9.871,p=0.002 F (1,263)=8.190,p=0.005 F (2,262)=622.820,p=0.000 p<0.05 pturnover intention 0.161 0.055 2.933 0.003 0.049 0.264 Sum of indirect effect 0.161 0.055 2.933 0.003 0.049 0.264 Table 10 . Bootstrapping results for the mediating effect(burnout 1) The results of the simplified mediation model(table 9 and table 10 ) show that burnout fully mediates the relationship between high-pressure culture and turnover intention. When burnout is excluded , high-pressure culture significantly predicts turnover intention (β = 0.196, p 0.05), whereas burnout strongly predicts turnover intention (β = 0.935, p < 0.01). Additionally, high-pressure culture significantly predicts burnout (Model 2: β = 0.173, p < 0.01). The sharp increase in explanatory power (R² from 0.036 to 0.826) and the highly significant F-change indicate that burnout accounts for the vast majority of the variance in turnover intention. Consequently, the data support a full mediation process: high-pressure culture increases employee burnout, which in turn drives their intention to leave. organizational commitment burnout organizational commitment constant 10.607 (11.908) 11.180 (13.203) 0.268 (0.488) high pressure culture 0.199 (3.138) 0.173 (2.862) 0.039 (1.284) burnout 0.925 (29.867) simple 265 265 265 R 2 0.036 0.030 0.781 Adjusted R 2 0.032 0.027 0.779 F  F (1,263)=9.848,p=0.002 F (1,263)=8.190,p=0.005 F (2,262)=467.621,p=0.000 p<0.05 porganizaional commitment 0.160 0.053 2.986 0.003 0.048 0.256 Sum of indirect effect 0.160 0.053 2.986 0.003 0.048 0.256 Table 12 . Bootstrapping results for the mediating effect(burnout 2) The table 11 and 12 illustrate that, the regression and bootstrapping results show that burnout fully mediates the link between high-pressure culture and organizational commitment. In the absence of burnout , high-pressure culture has a significant positive effect on commitment (β = 0.199, p 0.05), while burnout itself strongly and negatively predicts commitment (β = 0.925, p < 0.01). The explanatory power jumps from 3.6 % to 77.9 %, and the bootstrapped indirect effect is 0.160 (SE = 0.053, 95 % CI [0.048, 0.256], z = 2.99, p = 0.003). Thus, high-pressure culture erodes organizational commitment exclusively by first heightening employee burnout; no meaningful direct relationship remains after accounting for this mediating pathway. The moderated role of emotional labour organizational commitment work engagement β SE t p β SE t p constant 0.878 0.517 1.699 0.091 13.913 3.287 4.232 0.000 high pressure culture 0.016 0.030 0.551 0.582 0.030 0.311 0.095 0.924 emotional labour -0.560 0.466 -1.203 0.230 high pressure cultureemotional labour 0.032 0.034 0.946 0.345 work engagement 0.905 0.029 31.143 0.000 simple 265 265 R 2 0.795 0.045 Adjusted R 2 0.793 0.030 F  F (2,262)=508.005,p=0.000 F (3,261)=4.074,p=0.007 p<0.05 p<0.01 Table 13 . Results for moderating effects(1). From this table 13, emotional labour failed to demonstrate a significant moderating effect: the interaction term between high-pressure culture and emotional labour yielded a mere β = 0.032 (SE = 0.034, t = 0.946, p = 0.345), well below conventional significance thresholds. Likewise, the main effect of emotional labour was negative but non-significant (β = –0.560, p = 0.230). These results indicate that, regardless of the emotional-labour strategies employees adopt, the detrimental impact of a high-pressure culture on work engagement is neither intensified nor buffered. Consequently, the hypothesis boundary role of emotional labour is unsupported. In short, the linkage between high-pressure environments and engagement appears “immune” to emotional labour; to mitigate the negative consequences of organizational pressure, managers must look for other contextual or individual-level resources rather than relying on differential use of emotional-labour tactics. turnover intention work engagement β SE t p β SE t p constant 1.338 0.515 2.598 0.010 13.913 3.287 4.232 0.000 high pressure culture 0.017 0.030 0.575 0.566 0.030 0.311 0.095 0.924 emotional labour -0.560 0.466 -1.203 0.230 high pressure cultureemotional labour 0.032 0.034 0.946 0.345 work engagement 0.885 0.029 30.542 0.000 simple 265 265 R 2 0.789 0.045 Adjusted R 2 0.786 0.030 F  F (2,262)=488.830,p=0.000 F (3,261)=4.074,p=0.007 p<0.05 p<0.01 Table 14.Results for moderating effects(2). The moderating effect of emotional labour was not supported in this study. (table 14 ) The interaction term between high-pressure culture and emotional labour yielded a non-significant coefficient of 0.017 (SE = 0.030, t = 0.575, p = 0.566), indicating that emotional labour neither buffers nor amplifies the impact of high-pressure culture on turnover intention. Moreover, the main effect of emotional labour was also non-significant (β = –0.560, p = 0.230). These findings suggest that differences in emotional-labour strategies do not alter the strength of the relationship between a high-pressure environment and employees' intention to leave; organizations should therefore look for other moderating variables to mitigate turnover risk stemming from workplace pressure. Discussion Based on the lens of Social Exchange Theory (SET), this study examines the double-edged effects of a high-pressure culture on employees' work engagement and turnover intention. Using a survey design to test the research model, we obtain the following findings. First, a high-pressure culture indeed produces a double-edged sword. On the negative side, it strengthens employees' turnover intention by increasing emotional exhaustion; on the positive side, it weakens turnover intention by enhancing work engagement.Second, the results show that a high-pressure culture reduces organizational commitment through heightened emotional exhaustion, yet it also raises organizational commitment by boosting work engagement. By uncovering these dual mechanisms and their boundary conditions from a SET perspective, the research helps both employees and managers view work overload, thereby leveraging its advantages while mitigating its drawbacks. For the theoretical contribution, first, by foregrounding “social exchange” rather than mere “resource depletion,” this study closes a critical gap in the literature on high-pressure cultures. Previous work has typically cast employees as passive victims, applying classic stress frameworks—such as COR (Hobfoll, 1989 ) and the JD-R model (Demerouti et al., 2001 )—that highlight how drained resources and inadequate coping heighten turnover (Lee & Ashforth, 1996 ) and depress performance (Wright & Cropanzano, 1998 ). Such studies equate “pressure with harm,” overlooking (a) who creates the pressure ( LePine et al., 2017) and (b) whether employees perceive a potential profit in the exchange (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005 ). In reality, a high-pressure climate is usually enacted by leaders (Zhang et al., 2022 ); hence employees ask not only “How much more must I give?” but also “What might I get back?” Although scholars have recently urged an exchange lens on stress reactions (e.g., Bolino et al., 2017 ; Wang et al., 2022 ), empirical evidence remains scarce. Answering this call, we zoom in on the leader–member dyad (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995 ) and argue that when employees confront environmentally induced pressure they simultaneously weigh “excess losses” against “excess gains” and reciprocate in kind (Blau, 1964 ; Gouldner, 1960 ). Reframing high-pressure culture from one-way exploitation to a possibly beneficial exchange, we broaden the theoretical landscape of occupational stress research. For the implication contribution,As the economy struggles to recover in the post-pandemic era, the market's lofty expectations for SMEs have become the new normal, and cut-throat competition has pushed many firms toward a high-pressure culture. Our study offers practical lessons for managing employee stress. First, we show that a high-pressure climate triggers ambivalent reactions: on one hand, the extra effort it demands can drain employees emotionally, prompting them to quit; on the other, the same pressure can be read as a sign that the employer values and is grooming them, spurring higher engagement and lower turnover. Regarding the management of high-pressure culture, enterprises should also pay attention to shortening overtime hours to a certain extent, reducing economic penalties for employees, and canceling the last place elimination system, which may reduce employees' tendency to resign. Limitation and future directions Firstly, this study focuses on analyzing employees' reaction mechanisms to high-pressure cultures and the role of emotional labor within the context of leader and member relationships. In some high-load organizations, employees may either over-invest or develop turnover intentions due to organizational characteristics, yet emotional labor shows no moderating effect. Future research could approach the topic from macro-level factors such as industry traits and organizational climate to examine employees' reactions to high-pressure cultures and their boundary conditions. Secondly, the present work concentrates on the double-edged effects of high-pressure cultural climates in Chinese small and medium-sized enterprises; future studies could expand the sample to diverse types of firms. Last but not least, all participants were recruited from the Chinese context, limiting cross-cultural.Chinese culture emphasizes the collectivist application of social-exchange theory, and leaders in China's institutional environment typically enjoy considerable autonomy.Consequently, leaders exert strong influence over subordinates' workload and rewards; it is common for leaders to cultivate favored subordinates by assigning excessive tasks and responsibilities. In other cultural or institutional settings, such leader influence may differ. Future research could extend or replicate these findings in alternative cultural contexts. Declarations Acknowledgement We would like to express our sincere gratitude to all individuals and institutions that contributed to this study. we are deeply thankful to the editors and anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and constructive suggestions, which significantly improved the quality of this manuscript. We also appreciate the participants who generously devoted their time to the survey/interviews, without whom this research would not have been possible. Data availability statement All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article. Funding statement There is no funding in this article Consent to Participate declaration All participants provided informed consent prior to participation in the study. They were informed about the purpose, procedures, and potential risks of the research, and were assured of the confidentiality and anonymity of their responses. Participation was voluntary, and participants were free to withdraw at any time without penalty. The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the ethics committee of Capital University of Economics and Business. Ethics declaration This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was granted by the Ethics Committee of capital university of Economics and Business Human Ethics and Consent to Participate declarations Human Ethics and Consent to Participate declarations: not applicable Disclosure Statement There is no conflict of interest. Consent for Publication Not Applicable References Agarwal, P., & Farndale, E. (2017). High‐performance work systems and creativity implementation: the role of psychological capital and psychological safety. Human Resource Management Journal, 27(3), 440-458. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12148 Avey, J. B., Reichard, R. J., Luthans, F., & Mhatre, K. H. (2011). Meta-analysis of the impact of positive psychological capital on employee attitudes, behaviors, and performance. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 22(2), 127-152. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.20070 Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Sanz-Vergel, A. I. (2014). Burnout and work engagement: The JD–R approach. Annual review of organizational psychology and organizational behavior, 1(2014), 389-411. Bayes, A., Tavella, G., & Parker, G. (2021). The biology of burnout: Causes and consequences. The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry, 22(9), 686-698. Blau, G., & Boal, K. (1987). Conceptualizing how job involvement and organizational commitment affect turnover and absenteeism. Academy of Management Review, 12(2), 288–300. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1987.4307828 Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley. Bolino, M. C., Hsiung, H. H., Harvey, J., & LePine, J. A. (2017). “Well, I'm tired of tryin'!” Organizational citizenship behavior and citizenship fatigue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(4), 602–622. Brotheridge, C. M., & Lee, R. T. (2003). Development and validation of the Emotional Labour Scale. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76(3), 365-379. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317903769647229 Cavanaugh, M. A., Boswell, W. R., Roehling, M. V., & Boudreau, J. W. (2000). An empirical examination of self-reported work stress among U.S. managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 65-74. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.65 Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 89-136. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01203.x Cohen, A., & Lowenburg, G. (1990). A re-examination of the side-bet theory as applied to organizational commitment: A meta-analysis. Human Relations, 43(10), 1015–1050. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679004301004 Crawford, E. R., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2010). Linking job demands and resources to employee engagement and burnout: A theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 834–848. Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874-900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602 Cropanzano, R., Anthony, E. L., Daniels, S. R., & Hall, A. V. (2017). Social exchange theory: A critical review with theoretical remedies. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 479-516. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2015.0099 Demerouti, E. (1999). Burnout: A consequence of specific working conditions among human-service and production employees. University of Groningen. Demerouti, E. (2024).Burnout: a comprehensive review.Zeitschrift für Arbeitswissenschaft,78,49-504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41449-024-00452-3 Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands–resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499–512. Diefendorff, J. M., Erickson, R. J., Grandey, A. A., & Dahling, J. J. (2011). Emotional display rules as work unit norms: a multilevel analysis of emotional labor among nurses. Journal of occupational health psychology, 16(2), 170. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000135 Gabriel, A. S., Koopman, J., Rosen, C. C., & Johnson, R. E. (2018). Helping others or helping oneself? An episodic examination of the behavioral consequences of helping at work. Personnel Psychology, 71(1), 85-107.. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12229 Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161–178. Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader–member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years. Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247. Grandey, A. A. (2000). Emotional regulation in the workplace: A new way to conceptualize emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(1), 95-110. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.5.1.95 Grandey, A. A. (2003). When “the show must go on”: Surface acting and deep acting as determinants of emotional exhaustion and peer-rated service delivery. Academy of Management Journal, 46(1), 86–96. https://doi.org/10.2307/30040678 Grandey, A. A., & Gabriel, A. S. (2015). Emotional labor at a crossroads: Where do we go from here? Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2(1), 323-349. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111400 Grandey, A. A., Rupp, D., & Brice, W. N. (2015). Emotional labor threatens decent work: A proposal to eradicate emotional display rules. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(6), 770-785. DOI:10.1002/job.2020 Gupta, M., & Shaheen, M. (2017).Impact of work engagement on turnover intention: Moderation by psychological capital in India. Business: Theory and Practice, 18, 136-143. Halbesleben, J. R., & Buckley, M. R. (2004). Burnout in organizational life. Journal of Management, 30(6), 859-879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2004.06.004 Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524. Hobfoll, S. E., Halbesleben, J., Neveu, J. P., & Westman, M. (2018). Conservation of resources in the organizational context: The reality of resources and their consequences. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5, 103-128. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104640 Hom, P. W., Lee, T. W., Shaw, J. D., & Hausknecht, J. P. (2017). One hundred years of employee turnover theory and research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 530-545. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000103 Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63(6), 597–606. Hong, E., & Lee, Y. S. (2016). The mediating effect of emotional intelligence between emotional labour, job stress, burnout and nurses' turnover intention. International journal of nursing practice, 22(6), 625-632. Hülsheger, U. R., & Schewe, A. F. (2011). On the costs and benefits of emotional labor: A meta-analysis of three decades of research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16(3), 361-389. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022876 Istiningsih, I. D., Sugandini, D., & Wahyuni, P. (2020). The Influence of Job Satisfaction and Employee Engagement on Organizational Commitment. In Proceeding of LPPM UPN “Veteran” Yogyakarta Conference Series 2020–Economic and Business Series (Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 1-9). Jackson, S. E., Schwab, R. L., & Schuler, R. S. (1986).Toward an understanding of the burnout phenomenon. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(4), 630–640. Jeung, D. Y., Kim, C., & Chang, S. J. (2018). Emotional labor and burnout: A review of the literature. Yonsei medical journal, 59(2), 187. Kim, H. J. (2008). Hotel service providers' emotional labor: The antecedents and effects on burnout. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27(2), 151-161. Kim, W., & Hyun, Y. S. (2017). The impact of personal resources on turnover intention: The mediating effects of work engagement. European Journal of Training and Development, 41(8), 705-721. Kim, W., Kim, J., Woo, H., Park, J., Jo, J., Park, S.-H., & Lim, S. Y. (2017). The Relationship Between Work Engagement and Organizational Commitment: Proposing Research Agendas Through a Review of Empirical Literature. Human Resource Development Review, 16(4), 350-376. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484317725967 Kim,M.-S.(2016).Social Exchange Theory. In The International Encyclopedia of Communication Theory and Philosophy. Kissi E, Ikuabe MO, Aigbavboa CO, Smith ED, Babon-Ayeng P (2024), "Mediating role of work engagement in the relationship between supervisor support and turnover intention among construction workers". Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 31 No. 13 pp. 102–120, doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-06-2023-0556 Kurtessis, J. N., Eisenberger, R., Ford, M. T., Buffardi, L. C., Stewart, K. A., & Adis, C. S. (2017). Perceived organizational support: A meta-analytic evaluation of organizational support theory. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1854-1884. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315575554 Lee, R. T., & Ashforth, B. E. (1990). On the meaning of Maslach's three dimensions of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 743–747. Lee, R. T., & Ashforth, B. E. (1996). A meta-analytic examination of the correlates of the three dimensions of job burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(2), 123–133. Leiter, M. P., & Maslach, C. (1988). The impact of interpersonal environment on burnout and organizational commitment. Journal of organizational behavior, 9(4), 297-308. LePine, J. A., Podsakoff, N. P., & LePine, M. A. (2005). A meta-analytic test of the challenge stressor–hindrance stressor framework: An explanation for inconsistent relationships among stressors and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 764–775. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2005.18803921 Lewandowski, C. A. (2003). Organizational factors contributing to worker frustration: The precursor to burnout. J. Soc. & Soc. Welfare, 30, 175. Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 397-422. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397 Mathieu, J. E., & Kohler, S. S. (1990). A test of the interactive effects of organizational commitment and job involvement on various types of absence. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 36(1), 33-44. Melamed, O. C., Selby, P., & Taylor, V. H. (2022). Mental health and obesity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Current Obesity Reports, 11(1), 23-31. Mobley, W. H. (1977). Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction and employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(2), 237–240. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.62.2.237 Mowday, R. T. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14(2), 224–247. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior research methods, 40(3), 879-891. Price, J. L. and Mueller, C. W. (1981).‘A causal model of turnover for registered nurses', Academy of Management Journal, 24, 543-565. Reichers, A. E. (1985). A review and reconceptualization of organizational commitment. Academy of management review, 10(3), 465-476. Ren, S., Wang, Z., Usman, M., & Chadee, D. (2024). Double-edged sword at work: impacts of guanxi human resource management on employee innovative behavior. Personnel Review, 53(8), 2067-2086. https://doi.org/10.1108/pr-11-2021-0826 Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 617-635. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.51468988 Roodt, G., & Bothma, T. (2012). The Turnover Intention Scale (TIS-6): A reliable and valid instrument for predicting actual resignation. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 10(1), 1–11. Sazili, S., Ju'im, J., Indarti, S., & Efendi, R. (2022). Turnover intention influenced by work environment and job satisfaction. International Journal of Social Science Research and Review, 5(6), 102-108. Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 293–315. Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and psychological measurement, 66(4), 701-716. Sulistiyani, E., Hidayat, Y. A., Setiawan, A., & Suwardi, S. (2022). Perceived organizational support, employee work engagement and work life balance: Social exchange theory perspective. Jurnal Riset Ekonomi Dan Bisnis, 15(2), 133-143. https://doi.org/10.26623/jreb.v15i2.5336 Swider, B. W., & Zimmerman, R. D. (2010). Born to burnout: A meta-analytic path model of personality, job burnout, and work outcomes. Journal of Vocational behavior, 76(3), 487-506. Taris, T. W. (2006). Bricks without clay: On urban myths in occupational health psychology. Work & Stress, 20(2), 99-104. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370600893410 Tse, Y. A., Huang, R., & Yao, K. (2021). Emotional labor in hospitality: A new five-item short form. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 94, 102804. Van Der Hulst, M., & Geurts, S. (2001). Associations between overtime and psychological health in high and low reward jobs. Work & Stress, 15(3), 227–240. Wang, H., Liu, Y., & Zhang, M. (2022). When emotional labor meets engagement: A multilevel mediation model of surface/deep acting on organizational commitment in China's hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 106, 103286. Wen, Z., & Ye, B. (2014). Different methods for testing moderated mediation models: competitors or backups?. Acta psychologica sinica. Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Emotional exhaustion as a predictor of job performance and voluntary turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(3), 486–493. Xiong, R., & Wen, Y. (2020). Employees‘turnover intention and behavioral outcomes: The role of work engagement. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 48(1), 1-7. Yikilmaz, I., Surucu, L., Maslakci, A., Dalmis, A. B., & Toros, E. (2024). Exploring the relationship between surface acting, job stress, and emotional exhaustion in health professionals: the moderating role of LMX. Behavioral Sciences, 14(8), 637. Zhang, Y., Liu, Y., & Wang, M. (2022). High-pressure culture and employee outcomes: A social exchange view. Journal of Management Studies, 59(2), 387–418. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Reviews received at journal 05 May, 2026 Reviews received at journal 30 Apr, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 25 Apr, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 24 Apr, 2026 Reviews received at journal 22 Apr, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 22 Apr, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 20 Apr, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 17 Apr, 2026 Reviews received at journal 17 Apr, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 17 Apr, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 15 Apr, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 15 Apr, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 13 Apr, 2026 Editor invited by journal 18 Mar, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 18 Mar, 2026 First submitted to journal 18 Mar, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9121603","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":628014939,"identity":"d14f82ba-5223-41e6-aa91-bb987038bd98","order_by":0,"name":"Xin Guan","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Capital University of Economics and Business","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Xin","middleName":"","lastName":"Guan","suffix":""},{"id":628014941,"identity":"1772c0d5-e6be-4d78-95de-c093a7e25f29","order_by":1,"name":"Xinyu Liu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Capital University of Economics and Business","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Xinyu","middleName":"","lastName":"Liu","suffix":""},{"id":628014944,"identity":"15400979-435d-4198-bec6-15294997b0c8","order_by":2,"name":"Lingyu Su","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Capital University of Economics and Business","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Lingyu","middleName":"","lastName":"Su","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-03-14 10:09:11","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9121603/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9121603/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":107625918,"identity":"1a17074d-facb-4d50-a5cd-02db2d2f4614","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-23 10:37:15","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":62051,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eConceptual research model\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9121603/v1/22b3e772ffc5c8b864bcc066.jpg"},{"id":107706294,"identity":"f485d62b-bd8f-4685-9ff4-5ed9d8fc9ec8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-24 09:17:50","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":631698,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9121603/v1/1af75333-cab3-4573-8aa3-9f4d18ab0bc7.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Exploring The “double-edged sword” effect of high pressure culture in SME:Evidence from China","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eHigh-pressure culture refers to a management atmosphere that emphasizes absolute obedience, high-intensity investment and rigid assessment within an organization. It is often manifested in forced overtime, strict reward and punishment system, elimination of the last position and erosion of employees 'private time. In today's market environment of pursuing rapid growth, high-pressure culture is especially prevalent in many small and medium-sized enterprises. Managers often use words such as \"fighting spirit\" and \"wolf culture\" to regard it as an effective means to stimulate potential, quickly screen talents and improve organizational effectiveness (Ren et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). However, although this culture can drive some employees to fully engage and regard it as a \"fast track\" to prove their own value and obtain promotion, it also makes a large number of employees feel tired due to continuous emotional and physical exhaustion, and finally choose to escape, resulting in brain drain and loyalty decline (Agarwal \u0026amp; Farndale, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Employees react to high-pressure culture with a high degree of complexity. This complexity is vividly reflected in reality. For example, on social media and career forums, topics such as \"How do you view the company's 996 system?\" and \"Is high-pressure management a cultivation or a oppression?\" always trigger tens of thousands of resonances and heated debates, reflecting employees 'ambivalence. At the same time, the ambivalence prevailing in the workplace reveals employees' divergent positions on high-pressure culture. Under the collision of \"struggle doctrine\" and \"anti-inversion\" and \"lying flat\", some employees still agree that they can grow rapidly under high pressure; while others are increasingly aware of the physical and mental health costs it brings, and regard it as an unequal exchange relationship. Thus, employees generally interpret high-pressure culture with an \"exchange perspective\" in which they weigh the \"excess costs\" of being exposed to high-pressure environments (e.g., physical and mental health, personal time) and the expected rewards (e.g., salary promotion, career development) that may be obtained from the organization. Especially, this kind of reward often has uncertainty and lag, which further intensifies the complexity of employees 'cognitive and behavioral choices. Therefore, it is of great theoretical and practical significance to deeply reveal the internal mechanism and boundary conditions of high pressure culture affecting employees' attitudes and behaviors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough scholars in the field of organizational behavior and occupational health have begun to pay attention to the consequences of high stress environment and discussed its relationship with job burnout and turnover intention, there is no systematic explanation for the internal mechanism of its \"double-edged sword\" effect, and there are inconsistent research conclusions. A large number of studies have confirmed that high-stress environments can continuously deplete employees 'cognitive and emotional resources, induce emotional exhaustion, cynicism and low personal accomplishment, and then lead to job burnout, organizational commitment decline and turnover behavior (Hobfoll et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e., Halbesleben \u0026amp; Buckley, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Taris, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). Although some scholars speculate theoretically that some challenging stressors may also stimulate employee engagement and growth, most studies still classify high-pressure culture simply as an obstructive stressor due to its \"high loss\" attribute, ignoring its potential path to obtain \"relational benefits\" and \"developmental benefits\" through social exchange (Cavanaugh et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e; LePine et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e.,Grandey \u0026amp; Gabriel, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Second, when discussing boundary conditions, previous studies focused on the size of individual resource stocks, such as psychological capital and emotional regulation capacity, and found that resource-rich individuals were more resilient, but rarely examined whether employees were \"willing\" to make sustained emotional investments in such unequal situations (Avey et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). In addition, existing studies have focused on stress itself or employee personality traits, ignoring the key role that employees may play in emotional regulation strategies actively adopted in high-stress situations (Crawford et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocial exchange theory holds that individuals are engaged in a series of reciprocal exchanges of tangible and intangible resources, and their subsequent behavior is determined by their assessment of gains and losses (Cropanzano et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). First, this study clarifies the nature of exchange under high-pressure culture. Therefore, high-pressure culture can be regarded as a social exchange situation between employees and organizations (Christian et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Rich et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). Secondly, based on the logic of positive reciprocity and negative reciprocity in social exchange, this study constructs the outcome and mediation mechanism of high-pressure culture (Maslach et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e; Podsakoff et al., 2005). Successful exchange and exit exchange are two basic outcomes of social exchange, and this study selects organizational commitment and turnover intention as their representatives respectively. High-pressure culture can affect the above outcomes through two parallel mediation paths: On the one hand, when employees interpret high pressure as a \"growth opportunity\" and perceive the organization's recognition, it will trigger a positive exchange cycle to enhance organizational commitment by increasing work input (Hom et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Kurtessis et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). On the other hand, when employees believe that high pressure is only \"unilateral demand\" and unfair, they will perceive \"exchange imbalance\" and trigger a decline in turnover willingness and commitment by aggravating burnout (Cropanzano \u0026amp; Mitchell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e., Sulistiyani et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Interestingly, emotional labor, as the behavior of employees managing their emotions to meet organizational requirements in the workplace, may play a key role in the exchange process. Emotional labor strategies such as surface acting or deep acting may be regarded as both emotional costs paid by employees under high pressure and investment means for returns (Grandey, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e; Brotheridge \u0026amp; Lee, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). It may strengthen or weaken the intensity of high pressure culture affecting final results through work engagement or burnout (H\u0026uuml;lsheger \u0026amp; Schewe, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e.,Gabriel et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Under high emotional labor, employees may be more sensitive to organizational reward signals due to higher emotional engagement, thus amplifying the positive or negative effects of high stress culture (Diefendorff et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). The model studied in this paper is shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBased on this, this study constructs a regulated double-mediated model within the framework of social exchange theory, aiming to systematically reveal how high pressure culture exerts opposite effects on organizational commitment and turnover intention through two pathways of job engagement and burnout, respectively, and to examine the moderating role of emotional labor in the above pathways. Firstly, the social exchange perspective is introduced into the study of high-pressure culture, which provides an integrated theoretical framework for explaining both its positive and negative effects, breaking through the limitation of treating it as a source of stress in the past. Thirdly, emotional labor is introduced as a key behavior regulating variable, which expands the contingency conditions of high pressure culture effect from the level of employee active emotional management strategy, and provides new enlightenment for small and medium-sized enterprises to understand and manage employee behavior under high pressure environment.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eTheoretical background and Literature review\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn his seminal work published in 1958, George Homans(Homans, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1958\u003c/span\u003e)posited that social interactions closely mirror economic exchange activities. Specifically, individuals engage with one another by incurring certain costs, such as investing time, energy, money, and emotions, in anticipation of reaping corresponding rewards. These rewards can encompass material benefits, social status, respect, friendship, and beyond. Throughout the interaction process, individuals meticulously weigh the costs and benefits, thereby determining whether to persist in and how to proceed with the interaction. Generally speaking, if the anticipated benefits surpass the costs, the interaction has a greater likelihood of progressing positively and steadily.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn 1968, Peter Blau(Blau,1964) further expanded the scope of social exchange theory. His influential book,\u0026ldquo;Exchange and Power in Social Life,\u0026rdquo;applied the theory to broader social structures and institutions. Blau provided insights into the formation of social hierarchies and power relations. Importantly, he argued that social exchanges encompass not only material interests but also immaterial ones, such as emotions and support.Social Exchange Theory (SET) has recently emerged as a highly influential conceptual framework in the field of organizational behavior (Cropanzano \u0026amp; Mitchell,2005). The theory suggests that just as individuals in a market context are driven by the desire to maximize gains and minimize losses, the same motivations apply to interpersonal relationships (Kim et al.,2016).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnchored in Social Exchange Theory (SET), this study conceptualizes emotional labor as employees' emotional investment and a key situational variable. Against the backdrop of such investment, it explores the dual-edged effects of high-pressure culture by simultaneously testing two parallel mediation routes,\"engagement\" versus \"burnout\",thereby extending SET's explanatory boundary in the emotional-labor domain. Specifically, when employees convey organizationally desired emotions to customers, colleagues and supervisors through deep acting or by suppressing negative feelings, the organization interprets this as reliable, dedicated and role-conforming \"extra input.\" Following SET's reciprocity norm, firms reciprocate with \"relational rewards\" (leadership empowerment, peer trust, customer praise), which enhances employees' work engagement. This engagement, in turn, acts as a positive reward signal that stimulates a long-term exchange orientation and prompts employees to repay the organization with higher organizational commitment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIf, however, emotional labor fails to elicit equivalent returns leaders question employees' sincerity, customers remain indifferent, or colleagues ostracize them,the exchange ratio becomes unbalanced. SET posits that individuals first intensify their inputs to restore equilibrium; hence emotional labor may still boost short-term engagement. Yet if these heightened efforts continue to lack reciprocal rewards, employees regard the additional exertion as a sunk cost and form an intention to quit. In this scenario work engagement transmits a \"positive\" impact of emotional labor on turnover intention, constituting a positive rather than negative mediation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eThe mediating role of work engagement\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eOver past few decades,there are lots of articles focusing on work engagement.Work engagement is commonly described as a\"positive, satisfying, work-focused mindset marked by energy, commitment, and deep involvement\" (Schaufeli et al., 2004 ) .Engaged employees feel highly energetic, enthusiastic about their tasks, and fully absorbed in what they do. Most research has compared people to each other, demonstrating that average engagement levels differ across individuals depending on job conditions, personal traits, and coping strategies (Bakker et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e ).there are lots of articles studying the mediation role of work engagement,one of these aims to examine the mediating role of work engagement in the relationship between supervisor support and turnover intention (kissi, 2024).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdditionally, High-pressure culture describes a management climate in which firms believe their workforce falls short of corporate needs and therefore impose coercive tools, mandatory overtime, financial penalties and forced rankings,to upgrade employee quality and identity. These practices, widespread among Chinese SMEs and internet companies, include the \u0026ldquo;996\u0026rdquo; work schedule, wage deductions for rule violations and periodic dismissal of the lowest performers. Although such measures may yield short-term productivity gains, they do so by exploiting legal loopholes and shifting business risk onto employees, thereby undermining long-term health, morale and the firm's social-responsibility obligations.it is believed in the high pressure cultural atmosphere,employees are forced to improve their work engagement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegarding the outcome of high pressure culture,organizational commitment emphasizes the loyalty between the employee and the organization .(Kim et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Scholars in HRD, OB, management and psychology have kept work engagement and organizational commitment on the research agenda for decades (Jeung et al., 2018). Beyond treating work engagement and organizational commitment as stand-alone ideas, researchers have zoomed in on how the two relate, first by demonstrating that they are empirically distinct (Hallberg \u0026amp; Schaufeli, 2006) and then by embedding the pair in broader nomological nets. Istiningsih et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) investigated the relationship between work engagement and Organizational Commitment in SMEs by using techniques of structural equation modeling, finding employee engagement have a direct positive effect on the commitment of craftsmen organizations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTurnover intention was another outcome variable.Turnover intention reflects how employees feel about their work; those feelings shaped by the work environment or their level of job satisfaction can drive a desire to leave (Sazili et al.,2022). Gupta (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) believed that one of the ways to address the high turnover rate in India is to understand the factors that have a negative impact on employee turnover intentions, such as job engagement and personal resources.scholars in China explored the relationship between job engagement and turnover intention,The results of the structural equation model indicate that job engagement partially mediates turnover intention (Xiong \u0026amp; Wen,2020).A total of 571 survey responses collected from Korean organizations were utilized in the study of Kim (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) and the results showed that work engagement had a negative impact on turnover intention.As mentioned in the relationship between emotional labour and work engagement,it should believed that via enhancing work engagement,the employee who have emotional labour in their workplace will decrease the turnover intention.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBased on this, the following hypothesis H1a and H1b were been proposed.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eH1a: work engagement mediates the relationship between high pressure culture and organizational commitment\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eH1b: work engagement mediates the relationship between high pressure culture and turnover intention\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eThe mediating role of burnout\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBurnout is a chronic response to persistent emotional and interpersonal workplace stressors and is defined by three inter-related dimensions: emotional exhaustion and reduced personal accomplishment (Lee \u0026amp; Ashforth, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e). Its aetiology is multi-level: individual traits, job characteristics, organizational practices, and broader social factors jointly determine risk (Lewandowski, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). Contemporary work (Demerouti, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) emphasizes that burnout almost never stems from a single cause; rather, risk emerges from the dynamic interplay among several domains.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccording to social exchange theory, employment relationships are a form of \"reciprocal exchange\": employees contribute time, skills, and loyalty in the hope of receiving fair pay, respect, growth, and long-term support. When this exchange is imbalanced and expectations cannot be repaired, rational choice is to \"terminate the exchange\".Several researchers have suggested that withdrawal behaviors among employees maybe an outcome of burnout. For example, Hong \u0026amp; Lee (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) argued that emotional labor could increase burnout in the high pressure workplace, which in turn can have negative outcomes such as the intention to quit.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoreover,burnout may also lead to other outcomes(Bayes et al.,2021).For the physical function,meta-analytic evidence (k\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;32, N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;150 000) shows that in a high intensive workplace, high emotional exhaustion predicts a 1.5- to 2.3-fold increase in the incidence of metabolic syndrome, coronary-heart-disease events, and hospitalization for musculoskeletal disorders after controlling for baseline health (Melamed et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).In the organizational field, Job burnout functions as a key mechanism that translates individual-level attitudinal construct into observable workplace behaviors(Swider \u0026amp; Zimmerman,2010).mentioning about the variable belongs to this level,organizational commitment should not be neglected.Organizational commitment is the psychological bond between individuals and organizations, reflecting whether employees are willing, need, and feel that they should continue to maintain this employment relationship(Reichers,1985).Organizational commitment is viewed as a more enduring construct than job satisfaction because it exerts lasting influence on employees' loyalty and sense of attachment (Mathieu \u0026amp; Kohler, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrong organizational commitment is associated with reduced turnover (Price \u0026amp; Mueller, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1981\u003c/span\u003e),burnout erodes organizational commitment and, in turn, increases the likelihood of quitting.When employees feel drained, cynical, and ineffective, their enthusiasm for the organization's goals fades, their willingness to pursue those goals weakens, and psychological as well as physical withdrawal becomes more probable (Jackson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e).In other words, it strengthens employees' sense of organizational commitment.burnout may be an important mediating variable between interpersonal aspects of the work environment and organizational commitment (Leiter, \u0026amp; Maslach ,1988).Earlier studies have consistently found that the stronger an employee's organizational commitment, the lower the likelihood of quitting (Cohen \u0026amp; Lowenburg, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e; Mobley, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1977\u003c/span\u003e), with meta-analytic evidence pointing to a modest negative correlation (r = \u0026ndash;.20, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). Subsequent research has likewise treated commitment,alongside job involvement,as a proximal job attitude that directly forecasts voluntary turnover (Blau \u0026amp; Boal, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1987\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThus,hypothesis H2a and H2b were been proposed:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eH2a: burnout mediates the relationship between high pressure culture and turnover intention\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eH2b: burnout mediates the relationship between high pressure culture and organizational commitment\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eThe moderating role of emotional labour\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eemotional labor was first proposed by American sociologist.Arlie Russell Hochschild (1983) and was used in a hospitality atmosphere. He defines emotional labor as\u0026ldquo;managing one's emotions to create a fair and visible facial and physical expression\u0026rdquo;.According to Hochschild ( Hochschild,1983), there are two main types of emotional labour. The first is surface acting, which occurs when employees modify or fake their outward expressions without changing their inner feelings (Yang et al., 2023). In contrast, deep acting is the second one, which involves genuinely experiencing required emotions, shows a more complex relationship. A study (Yikilmaz et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e)on health professionals found that surface acting predicted depressive symptoms over a two-year period, while deep acting's impact was moderated by factors like psychological capital and organizational support.although deep acting is a exhausted way to work,surface acting means putting more energy and passion in the workplace,In real-world work situations, employees are often required or assigned to perform tasks with high productivity,thus,this article considers \"emotional labour\" as a moderation variable of work engagement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWithin this multi-domain space, emotional labour,especially surface acting,has emerged as a consistent job-level predictor. Brotheridge and Lee (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e) first showed that surface acting maps directly onto the three burnout facets: it heightens exhaustion and depersonalization while eroding feelings of personal accomplishment.the study results of Lee(2017) indicated that burnout rose alongside surface acting but declined with authentic emotional expression; moreover, greater burnout predicted stronger intentions to quit. Mediation tests demonstrated that burnout entirely explained why emotional labor strategies translate into turnover intentions.Grandey(2003) subsequently provided experimental evidence that surface acting increases emotional exhaustion. Longitudinal and sector-specific studies have replicated the linkage: Kim (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e) found that surface acting predicted burnout among hotel employees, and a 2025 survey of obstetric nurses (Lv, 2025) reported significant positive correlations between both surface and deep acting and the emotional-exhaustion component of burnout. Taken together, the literature indicates that emotional labour, particularly surface acting, functions as a proximal, job-level driver that amplifies burnout risk within the wider constellation of individual, organizational, and social antecedents.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocial Exchange Theory (SET) frames the employment relationship as a reciprocal \u0026ldquo;input-reward\u0026rdquo; contract: employees contribute emotions, time and energy, while the organization returns recognition, support and growth opportunities. In a high-pressure culture, emotional labor is often treated as a \u0026ldquo;default input\u0026rdquo;; to secure scarce relational rewards,leader trust, team acceptance, performance bonuses,employees must intensify either surface or deep acting. Here, emotional labor is not merely passive drain; it acts as a valve that regulates the \u0026ldquo;from high-pressure to work engagement\u0026rdquo;path. When employees believe extra emotional displays will yield visible returns, they interpret pressure as \u0026ldquo;challenge and compensation\u0026rdquo; and their engagement rises; if emotional effort brings no symmetrical payoff, they see pressure as \u0026ldquo;exploitation and imbalance\u0026rdquo; and their willingness to engage plummets. Thus, emotional labor serves as an exchange gatekeeper: it amplifies or dampens the strength and even the direction of high-pressure culture's impact on work engagement, creating divergent patterns of \u0026ldquo;high mask-high engagement\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;high mask-low engagement\u0026rdquo; within the same pressurized climate.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eH3 : emotional labour moderates the relationship between high pressure culture and work engagement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom a social exchange perspective, the employment relationship is a reciprocal \"input-reward\" contract. In a high-pressure culture, organizations treat emotional labor as the hard currency required to obtain scarce resources,bonuses, promotions, or the chance to stay. Employees must intensify surface or deep acting to earn these relational returns. Emotional labor is therefore not a passive drain, but a lever that amplifies the the chain from high pressure to work engagement to outcomes\" : when employees believe that extra emotional displays will produce visible rewards, they interpret pressure as \"challenge and compensation\" and raise their work engagement; the higher the emotional labor, the larger the engagement gain generated by the same level of pressure, which is then converted into stronger affective and normative commitment. Wang et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) have shown in a multi-level SEM that deep acting significantly increases commitment through higher engagement, and their Chinese hotel sample demonstrates that this positive indirect effect grows monotonically with emotional labor intensity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnder high pressure, work engagement becomes an \"exit switch\": highly engaged employees stay because their opportunity cost of quitting rises sharply, whereas low-engaged employees face the threat of being ranked out and their turnover intention spikes. Emotional labor strengthens this indirect path in two ways: on the one hand, high-level acting magnifies the energy invested under pressure, expanding the \"from high engagement to low turnover\" group; on the other hand, when emotional investment is not reciprocated, even highly engaged employees may quickly switch to exit in order to restore exchange balance, further pushing up turnover intention.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccording to this,the H5a and H5b were been proposed:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eH4a : Emotional labor strengthens the effect of high-pressure culture on organizational commitment via work engagement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eH4b : Emotional labor strengthens the effect of high-pressure culture on turnover intention via work engagement.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methodology","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eParticipants\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAn online questionnaire survey was adopted. Researchers conducted a two-wave survey among 300 employees of several small- and medium-sized enterprises across China, with a 15-day interval between waves. In Wave 1 the independent and moderating variables were measured, yielding 284 valid questionnaires; Wave 2 assessed the mediating and dependent variables, producing 265 valid questionnaires. The participants were evenly distributed across all regions of China.Every participant who completed both waves received a RMB 10 incentive.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eData collection\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll constructs were measured with established scales on a 5-point Likert scale.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmotional labor was assessed with the 5-item scale used by Tse Yao Huang (2021); a representative item is \u0026ldquo;I feel I am playing the role I like in my work.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHigh-pressure culture was captured by a 5-item scale adapted from Monique Van Der Hulst \u0026amp; Sabine Geurts (2001); a classic item reads \u0026ldquo;The organization imposes economic sanctions on employees who are late or fail to meet targets.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWork engagement was measured with an adaptation of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES),which was used by Schaufeli et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). The original UWES contains 17 items rated on a 7-point Likert scale from 0 (never) to 6 (always); for our study the item was re-worded to \u0026ldquo;When I'm studying, I feel bursting with energy.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBurnout was tapped with items adapted from Demerouti (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e); typical statements include \u0026ldquo;There are days when I feel tired before I arrive at work\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;It happens more and more often that I talk about my work in a negative way.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOrganizational commitment was measured with the scale developed by Richard T. Mowday (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1979\u003c/span\u003e), the authoritative instrument in the field; sample items are \u0026ldquo;I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond that normally expected\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;I talk up this organization to my friends as a great place to work.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTurnover intention was assessed with the 6-item Turnover Intention Scale (TIS-6) created by Roodt \u0026amp; Bothma (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). This brief, public-domain scale predicts actual resignation with high accuracy (Cronbach's α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.80) and has been cross-validated across numerous languages and sectors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003ch2\u003eData reliability and validity\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study uses Cronbach\u0026apos;s \u0026alpha; to assess the reliability of each variable. Results reveal that the Cronbach\u0026apos;s \u0026alpha; values for emotional labour, high pressure culture,work engagement,burnout,organizational commitment and turnover intention are 0.889\u0026nbsp;, 0.880\u0026nbsp;, 0.807\u0026nbsp;,\u0026nbsp;0.808\u0026nbsp;,\u0026nbsp;0.806 and 0.806\u0026nbsp;respectively. All values exceed 0.70\u0026nbsp;, demonstrating good reliability of the variables .\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"567\"\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"6\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eItem-Total Statistics\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScale Mean if Item Deleted\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScale Variance if Item Deleted\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCorrected Item-Total Correlation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSquared Multiple Correlation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCronbach\u0026apos;s Alpha if Item Deleted\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEmotional labour\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.6925\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25.508\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.341\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.754\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.889\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHigh pressure culture\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.6714\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25.049\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.392\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.758\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.880\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWork engagement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.6186\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.673\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.805\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.853\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.807\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eburnout\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.6091\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.048\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.802\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.866\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.808\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOrganizational commitment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.6648\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.480\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.807\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.860\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.806\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTurnover intention\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.6148\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.628\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.810\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.878\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.806\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 1 . reliability analysis\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"554\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKMO and Bartlett\u0026apos;s Test\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.800\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBartlett\u0026apos;s Test of Sphericity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eApprox. Chi-Square\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1808.838\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003edf\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSig.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 2 . validity analysis\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eDescriptive statistics and correlation analyses\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDescriptive statistics and correlation analyses are performed using SPSS 27.0, and the means, standard deviations, and correlation coefficients of the variables are shown in Table\u0026nbsp;3\u0026nbsp;and Table\u0026nbsp;4\u0026nbsp;.From this table,Work engagement, burnout, organizational commitment, and turnover intention all show a very strong positive correlation with each other (correlation coefficients ranging from 0.883 to 0.908), indicating that these four variables have a high degree of covariation in the sample, which may share core influencing factors or have complex interaction effects.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe correlation between high-pressure culture and work engagement, organizational commitment, and turnover intention is stronger than that between emotional labor and these variables, suggesting that high-pressure culture may be a more important influencing factor.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"565\"\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"8\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCorrelations\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEmotional labour\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHigh pressure culture\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eworkengagement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eburnout\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eorganizationalcommitment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eturnoverintention\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEmotional labour\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePearson Correlation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.874\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.143\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.136\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.150\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.137\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSig. (2-tailed)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.020\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.027\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.014\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.026\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e549\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e549\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHigh pressure culture\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePearson Correlation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.874\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.196\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.174\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.190\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.190\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSig. (2-tailed)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.005\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.002\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.002\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e549\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e549\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWork engagement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePearson Correlation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.143\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.196\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.893\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.891\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.888\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSig. (2-tailed)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.020\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBurn out\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePearson Correlation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.136\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.174\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.893\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.883\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.908\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSig. (2-tailed)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.027\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.005\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eorganizational commitment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePearson Correlation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.150\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.190\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.891\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.883\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.904\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSig. (2-tailed)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.014\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.002\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTurn over intention\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePearson Correlation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.137\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.190\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.888\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.908\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.904\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSig. (2-tailed)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.026\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.002\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"8\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"8\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 3 . correlation analysis\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"543\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"6\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDescriptive Statistics\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMinimum\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMaximum\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStd. Deviation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eemotionallabour\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e549\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.3607\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.22535\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ehighpressureculture\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.3529\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.17847\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eworkengagement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.3557\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.22462\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eburnout\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.3651\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.18184\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eorganizationalcommitment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.3094\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.24697\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eturnoverintention\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.3594\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.22448\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eValid N (listwise)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 4 . Descriptive statistics\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eMediation effect analyses\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo examine the mediating effects in this study, the methodological framework proposed by Preacher and Hayes (2008) as well as Wen and Ye (2014) was adopted. Distinct from the traditional three-step approach for mediating effect testing, this procedure posits that the total effect coefficient (c) is not a prerequisite for the existence of a mediating effect.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe testing process proceeds as follows: First, the total effect coefficient (c) is assessed. A non-significant c may indicate the presence of a covered effect or other exceptional scenarios. Second, coefficient a (the association between the independent variable and mediating variable) and coefficient b (the association between the mediating variable and dependent variable) are tested. If both coefficients are significant, the significance of the product ab is reported to confirm the existence of the mediating effect. If at least one coefficient is non-significant, either the Bootstrap method is employed to verify whether the mediating effect holds.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, the significance of the direct effect (c\u0026apos;) is tested to classify the type of mediation. A non-significant c\u0026apos; implies complete mediation; a significant c\u0026apos; with the same sign as ab denotes partial mediation; and a significant c\u0026apos; with the opposite sign to ab indicates a specific covered effect .\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eThe mediating role of work engagement\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"630\"\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eorganizational commitment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ework engagement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eorganizational commitment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003econstant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.607\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;(11.908)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.755\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;(12.310)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.878\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;(1.699)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ehigh pressure culture\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.199\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;(3.138)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.202\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;(3.244)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.016\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;(0.551)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ework engagement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.905\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;(31.143)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003esimple\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eR\u0026nbsp;2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.036\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.038\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.795\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAdjusted R\u0026nbsp;2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.032\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.035\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.793\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF\u0026nbsp;(1,263)=9.848 , p=0.002\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF\u0026nbsp;(1,263)=10.525 , p=0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF\u0026nbsp;(2,262)=508.005 , p=0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;p\u0026lt;0.05 \u0026nbsp;p\u0026lt;0.01 note:(t)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 5 . mediating model analysis of work engagement(1)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"633\"\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eitem\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal indirect\u0026nbsp;effect\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBoot SE\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ez\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBootLLCI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBootULCI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ehigh pressure culture=\u0026gt;organizational commitment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.183\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.052\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.507\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.074\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.276\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSum of indirect\u0026nbsp;effect\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.183\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.052\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.507\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.074\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.276\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 6 . Bootstrapping results for the mediating effect(work engagement1)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;5\u0026nbsp;summarizes the ordinary-least-squares results for the mediation model. In the first step, high-pressure culture is positively related to work engagement (Model 2: b = 0.20, p \u0026lt; 0.01), satisfying the a-path requirement. \u0026nbsp;When organizational commitment is regressed on both high-pressure culture and work engagement (Model 3), the previously significant coefficient for high-pressure culture drops to b = 0.02 (p = 0.55) while work engagement strongly predicts commitment (b = 0.91, p \u0026lt; 0.01). \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe substantial increase in explanatory power (R\u0026sup2; rising from 0.04 to 0.79) and the non-significant direct effect indicate that work engagement fully mediates the influence of high-pressure culture on organizational commitment.table\u0026nbsp;6\u0026nbsp;shows that The bootstrap test (5,000 iterations) revealed a significant positive indirect effect of high-pressure culture on organizational commitment through work engagement, with an effect size of 0.183 (SE = 0.052). The 95% bias-corrected confidence interval [0.074, 0.276] does not contain zero, and the corresponding z-value is 3.51 (p \u0026lt; 0.001). These results indicate that higher levels of high-pressure culture enhance employees\u0026apos; work engagement, which in turn significantly increases their organizational commitment, supporting a full mediation pathway.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"567\"\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eturnover intention\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ework engagement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eturnover intention\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003econstant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.852\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;(12.407)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.755\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;(12.310)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.338\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;(2.598)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ehigh pressure culture\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.196\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;(3.142)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.202\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;(3.244)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.017\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;(0.575)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ework engagement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.885\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;(30.542)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003esimple\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eR\u0026nbsp;2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.036\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.038\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.789\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAdjusted R\u0026nbsp;2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.033\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.035\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.787\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF\u0026nbsp;(1,263)=9.871,p=0.002\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF\u0026nbsp;(1,263)=10.525,p=0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF\u0026nbsp;(2,262)=488.830,p=0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;p\u0026lt;0.05 \u0026nbsp;p\u0026lt;0.01 note:(t)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 7 . mediating model analysis of work engagement (2)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"597\"\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eitem\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal indirect effect\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBoot SE\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ez\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBootLLCI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBootULCI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ehigh pressure culture=\u0026gt;turnover intention\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.179\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.052\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.434\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.074\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.274\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSum of indirect effects\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.179\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.052\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.434\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.074\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.274\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 8 . Bootstrapping results for the mediating effect ( work engagement 2 )\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs shown in Table\u0026nbsp;7\u0026nbsp;, high-pressure culture positively predicted work engagement (Model 2: b = 0.202, p \u0026lt; 0.01). When both high-pressure culture and work engagement were entered to predict turnover intention (Model 3), the direct path from high-pressure culture to turnover intention became non-significant (b = 0.017, p = 0.575), whereas work engagement exerted a significant negative effect on turnover intention (b = \u0026ndash;0.885, p \u0026lt; 0.01), and the model\u0026apos;s explanatory power jumped from 3.8% to 78.9%. Table\u0026nbsp;8\u0026nbsp;further reveals that the total indirect effect of high-pressure culture on turnover intention through work engagement was \u0026ndash;0.179 (SE = 0.052), with a 95% bias-corrected confidence interval of [\u0026ndash;0.274, \u0026ndash;0.074] excluding zero (z = 3.43, p \u0026lt; 0.001). Taken together, work engagement fully mediates the relationship between high-pressure culture and turnover intention: higher high-pressure culture enhances employees\u0026apos; work engagement, which in turn significantly reduces their intention to quit.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eThe mediating role of burnout\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"100%\"\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eturnover intention\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eburnout\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eturnover intention\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003econstant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.852\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;(12.407)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.180\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;(13.203)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.397\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;(0.827)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ehigh pressure culture\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.196\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;(3.142)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.173\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;(2.862)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.034\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;(1.275)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eburnout\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.935\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;(34.512)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003esimple\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eR\u0026nbsp;2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.036\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.030\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.826\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAdjusted R\u0026nbsp;2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.033\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.027\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.825\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF\u0026nbsp;(1,263)=9.871,p=0.002\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF\u0026nbsp;(1,263)=8.190,p=0.005\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF\u0026nbsp;(2,262)=622.820,p=0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;p\u0026lt;0.05 \u0026nbsp;p\u0026lt;0.01 note:(t)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 9 . mediating model analysis of burnout(1)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"100%\"\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eitem\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal indirect effect\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBoot SE\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ez\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBootLLCI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBootULCI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ehigh pressure culture=\u0026gt;turnover intention\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.161\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.055\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.933\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.003\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.049\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.264\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSum of indirect effect\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.161\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.055\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.933\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.003\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.049\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.264\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 10 . Bootstrapping results for the mediating effect(burnout 1)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe results of the simplified mediation model(table\u0026nbsp;9\u0026nbsp;and table\u0026nbsp;10\u0026nbsp;) show that burnout fully mediates the relationship between high-pressure culture and turnover intention. When burnout is excluded , high-pressure culture significantly predicts turnover intention (\u0026beta; = 0.196, p \u0026lt; 0.01). After including burnout (Model 3), the direct effect of high-pressure culture becomes negligible and non-significant (\u0026beta; = 0.034, p \u0026gt; 0.05), whereas burnout strongly predicts turnover intention (\u0026beta; = 0.935, p \u0026lt; 0.01). Additionally, high-pressure culture significantly predicts burnout (Model 2: \u0026beta; = 0.173, p \u0026lt; 0.01). The sharp increase in explanatory power (R\u0026sup2; from 0.036 to 0.826) and the highly significant F-change indicate that burnout accounts for the vast majority of the variance in turnover intention. Consequently, the data support a full mediation process: high-pressure culture increases employee burnout, which in turn drives their intention to leave.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"100%\"\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eorganizational commitment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eburnout\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eorganizational commitment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003econstant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.607\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;(11.908)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.180\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;(13.203)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.268\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;(0.488)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ehigh pressure culture\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.199\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;(3.138)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.173\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;(2.862)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.039\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;(1.284)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eburnout\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.925\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;(29.867)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003esimple\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eR\u0026nbsp;2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.036\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.030\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.781\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAdjusted R\u0026nbsp;2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.032\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.027\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.779\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF\u0026nbsp;(1,263)=9.848,p=0.002\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF\u0026nbsp;(1,263)=8.190,p=0.005\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF\u0026nbsp;(2,262)=467.621,p=0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;p\u0026lt;0.05 \u0026nbsp;p\u0026lt;0.01 note:(t)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 11 . mediating model analysis of burnout(2)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"100%\"\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eitem\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal indirect effect\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBoot SE\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ez\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBootLLCI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBootULCI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ehigh pressure culture=\u0026gt;organizaional commitment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.160\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.053\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.986\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.003\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.048\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.256\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSum of indirect effect\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.160\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.053\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.986\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.003\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.048\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.256\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 12 . Bootstrapping results for the mediating effect(burnout 2)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe table 11\u0026nbsp;and 12\u0026nbsp;illustrate that, the regression and bootstrapping results show that burnout fully mediates the link between high-pressure culture and organizational commitment. In the absence of burnout , high-pressure culture has a significant positive effect on commitment (\u0026beta; = 0.199, p \u0026lt; 0.01); however, once burnout is entered the direct path drops to a trivial and non-significant 0.039 (p \u0026gt; 0.05), while burnout itself strongly and negatively predicts commitment (\u0026beta; = 0.925, p \u0026lt; 0.01). \u0026nbsp;The explanatory power jumps from 3.6 % to 77.9 %, and the bootstrapped indirect effect is 0.160 (SE = 0.053, 95 % CI [0.048, 0.256], z = 2.99, p = 0.003). \u0026nbsp; Thus, high-pressure culture erodes organizational commitment exclusively by first heightening employee burnout; no meaningful direct relationship remains after accounting for this mediating pathway.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eThe moderated role of emotional labour\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"100%\"\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eorganizational commitment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ework engagement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026beta;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSE\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003et\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026beta;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSE\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003et\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003econstant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.878\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.517\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.699\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.091\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.913\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.287\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.232\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ehigh pressure culture\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.016\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.030\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.551\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.582\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.030\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.311\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.095\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.924\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eemotional labour\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.560\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.466\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1.203\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.230\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ehigh pressure cultureemotional labour\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.032\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.034\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.946\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.345\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ework engagement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.905\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.029\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e31.143\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003esimple\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eR\u0026nbsp;2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.795\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.045\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAdjusted R\u0026nbsp;2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.793\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.030\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF\u0026nbsp;(2,262)=508.005,p=0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF\u0026nbsp;(3,261)=4.074,p=0.007\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"9\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;p\u0026lt;0.05 \u0026nbsp;p\u0026lt;0.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 13 . Results for moderating effects(1).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFrom this table 13, emotional labour failed to demonstrate a significant moderating effect: the interaction term between high-pressure culture and emotional labour yielded a mere \u0026beta; = 0.032 (SE = 0.034, t = 0.946, p = 0.345), well below conventional significance thresholds. Likewise, the main effect of emotional labour was negative but non-significant (\u0026beta; = \u0026ndash;0.560, p = 0.230). These results indicate that, regardless of the emotional-labour strategies employees adopt, the detrimental impact of a high-pressure culture on work engagement is neither intensified nor buffered. Consequently, the hypothesis boundary role of emotional labour is unsupported. In short, the linkage between high-pressure environments and engagement appears \u0026ldquo;immune\u0026rdquo; to emotional labour; to mitigate the negative consequences of organizational pressure, managers must look for other contextual or individual-level resources rather than relying on differential use of emotional-labour tactics.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"100%\" class=\"fr-table-selection-hover\"\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eturnover intention\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ework engagement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026beta;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSE\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003et\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026beta;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSE\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003et\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003econstant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.338\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.515\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.598\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.010\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.913\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.287\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.232\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ehigh pressure culture\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.017\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.030\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.575\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.566\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.030\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.311\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.095\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.924\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eemotional labour\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.560\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.466\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1.203\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.230\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ehigh pressure cultureemotional labour\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.032\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.034\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.946\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.345\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ework engagement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.885\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.029\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30.542\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003esimple\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e265\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eR\u0026nbsp;2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.789\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.045\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAdjusted R\u0026nbsp;2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.786\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.030\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF\u0026nbsp;(2,262)=488.830,p=0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF\u0026nbsp;(3,261)=4.074,p=0.007\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"9\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;p\u0026lt;0.05 \u0026nbsp;p\u0026lt;0.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 14.Results for moderating effects(2).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe moderating effect of emotional labour was not supported in this study. (table 14 ) The interaction term between high-pressure culture and emotional labour yielded a non-significant coefficient of 0.017 (SE = 0.030, t = 0.575, p = 0.566), indicating that emotional labour neither buffers nor amplifies the impact of high-pressure culture on turnover intention. Moreover, the main effect of emotional labour was also non-significant (\u0026beta; = \u0026ndash;0.560, p = 0.230). These findings suggest that differences in emotional-labour strategies do not alter the strength of the relationship between a high-pressure environment and employees\u0026apos; intention to leave; organizations should therefore look for other moderating variables to mitigate turnover risk stemming from workplace pressure.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eBased on the lens of Social Exchange Theory (SET), this study examines the double-edged effects of a high-pressure culture on employees' work engagement and turnover intention. Using a survey design to test the research model, we obtain the following findings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirst, a high-pressure culture indeed produces a double-edged sword. On the negative side, it strengthens employees' turnover intention by increasing emotional exhaustion; on the positive side, it weakens turnover intention by enhancing work engagement.Second, the results show that a high-pressure culture reduces organizational commitment through heightened emotional exhaustion, yet it also raises organizational commitment by boosting work engagement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBy uncovering these dual mechanisms and their boundary conditions from a SET perspective, the research helps both employees and managers view work overload, thereby leveraging its advantages while mitigating its drawbacks.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor the theoretical contribution, first, by foregrounding \u0026ldquo;social exchange\u0026rdquo; rather than mere \u0026ldquo;resource depletion,\u0026rdquo; this study closes a critical gap in the literature on high-pressure cultures. Previous work has typically cast employees as passive victims, applying classic stress frameworks\u0026mdash;such as COR (Hobfoll, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e) and the JD-R model (Demerouti et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026mdash;that highlight how drained resources and inadequate coping heighten turnover (Lee \u0026amp; Ashforth, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e) and depress performance (Wright \u0026amp; Cropanzano, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e). Such studies equate \u0026ldquo;pressure with harm,\u0026rdquo; overlooking (a) who creates the pressure ( LePine et al., 2017) and (b) whether employees perceive a potential profit in the exchange (Cropanzano \u0026amp; Mitchell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). In reality, a high-pressure climate is usually enacted by leaders (Zhang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e); hence employees ask not only \u0026ldquo;How much more must I give?\u0026rdquo; but also \u0026ldquo;What might I get back?\u0026rdquo; Although scholars have recently urged an exchange lens on stress reactions (e.g., Bolino et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Wang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), empirical evidence remains scarce. Answering this call, we zoom in on the leader\u0026ndash;member dyad (Graen \u0026amp; Uhl-Bien, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e) and argue that when employees confront environmentally induced pressure they simultaneously weigh \u0026ldquo;excess losses\u0026rdquo; against \u0026ldquo;excess gains\u0026rdquo; and reciprocate in kind (Blau, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1964\u003c/span\u003e; Gouldner, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1960\u003c/span\u003e). Reframing high-pressure culture from one-way exploitation to a possibly beneficial exchange, we broaden the theoretical landscape of occupational stress research.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor the implication contribution,As the economy struggles to recover in the post-pandemic era, the market's lofty expectations for SMEs have become the new normal, and cut-throat competition has pushed many firms toward a high-pressure culture. Our study offers practical lessons for managing employee stress. First, we show that a high-pressure climate triggers ambivalent reactions: on one hand, the extra effort it demands can drain employees emotionally, prompting them to quit; on the other, the same pressure can be read as a sign that the employer values and is grooming them, spurring higher engagement and lower turnover.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegarding the management of high-pressure culture, enterprises should also pay attention to shortening overtime hours to a certain extent, reducing economic penalties for employees, and canceling the last place elimination system, which may reduce employees' tendency to resign.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eLimitation and future directions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirstly, this study focuses on analyzing employees' reaction mechanisms to high-pressure cultures and the role of emotional labor within the context of leader and member relationships. In some high-load organizations, employees may either over-invest or develop turnover intentions due to organizational characteristics, yet emotional labor shows no moderating effect. Future research could approach the topic from macro-level factors such as industry traits and organizational climate to examine employees' reactions to high-pressure cultures and their boundary conditions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecondly, the present work concentrates on the double-edged effects of high-pressure cultural climates in Chinese small and medium-sized enterprises; future studies could expand the sample to diverse types of firms.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLast but not least, all participants were recruited from the Chinese context, limiting cross-cultural.Chinese culture emphasizes the collectivist application of social-exchange theory, and leaders in China's institutional environment typically enjoy considerable autonomy.Consequently, leaders exert strong influence over subordinates' workload and rewards; it is common for leaders to cultivate favored subordinates by assigning excessive tasks and responsibilities. In other cultural or institutional settings, such leader influence may differ. Future research could extend or replicate these findings in alternative cultural contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eAcknowledgement\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe would like to express our sincere gratitude to all individuals and institutions that contributed to this study. we are deeply thankful to the editors and anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and constructive suggestions, which significantly improved the quality of this manuscript. We also appreciate the participants who generously devoted their time to the survey/interviews, without whom this research would not have been possible.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData availability statement\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFunding statement\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThere is no funding in this article\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConsent to Participate declaration\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll participants provided informed consent prior to participation in the study. They were informed about the purpose, procedures, and potential risks of the research, and were assured of the confidentiality and anonymity of their responses. Participation was voluntary, and participants were free to withdraw at any time without penalty. The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the ethics committee of Capital University of Economics and Business.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEthics declaration\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was granted by the Ethics Committee of capital university of Economics and Business\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHuman Ethics and Consent to Participate declarations\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHuman Ethics and Consent to Participate declarations: not applicable\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDisclosure Statement\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThere is no conflict of interest.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for Publication\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot Applicable\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAgarwal, P., \u0026amp; Farndale, E. (2017). High‐performance work systems and creativity implementation: the role of psychological capital and psychological safety. Human Resource Management Journal, 27(3), 440-458. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12148\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAvey, J. B., Reichard, R. J., Luthans, F., \u0026amp; Mhatre, K. H. (2011). Meta-analysis of the impact of positive psychological capital on employee attitudes, behaviors, and performance. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 22(2), 127-152. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.20070\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., \u0026amp; Sanz-Vergel, A. I. (2014). Burnout and work engagement: The JD\u0026ndash;R approach. Annual review of organizational psychology and organizational behavior, 1(2014), 389-411.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBayes, A., Tavella, G., \u0026amp; Parker, G. (2021). The biology of burnout: Causes and consequences. The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry, 22(9), 686-698.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBlau, G., \u0026amp; Boal, K. (1987). Conceptualizing how job involvement and organizational commitment affect turnover and absenteeism. Academy of Management Review, 12(2), 288\u0026ndash;300. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1987.4307828\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBlau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBolino, M. C., Hsiung, H. H., Harvey, J., \u0026amp; LePine, J. A. (2017). \u0026ldquo;Well, I\u0026apos;m tired of tryin\u0026apos;!\u0026rdquo; Organizational citizenship behavior and citizenship fatigue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(4), 602\u0026ndash;622.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrotheridge, C. M., \u0026amp; Lee, R. T. (2003). Development and validation of the Emotional Labour Scale. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76(3), 365-379. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317903769647229\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCavanaugh, M. A., Boswell, W. R., Roehling, M. V., \u0026amp; Boudreau, J. W. (2000). An empirical examination of self-reported work stress among U.S. managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 65-74. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.65\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChristian, M. S., Garza, A. S., \u0026amp; Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 89-136. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01203.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCohen, A., \u0026amp; Lowenburg, G. (1990). A re-examination of the side-bet theory as applied to organizational commitment: A meta-analysis. Human Relations, 43(10), 1015\u0026ndash;1050. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679004301004\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCrawford, E. R., LePine, J. A., \u0026amp; Rich, B. L. (2010). Linking job demands and resources to employee engagement and burnout: A theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 834\u0026ndash;848.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCropanzano, R., \u0026amp; Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874-900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCropanzano, R., Anthony, E. L., Daniels, S. R., \u0026amp; Hall, A. V. (2017). Social exchange theory: A critical review with theoretical remedies. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 479-516. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2015.0099\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDemerouti, E. (1999). Burnout: A consequence of specific working conditions among human-service and production employees. University of Groningen.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDemerouti, E. (2024).Burnout: a comprehensive review.Zeitschrift f\u0026uuml;r Arbeitswissenschaft,78,49-504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41449-024-00452-3\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDemerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., \u0026amp; Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands\u0026ndash;resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499\u0026ndash;512.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDiefendorff, J. M., Erickson, R. J., Grandey, A. A., \u0026amp; Dahling, J. J. (2011). Emotional display rules as work unit norms: a multilevel analysis of emotional labor among nurses. Journal of occupational health psychology, 16(2), 170. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000135\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGabriel, A. S., Koopman, J., Rosen, C. C., \u0026amp; Johnson, R. E. (2018). Helping others or helping oneself? An episodic examination of the behavioral consequences of helping at work. Personnel Psychology, 71(1), 85-107.. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12229\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161\u0026ndash;178.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGraen, G. B., \u0026amp; Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader\u0026ndash;member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years. Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219\u0026ndash;247.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGrandey, A. A. (2000). Emotional regulation in the workplace: A new way to conceptualize emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(1), 95-110. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.5.1.95\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGrandey, A. A. (2003). When \u0026ldquo;the show must go on\u0026rdquo;: Surface acting and deep acting as determinants of emotional exhaustion and peer-rated service delivery. Academy of Management Journal, 46(1), 86\u0026ndash;96. https://doi.org/10.2307/30040678\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGrandey, A. A., \u0026amp; Gabriel, A. S. (2015). Emotional labor at a crossroads: Where do we go from here? Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2(1), 323-349. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111400\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGrandey, A. A., Rupp, D., \u0026amp; Brice, W. N. (2015). Emotional labor threatens decent work: A proposal to eradicate emotional display rules. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(6), 770-785. DOI:10.1002/job.2020\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGupta, M., \u0026amp; Shaheen, M. (2017).Impact of work engagement on turnover intention: Moderation by psychological capital in India. Business: Theory and Practice, 18, 136-143.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHalbesleben, J. R., \u0026amp; Buckley, M. R. (2004). Burnout in organizational life. Journal of Management, 30(6), 859-879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2004.06.004\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513\u0026ndash;524.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHobfoll, S. E., Halbesleben, J., Neveu, J. P., \u0026amp; Westman, M. (2018). Conservation of resources in the organizational context: The reality of resources and their consequences. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5, 103-128. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104640\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHom, P. W., Lee, T. W., Shaw, J. D., \u0026amp; Hausknecht, J. P. (2017). One hundred years of employee turnover theory and research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 530-545. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000103\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHomans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63(6), 597\u0026ndash;606.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHong, E., \u0026amp; Lee, Y. S. (2016). The mediating effect of emotional intelligence between emotional labour, job stress, burnout and nurses\u0026apos; turnover intention. International journal of nursing practice, 22(6), 625-632.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eH\u0026uuml;lsheger, U. R., \u0026amp; Schewe, A. F. (2011). On the costs and benefits of emotional labor: A meta-analysis of three decades of research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16(3), 361-389. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022876\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIstiningsih, I. D., Sugandini, D., \u0026amp; Wahyuni, P. (2020). The Influence of Job Satisfaction and Employee Engagement on Organizational Commitment. In Proceeding of LPPM UPN \u0026ldquo;Veteran\u0026rdquo; Yogyakarta Conference Series 2020\u0026ndash;Economic and Business Series (Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 1-9).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJackson, S. E., Schwab, R. L., \u0026amp; Schuler, R. S. (1986).Toward an understanding of the burnout phenomenon. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(4), 630\u0026ndash;640.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJeung, D. Y., Kim, C., \u0026amp; Chang, S. J. (2018). Emotional labor and burnout: A review of the literature. Yonsei medical journal, 59(2), 187.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKim, H. J. (2008). Hotel service providers\u0026apos; emotional labor: The antecedents and effects on burnout. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27(2), 151-161.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKim, W., \u0026amp; Hyun, Y. S. (2017). The impact of personal resources on turnover intention: The mediating effects of work engagement. European Journal of Training and Development, 41(8), 705-721.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKim, W., Kim, J., Woo, H., Park, J., Jo, J., Park, S.-H., \u0026amp; Lim, S. Y. (2017). The Relationship Between Work Engagement and Organizational Commitment: Proposing Research Agendas Through a Review of Empirical Literature. Human Resource Development Review, 16(4), 350-376. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484317725967\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKim,M.-S.(2016).Social Exchange Theory. In The International Encyclopedia of Communication Theory and Philosophy.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKissi E, Ikuabe MO, Aigbavboa CO, Smith ED, Babon-Ayeng P (2024), \u0026quot;Mediating role of work engagement in the relationship between supervisor support and turnover intention among construction workers\u0026quot;. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 31 No. 13 pp. 102\u0026ndash;120, doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-06-2023-0556\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKurtessis, J. N., Eisenberger, R., Ford, M. T., Buffardi, L. C., Stewart, K. A., \u0026amp; Adis, C. S. (2017). Perceived organizational support: A meta-analytic evaluation of organizational support theory. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1854-1884. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315575554\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLee, R. T., \u0026amp; Ashforth, B. E. (1990). On the meaning of Maslach\u0026apos;s three dimensions of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 743\u0026ndash;747.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLee, R. T., \u0026amp; Ashforth, B. E. (1996). A meta-analytic examination of the correlates of the three dimensions of job burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(2), 123\u0026ndash;133.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLeiter, M. P., \u0026amp; Maslach, C. (1988). The impact of interpersonal environment on burnout and organizational commitment. Journal of organizational behavior, 9(4), 297-308.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLePine, J. A., Podsakoff, N. P., \u0026amp; LePine, M. A. (2005). A meta-analytic test of the challenge stressor\u0026ndash;hindrance stressor framework: An explanation for inconsistent relationships among stressors and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 764\u0026ndash;775. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2005.18803921\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLewandowski, C. A. (2003). Organizational factors contributing to worker frustration: The precursor to burnout. J. Soc. \u0026amp; Soc. Welfare, 30, 175.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMaslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., \u0026amp; Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 397-422. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMathieu, J. E., \u0026amp; Kohler, S. S. (1990). A test of the interactive effects of organizational commitment and job involvement on various types of absence. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 36(1), 33-44.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMelamed, O. C., Selby, P., \u0026amp; Taylor, V. H. (2022). Mental health and obesity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Current Obesity Reports, 11(1), 23-31.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMobley, W. H. (1977). Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction and employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(2), 237\u0026ndash;240. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.62.2.237\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMowday, R. T. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14(2), 224\u0026ndash;247.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePreacher, K. J., \u0026amp; Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior research methods, 40(3), 879-891.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePrice, J. L. and Mueller, C. W. (1981).\u0026lsquo;A causal model of turnover for registered nurses\u0026apos;, Academy of Management Journal, 24, 543-565.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eReichers, A. E. (1985). A review and reconceptualization of organizational commitment. Academy of management review, 10(3), 465-476.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRen, S., Wang, Z., Usman, M., \u0026amp; Chadee, D. (2024). Double-edged sword at work: impacts of guanxi human resource management on employee innovative behavior. Personnel Review, 53(8), 2067-2086. https://doi.org/10.1108/pr-11-2021-0826\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., \u0026amp; Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 617-635. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.51468988\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRoodt, G., \u0026amp; Bothma, T. (2012). The Turnover Intention Scale (TIS-6): A reliable and valid instrument for predicting actual resignation. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 10(1), 1\u0026ndash;11.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSazili, S., Ju\u0026apos;im, J., Indarti, S., \u0026amp; Efendi, R. (2022). Turnover intention influenced by work environment and job satisfaction. International Journal of Social Science Research and Review, 5(6), 102-108.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchaufeli, W. B., \u0026amp; Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 293\u0026ndash;315.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., \u0026amp; Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and psychological measurement, 66(4), 701-716.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSulistiyani, E., Hidayat, Y. A., Setiawan, A., \u0026amp; Suwardi, S. (2022). Perceived organizational support, employee work engagement and work life balance: Social exchange theory perspective. Jurnal Riset Ekonomi Dan Bisnis, 15(2), 133-143. https://doi.org/10.26623/jreb.v15i2.5336\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSwider, B. W., \u0026amp; Zimmerman, R. D. (2010). Born to burnout: A meta-analytic path model of personality, job burnout, and work outcomes. Journal of Vocational behavior, 76(3), 487-506.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTaris, T. W. (2006). Bricks without clay: On urban myths in occupational health psychology. Work \u0026amp; Stress, 20(2), 99-104. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370600893410\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTse, Y. A., Huang, R., \u0026amp; Yao, K. (2021). Emotional labor in hospitality: A new five-item short form. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 94, 102804.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVan Der Hulst, M., \u0026amp; Geurts, S. (2001). Associations between overtime and psychological health in high and low reward jobs. Work \u0026amp; Stress, 15(3), 227\u0026ndash;240.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWang, H., Liu, Y., \u0026amp; Zhang, M. (2022). When emotional labor meets engagement: A multilevel mediation model of surface/deep acting on organizational commitment in China\u0026apos;s hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 106, 103286.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWen, Z., \u0026amp; Ye, B. (2014). Different methods for testing moderated mediation models: competitors or backups?. Acta psychologica sinica.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWright, T. A., \u0026amp; Cropanzano, R. (1998). Emotional exhaustion as a predictor of job performance and voluntary turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(3), 486\u0026ndash;493.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eXiong, R., \u0026amp; Wen, Y. (2020). Employees\u0026lsquo;turnover intention and behavioral outcomes: The role of work engagement. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 48(1), 1-7.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYikilmaz, I., Surucu, L., Maslakci, A., Dalmis, A. B., \u0026amp; Toros, E. (2024). Exploring the relationship between surface acting, job stress, and emotional exhaustion in health professionals: the moderating role of LMX. Behavioral Sciences, 14(8), 637.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhang, Y., Liu, Y., \u0026amp; Wang, M. (2022). High-pressure culture and employee outcomes: A social exchange view. Journal of Management Studies, 59(2), 387\u0026ndash;418.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-psychology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"psyo","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Psychology](http://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"BMC Psychology","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"high pressure culture, burnout, turnover intention, emotional labour, organizational commitment","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9121603/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9121603/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eHigh pressure culture is an important source of workplace stress. In the global environment, the high-pressure culture of enterprises is one of the crucial factors leading to turnover.However, are high-pressure cultures all negative effects?This article interprets employees' response logic from the perspective of social exchange theory rather than simply stress, and proposes a \"double-edged sword\" model: on the one hand, high-pressure culture causes employees to experience the burnout, the results is to bring the rate of turnover; on the other hand, under the moderating effect of emotional labor, high-pressure culture increases employees' work engagement, leading to an increase in organizational commitment.The researchers tracked 265 employees in batches, collected data through questionnaires, then tested the hypotheses in the article and drew conclusions.The study explores the double-edged sword effect of high-pressure culture and the boundaries of its application, applies social exchange theory to the exploration of cultural factors.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Exploring The “double-edged sword” effect of high pressure culture in SME:Evidence from China","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-04-23 10:37:10","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9121603/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-05-06T02:52:14+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-04-30T08:39:50+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"185045187851200167755910317932665285968","date":"2026-04-26T02:36:57+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"277038952486909811890731628362314890905","date":"2026-04-24T17:49:16+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-04-22T20:15:23+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"253451856710784868079239794423253154478","date":"2026-04-22T19:58:22+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"130403348860219325900870513934121941851","date":"2026-04-20T19:04:13+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"84718478265033839457153093029963089769","date":"2026-04-18T03:30:13+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-04-17T12:52:15+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"63117477637121048013904784176633051809","date":"2026-04-17T12:42:34+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"141817718832947970154052180972959485432","date":"2026-04-15T12:51:56+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-04-15T12:36:20+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-04-13T13:21:11+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2026-03-18T13:53:51+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-03-18T08:11:13+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"BMC Psychology","date":"2026-03-18T06:39:59+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-psychology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"psyo","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Psychology](http://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"BMC Psychology","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"db88753c-4349-4342-98ba-36884fe715a6","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 23rd, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-05-06T02:52:14+00:00","index":71,"fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-04-30T08:39:50+00:00","index":70,"fulltext":""}],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-23T10:37:10+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-04-23 10:37:10","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9121603","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9121603","identity":"rs-9121603","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}