“You are not what they did to you”: A longitudinal single-case study of workplace violences and identity recovery in Brazil

“You are not what they did to you”: A longitudinal single-case study of workplace violences and identity recovery in Brazil | 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 “You are not what they did to you”: A longitudinal single-case study of workplace violences and identity recovery in Brazil Vinícius Rodrigues Arruda Pinto, Katia Vione, Cristiane Figueiredo Vasconcellos, and 2 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7558875/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 10 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Workplace violence is a pervasive and multifaceted phenomenon, encompassing physical aggression, symbolic humiliation, institutional neglect, and transnational forms of harm. These dynamics produce cumulative psychosocial effects, including anxiety, depression, emotional exhaustion, and occupational dysfunction. Early-life traumas, such as emotional neglect and coercive parenting, resurfaced under workplace pressures in this case, amplifying vulnerability and maladaptive coping in adulthood. This study examines how intersecting forms of workplace violence and coping mechanisms shaped the psychological illness and reintegration trajectory of a Brazilian public servant. Using a narrative-informed, longitudinal case study design, self-reported accounts over 24 months were analyzed through thematic content analysis, factorial correspondence, and sentiment analysis. Network visualizations highlighted “occupational stress” and “psychological suffering” as central in early stages, with “self-strengthening” and “autonomy” emerging during recovery. The findings reveal workplace violence as a multi-layered ecosystem of harm that progressively eroded well-being. Resilience initially manifested as survival-oriented compliance but evolved into empowerment and identity reconstruction after relocation to a supportive department. This transformation underscores how organizational climates and leadership practices condition resilience, moving it beyond an individual trait to a relational and context-dependent process. This trajectory illustrates a paradox: while the workplace initially perpetuated harm, it later became the setting for growth when systemic barriers were lifted. Supportive relationships with supervisors, colleagues, and mental health professionals facilitated positive identity reconstruction. These insights challenge organizations to address both structural determinants of violence and the inner narratives through which workers interpret harm. Interventions fostering psychological safety and inclusive leadership are essential to disrupt cycles of suffering and promote sustainable recovery. workplace violence public sector employee worker well-being psychosocial illness reintegration occupational stress Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Introduction Workplace violence poses a growing global threat to occupational health. According to the International Labour Organization, 23% of workers report exposure to some form of violence—34.3% in the Americas alone—most commonly psychological, including verbal abuse, threats, and institutional neglect (ILO, 2024). The World Health Organization now classifies burnout as an occupational phenomenon, emphasizing chronic stress and emotional exhaustion in work settings (WHO, 2019; Ramos-Vera et al., 2025 ). Evidence links such violence to heightened anxiety, depression, and insomnia (Sharma & Johnson, 2024 ; Thompson et al., 2025 ), fueling calls for systemic interventions. In Brazil, these patterns are intensified: mental-health-related leaves rose 68% from 2023 to 2024, affecting nearly half a million workers (Ministério da Previdência Social, 2025 ). National statistics place mental and behavioral disorders among the main causes of long-term absence (IBGE, 2025), and psychosocial stressors—including workplace violence—have been directly tied to somatic and emotional symptoms (Mendonça et al., 2024 ; Trépanier et al., 2023 ). Global corporate data mirror these trends, with a 300% rise in mental health-related leaves (ComPsych, 2024 ). Exposure to workplace violence predisposes individuals to a wide range of psychological consequences, including burnout, anxiety, and disengagement, and constitutes a critical risk factor for persistent occupational dysfunction. Rather than isolated incidents, violence in the public sector often takes the form of cumulative harm—layered across verbal harassment, normative coercion, institutional neglect, and spillovers from personal stress (Herschcovis & Barling, 2010 ; Nielsen & Einarsen, 2018 ). These dynamics not only compromise well-being but also distort perceptions of what constitutes tolerable behavior, gradually normalizing dysfunction. For instance, Sciepura and Linos ( 2024 ) report that 33% of U.S. government workers experiencing high demands and low organizational support show symptoms of burnout, while 21% develop compassion fatigue. Similarly, Buta et al. ( 2024 ) found that workplace aggression and limited mental health literacy contribute to prolonged sick leave among Brazilian public employees. While psychological resilience has been proposed as a buffer, its operation within these environments is far from straightforward. Shi et al. ( 2025 ), for example, found that resilience attenuated emotional exhaustion among pediatricians fearful of future violence. Yet such buffering is not uniformly protective; resilience itself may be destabilized or rendered inert by chronic exposure to injustice, blurred responsibilities, and institutional silence. These findings suggest that violence does not merely harm—over time, it alters how workers interpret and respond to harm. Despite these risks, longitudinal studies capable of tracing the dynamic interplay between structural violence, coping, and identity over time remain scarce. This study addresses that gap through a 24-month case analysis of a Brazilian public-sector employee, tracing how intersecting stressors led to psychological illness and how workplace reintegration unfolded as a process of identity reconstruction. By bridging frameworks of job demands and control, organizational justice, and resilience, this research offers insights for organizational systems seeking to support recovery from occupational crises. Theoretical framework Workplace Violence Workplace violence is a multidimensional phenomenon encompassing physical assaults, verbal abuse, psychological intimidation, sexual harassment, and systemic neglect (Bowie & Fisher, 2012 ). In higher education institutions, particularly federal universities, horizontal violence—manifested through bullying and academic mobbing—has emerged as a pervasive issue. These contexts often reflect entrenched power hierarchies and normative coercion, disproportionately affecting technical and administrative staff, compounding stress, and eroding professional identity (Lee et al., 2024 ). Drawing on interactional and organizational aggression models (Neuman & Baron, 1998 ; Felblinger, 2008 ), workplace violence spans a broad continuum of harmful experiences. Recent studies demonstrate that workplace incivility often precedes overt bullying and exerts distinct, long-lasting harm on employees’ psychological well-being (Holm et al., 2022 ; Mehmood et al., 2024 ). By undermining dignity and emotional safety, incivility fosters environments where aggression escalates, triggering shame responses and impairing emotional regulation. These insidious dynamics weaken both individual resilience and organizational functioning, highlighting how workers’ exposure to violence is shaped by role, status, and identity within institutional hierarchies. This underscores the need for context-sensitive prevention and intervention strategies (Nielsen & Einarsen, 2018 ). A recent epidemiological study of security guards during the COVID-19 pandemic found a strong association between workplace violence and symptoms of depression, anxiety, insomnia, and somatic complaints. Exposure to multiple forms of aggression increased the likelihood of reporting severe psychological distress by 1.8 times (Lee et al., 2024 ). Similarly, a cross-sectional survey of mental health nurses revealed that 70.4% experienced at least one incident of workplace violence in the preceding year, and nearly half exhibited clinical levels of psychological distress. Although resilience emerged as a moderating factor—buffering depressive symptoms and supporting partial functionality—it was not sufficient to fully mitigate the adverse outcomes. Organizational factors such as social support, role clarity, and perceptions of justice have been identified as critical buffers against workplace stress. In contrast, individual traits like emotional stability and problem-focused coping provide limited protection in highly toxic environments (Fogaça et al., 2021 ; Lansisalmi et al., 2000 ). Notably, traditionally protective factors such as tenure and professional experience showed diminished effectiveness in such settings. These findings suggest that systemic organizational dynamics—particularly team-level support and collective perceptions of justice—can override personal resources in determining workers’ vulnerability to violence. In rigid and unjust hierarchies, even highly resilient individuals may experience exhaustion and disengagement, underscoring the primacy of culture and leadership in shaping employee well-being (Alfes et al., 2025 ). The detrimental consequences of workplace violence extend beyond individual suffering to institutional dysfunction. Fear of violence has been linked to emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and organizational cynicism, as shown by Shi et al. ( 2025 ) and Portoghese et al. ( 2017 ). While psychological resilience can mitigate burnout at the individual level, it does not prevent broader systemic erosion. Ko et al. ( 2024 ) quantified the organizational toll, demonstrating that violence-related absenteeism and presenteeism significantly reduce productivity through disrupted team functioning and knowledge loss. Beyond diminished performance, workplace violence undermines organizational culture, erodes trust, and fosters climates of fear. Financial burdens also accumulate through higher insurance premiums, compensation claims, and costs related to absenteeism and turnover. As Rasool et al. ( 2021 ) emphasize, reputational damage is an additional risk—organizations known for tolerating violence may struggle to retain talent, secure partnerships, or maintain public legitimacy. These findings underscore that resilience, to be sustainable, must be embedded not only in individuals but in the organizational fabric itself. Resilience and Coping in Occupational Contexts Workplace violence is a widespread phenomenon with profound implications for employee well-being, institutional functioning, and long-term engagement. Evidence from occupational health research suggests that such violence—ranging from episodic aggressions to chronic structural neglect—produces cumulative psychological consequences that may manifest as anxiety, depression, burnout, and reduced occupational performance (Nielsen & Einarsen, 2018 ; Bonanno et al., 2023 ; Zhang et al., 2024). In particular, employees exposed to persistent adversity in their work environment are more likely to exhibit signs of emotional exhaustion, disengagement, and attrition (Li et al., 2025 ; Griep et al., 2025 ). The public service sector is especially vulnerable, given the prevalence of power asymmetries, hierarchical rigidity, and the normalization of institutional violence (Herschcovis & Barling, 2010 ). Yet not all individuals respond to such conditions in the same way, raising critical questions about what enables certain workers to sustain functionality and psychological integrity in hostile environments. This heterogeneity of outcomes has placed individual resilience at the forefront of research on workplace adversity. Resilience is generally understood as the capacity to maintain or regain positive psychological functioning in the face of stressors (Rees et al., 2015 ; Notebaert et al., 2025 ). However, resilience is not a fixed trait, but a dynamic process shaped by both individual capacities—such as cognitive flexibility and emotional regulation—and contextual affordances, including organizational climate, leadership style, and perceived justice (Dunkel-Schetter & Dolbier, 2021 ; Brun et al., 2025 ). Building on Moos’ transactional model, Chun et al. ( 2006 ) emphasized that coping occurs at the intersection of personal systems (e.g., social competence, resilience) and environmental systems (e.g., institutional support, organizational stressors). From this ecological perspective, resilience emerges not solely from internal strength, but from the alignment between internal resources and external conditions. Importantly, this process is culturally mediated, as cultural norms shape how individuals interpret adversity and mobilize coping strategies over time. Several scholars have further nuanced the resilience construct by distinguishing between its protective and paradoxical forms. Protective resilience supports sustainable engagement, whereas paradoxical resilience—marked by overadaptation or denial—may perpetuate toxic organizational cultures by masking systemic dysfunction (Arifin, 2024 ; Khan et al., 2024 ). For instance, while emotionally resilient employees may initially withstand psychosocial disruptions, sustained functionality depends on whether the organizational setting provides structural resources that reinforce or erode these capacities (Wang et al., 2023 ). In hostile work environments, especially those characterized by repeated invalidation, blurred responsibilities, or hierarchical abuse, resilience can be either enabled or undermined by the broader institutional ecology (Robertson et al., 2023 ; Bonanno et al., 2023 ). Chronic exposure to leadership-related violence exemplifies the structural burden imposed on individual resilience. In a study with over 3,000 employees, Griep et al. ( 2025 ) found that abusive supervision significantly predicted turnover intentions and actual turnover, with productivity losses most pronounced in low-cohesion teams. However, where collective resilience—expressed through peer support and team solidarity—was strong, these negative outcomes were mitigated. This underscores that resilience is not only an individual variable but also a collective phenomenon, shaped by the social architecture of work environments. In sum, workplace resilience must be understood as both a psychological and institutional process. While adaptive flexibility equips individuals to manage acute stressors, and resistance capacity prepares them to endure chronic adversities, neither dimension can be sustained without organizational justice, role clarity, and procedural support. Overemphasis on individual coping may obscure structural deficiencies and displace responsibility from institutions to individuals—reinforcing the need for an integrated approach that aligns personal adaptation with systemic transformation. Taken together, resistance capacity and adaptive flexibility serve as complementary mechanisms that enable employees to maintain functionality across diverse workplace challenges. These insights ground the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 1 Perceived social support through active managerial engagement positively contributes to employees’ career adaptability, fostering renewed occupational commitment following workplace adversity. Hypothesis 2 Supportive organizational practices exert positive indirect effects on employee well-being, mediated by (a) resistance capacity and (b) adaptive flexibility. From Adversity to Resilience: Theoretical Pathways of Reintegration To explain divergent resilience trajectories, we integrate schema theory and the ACE framework. According to schema theory, early maladaptive schemas—cognitive structures shaped by adverse childhood experiences—influence how individuals perceive and respond to stressors (Pilkington et al., 2021 ). When these schemas involve impaired autonomy or limits, they can heighten vulnerability to emotional dysregulation, especially in environments that reinforce feelings of helplessness or devaluation (Huang et al., 2023 ). Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) further compound this sensitivity by disrupting emotion regulation and social functioning across the life course (Yoon et al., 2023 ). We conceptualize the strength of workplace violence events as a contextual trigger that can activate such schemas and compromise adaptive responses. Event strength can be assessed across three dimensions: novelty (how unexpected the event is), disruption (the degree to which it destabilizes functioning), and criticality (the level of perceived threat that necessitates psychological adjustment) (Morgeson et al., 2025 ). Higher event strength tends to intensify emotional and behavioral responses, particularly among individuals with unresolved developmental trauma. Return-to-work (RTW) outcomes among individuals with common mental disorders (CMDs) have increasingly been studied through ecological frameworks. Nielsen et al. ( 2018 ) propose that sustainable reintegration depends on multilevel conditions—organizational justice, interpersonal trust, and procedural flexibility—that shape whether returning employees feel supported or marginalized. This perspective resonates with public service contexts, where role ambiguity, bureaucratic inertia, and power asymmetries frequently compromise perceived fairness and obstruct adaptive coping. Popa et al. (2022) argue that RTW is not a linear transition but a negotiation between functional demands and the worker’s evolving self-concept, requiring both structural accommodation and narrative coherence. Similarly, Green et al. (2024) emphasize that adaptive capacities such as emotional regulation only foster lasting reintegration when embedded in responsive institutional contexts. Kelemen et al. ( 2020 ) further show that how organizations validate or silence employees' experiences profoundly shapes recovery trajectories, with self-efficacy and task clarity facilitating reintegration, while opacity and stigma impede it. These insights suggest that reintegration is influenced less by symptom resolution than by the interaction between systemic demands and the perceived meaning of the work role. For public servants—often operating under high pressure with minimal support—experiences of institutional injustice and blurred responsibilities persist beyond the workday, shaping emotional regulation, self-perception, and motivation over time. Chronic exposure to ambiguous authority or social exclusion tends to resurface in private thought, undermining confidence and adaptability. More broadly, workplace stressors and the absence of recovery opportunities exert lasting effects on psychological functioning, often outside conscious awareness (Sharma & Johnson, 2024 ). Taken together, these models underscore that resilience is contextually contingent. While individuals may exhibit initial adaptability, sustainable reintegration depends on institutional affordances. Echoing the equifinality logic of cumulative protection theory (Stoddard et al., 2012), diverse adaptive pathways may support recovery—but all hinge on the alignment between personal resources and environmental conditions. In this regard, the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model provides further insight: burnout stems from chronic imbalance between demands and resources, especially when recovery is obstructed (Demerouti & Bakker, 2022 ). In this view, resilience emerges not merely from personal stamina but from structural supports such as fairness, clarity, and validation. Azimi et al. ( 2024 ) demonstrate that resilience mediates the link between emotional exhaustion and re-engagement, especially when safety behavior is enabled by the organization. Social support—particularly from occupational health professionals and attentive supervisors—plays a central role (García-Izquierdo et al., 2025). When event strength is moderate, this support encourages adaptive flexibility and renewed occupational commitment. However, in contexts of high event strength—such as chronic harassment or institutional neglect—support functions to build resistance capacity, enabling individuals to endure without collapse (Bonanno et al., 2023 ; Notebaert et al., 2025 ). In light of this, we propose that as workplace violence intensifies, employees shift from adaptive flexibility to resistance-based resilience. Accordingly: Hypothesis 3 The strength of workplace violence moderates the relationship between social support, career adaptability, and resilience. Under high violence, adaptive flexibility declines while resistance capacity becomes pivotal for reintegration. Hypothesis 4 When social support is characterized by active listening and responsiveness to individual needs, it fosters career adaptability and occupational recommitment, even after severe adversity. Method Research strategy We employed a longitudinal single-case study design to explore the evolving interplay between workplace violence, psychological illness, and reintegration over time. This approach enabled the tracing of therapeutic trajectories and yielded context-sensitive insights into the lived experience of occupational suffering within a Brazilian public university (Petermann & Müller, 2001 ; Crowe et al., 2011). Longitudinal designs, such as that used by Tabakakis et al. ( 2025 ), are particularly effective for capturing fluctuations in meaning and emotional intensity. A two-year observation period was adopted to document temporal variations in the participant’s emotional and behavioral states. Design The participant was a 33-year-old White male, married with two children, and held a doctoral degree. Employed in the public sector for eight years, he worked as a laboratory technician at a Federal University in Minas Gerais, Brazil. Between June 2023 and June 2025, he was monitored by the university’s Division of Occupational Health and supported by a multidisciplinary team. Participant At baseline, the participant presented with severe emotional exhaustion linked to recurrent role changes, excessive demands, and moral harassment by supervisors. Previous episodes of workplace violence included coercive incidents leading to emotional breakdowns. He reported being forced to clean lab ceilings with sodium hypochlorite, a task far outside his job description, under humiliating circumstances. These stressors contributed to a marked decline in mental and physical health. By June 2023, symptoms included emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, anxiety, sleep disturbances, gastrointestinal issues, and reduced performance. Physical complaints included fatigue, headaches, weight fluctuation, pain, palpitations, hypertension, and lowered immunity. Emotionally, he reported hopelessness and questioned his purpose, though he denied suicidal intent. Following referral by the occupational psychologist, the participant was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood (ICD-11: 6B43), resulting in a sequence of psychiatric leaves: July 2023 (15 days), September 2023 (30 days), February 2024 (60 days, with relocation recommendation), July 2024 (renewed recommendation), August 2024 (30 days), September 2024 (30 days), October 2024 (60 days), November 2024 (ICD-11: 6B43 and 6B40; leave granted), and March 2025 (20 days). Except for the November 2024 assessment, all were issued by two psychiatrists from UFV's Psychosocial Division, evidencing multidisciplinary continuity of care. Workplace relocation was twice denied by a medical board despite unanimous recommendations from mental health professionals. The board justified the refusals with the claim that treatment continuation in the same environment would suffice. Additional support from a social worker and two occupational safety engineers was also disregarded. This institutional intransigence exacerbated symptoms and extended the participant’s period of incapacitation. In late 2024, a new medical board approved his transfer following occupational physician evaluation. Support during a three-month adaptation period—provided by the Occupational Health Division, departmental leadership, and the Pro-Rectorate for People Management—facilitated clinical and functional recovery, marked by a tapering of medication. The case illustrates the entangled dynamics of violence, resilience, and reintegration in Brazil’s public service context. The longitudinal design enabled real-time, layered analysis (Leedy & Ormrod, 2015 ; Taris & Kompier, 2003 ; Taris et al., 2021 ). Procedure We collected data from semi-structured clinical interviews, medical records, and observational field notes, providing a triangulated, multi-perspective account of the participant’s experience (Carter, 2014 ). Interviews occurred at key junctures—diagnosis, leave, relocation, and reintegration—ranging from 30 to 90 minutes, audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Additional sources included psychiatric reports, treatment logs, and workplace behavioral observations. Consent to Participate and Publish This study was submitted and approved by the Ethics Committee for Research Involving Human Subjects at the Federal University of São João del-Rei (CEPES-UFSJ) (CAAE 08550819.3.0000.5151) under the assent No. 3.382.018. The ethical procedures for conducting this research with human are outlined in UFSJ Resolution No. 023, dated October 28, 2015, which was prepared in accordance with the guidelines of Resolution National Health Council (CNS ) No. 466/2012 and 510/2016, and in accordance with the Code of Ethics of the World Medical Association (Declaration of Helsinki). All sessions were conducted in Portuguese, the participant’s native language, by trained occupational psychology professionals. Written informed consent for publication of clinical details was obtained from the participant. A copy of the signed consent form is available to readers as supplementary material. Data Collection and Analysis Narratives, WhatsApp® messages, and field notes were imported into Iramuteq (Ratinaud, 2009 ) and analyzed using a hybrid strategy informed by schema and event system theory (Gioia et al., 2013 ). Co-word network analysis was conducted using the most recent version of VOSviewer (v1.6.20), enabling the identification of semantic proximities and thematic clusters across the dataset, thus providing a visual structure to the evolving discursive fields. Subsequently, segments were reorganized into meaning units (Bellana et al., 2022 ), and codes refined through iterative analysis by three researchers (C.F.V., D.D.S.M., and V.R.A.P.), supported by reflexive memoing (Casey et al., 2014 ). Credibility was ensured through data triangulation and prolonged engagement (Carter, 2014 ); dependability through systematic documentation; confirmability via peer debriefing; and transferability through rich contextual descriptions. Each temporal segment underwent close reading, with semantic coding guided by Braun and Clarke’s ( 2006 ) thematic analysis framework. Initial codes captured emotional expressions and implicit behaviors. Bingham’s ( 2023 ) five-phase procedure informed deductive and inductive coding, drawing on occupational stress and coping models (Stanisławski, 2019 ; Brun et al., 2025 ; Dunkel-Schetter & Dolbier, 2021 ). The Coping Circumplex Model (Stanisławski, 2019 ) was used to classify coping styles and trace longitudinal adaptation. Codification considered the frequency and intensity of emotional expressions, emotional valence, and the functional implications reported. Based on qualitative content analysis principles (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008 ), continuous scores (0 to 1, in 0.1 increments) were assigned to each dimension, reflecting thematic prevalence and linguistic markers of deterioration or recovery. To capture nuanced affective shifts, sentiment analysis was performed using a hybrid method that combined rule-based tools (e.g., VADER) and transformer-based models (e.g., BERT and RoBERTa) fine-tuned for Portuguese (Devlin et al., 2019 ; Erwe & Wang, 2024 ; Saha et al., 2022 ). This allowed detection of mixed emotions and contextual irony, common in occupational health narratives (Alqarni et al., 2025 ; Pfeifer & Pexman, 2023 ). Scores across dimensions and time periods were plotted longitudinally to visualize trajectories of Distress, Resilience, and Positive Indicators, highlighting critical inflection points—such as the marked decrease in distress and rise in resilience following workplace relocation. Finally, Factorial Correspondence Analysis (FCA) was conducted to explore co-occurrence patterns between violence and resilience categories, revealing the evolving semantic structure of the participant’s trajectory. Results Workplace violence as a systemic stressor The participant’s narrative foregrounded workplace violence as a pervasive and multifaceted stressor that operated across interpersonal, symbolic, and institutional dimensions. Rather than being confined to isolated incidents, violence was experienced as a chronic, systemic condition that shaped his sense of identity, belonging, and agency at work. Content analysis revealed that abusive leadership, institutional neglect, and symbolic humiliation were the most recurrent themes during the early phases of occupational illness. As shown in Fig. 1, terms such as anxiety, insomnia, and emotional overload emerged with high frequency, underscoring the psychological and somatic burden of sustained exposure to hostile environments. The participant described feeling “trapped in a cycle of emotional exhaustion and professional invisibility,” reflecting a cumulative toll that extended beyond professional boundaries into his personal life: “I am tired of this place, of the hypocrisy, the conflicts, of being caught in the crossfire between professors. I even feel nauseated when I see the cars of some of them. This department has become toxic to me.” The participant’s reflections suggest that early childhood memories act as latent mediators between core and contextual aspects of his lived experience (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 2). Growing up in a family environment marked by emotional neglect and coercive dynamics, he internalized patterns of submission and over-adaptation to authority figures. These early imprints resurfaced in adulthood as heightened anxiety, persistent sleep disturbances, and psychosomatic symptoms, amplifying his vulnerability to workplace violence and impairing his ability to establish healthy boundaries in professional settings. The enduring influence of these dynamics emerges vividly in his accounts of recurrent stress responses: “During military enlistment, I lost nights of sleep, overwhelmed by anxiety at the thought of being ridiculed by the general in front of my peers and feeling utterly alone with no way out. It was the same with physics and calculus courses, when I would lie awake with insomnia and pain in my lower abdomen, imagining how it would feel to fail or endure the pressure of passing. The same occurred in my first job, as I agonized over being reassigned, feeling isolated while bearing technical responsibility for irregularities at the federal institute and fearing that during my management the supervisory body would blame me for unresolved errors left by previous administrators.” Within the semantic co-occurrence network (see Fig. 2), occupational violence (green cluster) and institutional violence (blue cluster) emerge as central nodes, densely interconnected with symbolic violence (purple cluster), authoritarianism, and psychological suffering (at the blue-purple interface). In contrast, early-life adversities such as rejection and parental pressure appear as peripheral nodes (early-life violence and family violence in the yellow and purple clusters), indicating how these pre-existing vulnerabilities were reactivated in response to occupational strain. Institutional practices—most notably the dismissal of legitimate accommodation requests—further compounded this trajectory of distress. These systemic dynamics amplified the psychological burden, undermined emotional regulation, and fueled a sense of helplessness in the participant’s narrative: “They say that technicians don’t do anything, but when they want me to do a professor’s job, they call me ‘doctor.’ I screamed on the phone once, just like the professor screamed at me. I’m at the breaking point. […]and worse: I always feel like I owe something more to someone. If I buy a gift, I choose the biggest or most expensive one because I fear it might seem insufficient. I constantly feel I’m not giving enough and end up overcompensating, trying to please everyone as much as I can. My conscience often accuses me, as if someone is never satisfied with me. I know this is unhealthy, but I cannot always stop feeling this way or truly believe otherwise.” These accounts vividly illustrate the intricate links between emotional outbursts (orange cluster), symbolic pressure (green cluster), and hopelessness (orange cluster). They also point to internalized patterns of guilt and overadaptation (pursuit of approval and internalized guilt in the yellow cluster). The proximity of these nodes in the network highlights how hierarchical and institutional forces sustained a hostile work environment, while vulnerabilities rooted in earlier life stages intensified emotional and behavioral dysregulation. As visualized in Fig. 3, negative affect dominated across violence-related domains, with little evidence of neutral or positive reappraisal at this stage of the trajectory: “I felt like I had no voice, no value. The chief dismissed my mental health issues as if they were a personal weakness. It’s humiliating.” Cognitive schemas shaped by early boundary violations further exacerbated his perception of authority figures in the workplace, reinforcing a dynamic of subordination and self-inhibition. During childhood and adolescence, repeated experiences of boundary violations within his extended family deeply imprinted his sense of self and relational patterns. Reflecting on these early episodes, he described a persistent sense of fragility and vulnerability that carried into adulthood: “From age 10 to 22, I worked at my mother’s copy shop and constantly felt I had no voice. I couldn’t say no when I didn’t want to work, while my younger brother, eight years my junior, had the freedom to refuse. Many times, my mother corrected me in front of clients, pointing out mistakes in ways that humiliated me, often saying I was doing things wrong or poorly. Those years taught me to suppress my own will, and even today I feel the weight of those moments in how I relate to authority.” This continuity between early family hierarchies and adult experiences in the workplace confirms how patterns of submission and emotional invalidation became deeply ingrained, shaping interactions with organizational authority figures. Leadership behaviors thus emerged not merely as contextual influences but as active determinants in escalating workplace violence and its psychological aftermath. The participant reported that his supervisor was “entirely closed to dialogue,” a dynamic that fostered relational avoidance and heightened anxiety. Similar dynamics, involving communication breakdowns and leadership disengagement that contribute to toxic workplace cultures, have been documented in organizational analyses (Lim et al., 2022; O’Brien et al., 2024). In this case, the absence of dialogic leadership appears to have intensified hypervigilance and somatic distress, as powerfully reflected in his testimony: “I developed panic even seeing cars similar to theirs. I avoid the department, the professors, everything. My body reacts—rashes, headaches, insomnia—just thinking about going back. That place was toxic: as an undergraduate, I was forced to stay until 2 a.m. for a master’s project and later publicly humiliated by a PhD student for inviting classmates to finish a task in the lab. The shame was so intense I quit my scholarship. I still carry many traumas from that department.” The narrative reveals repeated exposures to institutional tensions that progressively depleted the participant’s emotional resources, marked by cycles of exhaustion, identity destabilization, and impaired boundary-setting. Similar patterns of cumulative strain and organizational inertia have been documented in other contexts (Hendry et al., 2024; Slopen et al., 2018), underscoring the persistence of these dynamics in institutional environments. He described a persistent pattern of boundary violations, spanning from childhood to early academic experiences and resurfacing in his professional life as intense fear of requesting removal from a toxic department and anticipating retaliation during the redistribution process—ironically orchestrated by the same institution responsible for his illness. These cumulative experiences fostered what he called an “invisible prison,” where social hierarchies and organizational dynamics reinforced a narrative of weakness and submission. Workplace violence thus emerged not merely as explicit aggression but as a constellation of symbolic, relational, and institutional forces that systematically eroded resilience and obstructed recovery. Table 1 presents themes and codes identified through thematic content analysis of the participant’s narrative. Each code is accompanied by illustrative quotes that exemplify psychosocial distress and coping dynamics. Table 1 Themes and codes derived from content analysis of a workplace violences narrative Themes Codes Quotes Structural and Organizational Violence Institutional Violence “The department’s leadership systematically ignored my requests for adjustments, reinforcing a sense of institutional neglect.” “Administrative barriers felt like deliberate sabotage to my recovery process.” “Every initiative I proposed was either delayed or dismissed without explanation” “I felt trapped in a bureaucratic maze designed to exhaust me.” Silenced Violence “Whenever I raised concerns, I was silenced with reminders to be grateful for what the department had already given me.” “Speaking up against mistreatment only resulted in further isolation.” “Whenever I approached my supervisor to express my occupational stress, he would compete with me over who had suffered more in life, leaving my concerns unheard.” Occupational Violence “I was yelled at in front of colleagues for errors I hadn’t made.” “I was pressured to perform tasks far beyond my expertise, setting me up for failure.” Transnational Violence “I felt like a second-class professional in global collaborations.” “My Italian supervisor dismissed my publications, refused to discuss my project, and sometimes mocked me as a “young pecorino.” At first, I didn’t understand the joke, but later I realized it was xenophobic. Things worsened when I was given 20 minutes less to present my work and accused of being prolix. He even questioned my and my advisor’s integrity when I requested a document to certify the end of my activities so I could return early from the sandwich PhD”. Psychological Resources for Resilience and Empowerment Resilience “Despite the abuse, I clung to small routines that gave me a sense of control.” “Therapy taught me to set boundaries and regain control over my life.” “I relied on daily rituals to stabilize myself.” “Peer support became a lifeline during my darkest times.” “Resilience, to me, became about surviving, not thriving.” Identity Empowerment “Redefining my career values was liberating.” “The transfer gave me a chance to rebuild my confidence.” “Reclaiming autonomy felt like breathing again.” “I turned my pain into a mission to support others in similar situations.” “In my new role, I finally feel recognized for who I am.” Developmental Trauma and Familial Stressors Family Violence “At home, I constantly faced emotional invalidation, which shaped how I tolerated abuse at work.” “The lack of familial support worsened my resilience to workplace stressors.” “Criticism at home taught me to fear confrontation in any context.” Early-Life Violence “Childhood bullying made me afraid of asserting myself.” “Early trauma resurfaced every time I was humiliated at work.” “Even in adulthood, I carried the wounds of being constantly belittled as a child.” Cultural and Normative Workplace Aggression Educational Violence “The academic environment trained me to tolerate humiliation without resistance.” “Faculty meetings often felt like arenas of intimidation rather than collaboration.” Symbolic Violence “Recognition only came to those who conformed.” “Subtle exclusion cut deeper than explicit insults.” “I felt erased in group projects, even when I contributed significantly.” “They used sarcasm and jokes to undermine me publicly.” Normative Violence “Challenging the status quo led to retaliation.” “Saying no wasn’t an option without being labeled uncooperative.” “ Noncompliance with unofficial norms was treated as opportunism .” Fig. 3 illustrates that even within the domains of workplace violence, neutral and positive emotions coexisted with an overarching atmosphere of negativity. Support from psychiatrists, the occupational psychologist, close friends, and family emerged as stabilizing forces, buffering against complete psychological collapse. However, it was only after his removal from the toxic workplace environment that positive emotions began to predominate, accompanied by a gradual restoration of autonomy and dignity. This transition suggests that autonomy functions not merely as a protective factor but as a catalytic force capable of disrupting deeply entrenched cycles of symbolic and structural violence. As the narrative advanced, subtle yet significant signs of active coping and resource mobilization began to emerge: “The head of the nutrition department told me everyone there wants me. Knowing that my work is appreciated gave me the strength to pursue a transfer”. These statements reflect a shift from withdrawal to engagement, as the participant deliberately sought environments that validated his contributions and offered opportunities for growth. Within the semantic network (see Fig. 2), resilience-related nodes—such as “renewed hope” and “self-strengthening”—are concentrated in the red cluster positioned at the periphery of the network, in sharp contrast to the central clusters dominated by occupational violence (green), institutional violence (blue), and psychological suffering (purple). Although peripheral, the red cluster is characterized by dense internal connections and emerging links to the central violence domains, suggesting the gradual formation of an alternative narrative structure. This spatial configuration indicates the beginnings of a psychological reconfiguration, where resilience and identity empowerment operate as counterforces to the entrenched dynamics of symbolic and structural violence. Turning to the FCA, two factors explain 32% and 17.4% of the model, which are represented on the X and Y axes in Fig. 4. The two-dimensional view delineates four distinct clusters: (i) silenced, institutional, occupational, and transnational violence concentrated in the upper-left quadrant; (ii) educational, symbolic, and normative violence distributed across the upper-right quadrant; (iii) family violence and early-life violence in the lower-right quadrant; and (iv) resilience and identity empowerment positioned in the lower-left quadrant. While the factorial correspondence analysis (FCA) visually situates these domains in semantic space, the coding structure itself was derived inductively through content analysis. Notably, the cluster of educational violence lies at the intersection of symbolic/normative violence and early-life/family violence, suggesting its bridging role between formal institutional settings and personal formative experiences. The proximity between “school,” “symbolic violence,” and “normative violence” reinforces the idea that coercive socialization patterns within educational environments are semantically linked to broader systems of structural harm. While the FCA visually situates these domains within semantic space, the coding structure itself was inductively derived through content analysis. Importantly, the FCA highlights how resilience-related codes and identity empowerment surfaced at the edges of violence clusters, functioning as counterforces capable of reshaping the participant’s psychological trajectory and opening pathways toward recovery. These counterforces occupy a spatially opposed position relative to the violence clusters along Dimension 1, indicating a meaningful polarity between vulnerability and repair. Furthermore, variables such as “institutional,” “university hierarchy,” and “academic” appear tightly coupled with silenced and institutional violence, revealing the semantic entanglement between organizational structures and mechanisms of invisibilization. Conversely, codes like “resilience,” “self,” and “work” co-occur in the lower-left quadrant, indicating that the workplace—although originally implicated in harm—also became a domain for reconstructing meaning and restoring agency. Psychosocial Distress and the Escalation of Suffering The participant’s longitudinal narrative reveals a progressive erosion of psychological and physical health, closely tied to sustained exposure to workplace violence. Within the semantic network (see Fig. 2), “occupational stress” occupies a central position, densely interconnected with “psychological suffering” (purple cluster) and surrounding nodes such as “anxious symptoms”, “depersonalization”, and “symbolic violence”. This configuration maps a constellation of mutually reinforcing experiences. The participant repeatedly described patterns of hypervigilance and avoidance: “It’s been nearly two months since I last went to the university’s grocery store because I can’t stand passing by my workplace.” Somatic complaints were equally prominent, with flare-ups of dermatitis, gastritis, and chronic headaches exacerbated by severe insomnia: “I know this dermatitis on my face is stress-related. I can’t sleep; my throat hurts, and there are nights when I pace the house at 3 a.m., asking myself: how long will this last? I even dream of my boss chasing me or colleagues judging me for falling ill. Will it ever end?” Sentiment analysis (Fig. 3) further underscores the emotional toll: domains such as “Occupational Violence” (green cluster) and “Institutional Violence” (blue cluster) are dominated by negative affect, with data clustering in the lower-right quadrant—an image of cumulative strain: “Their presence sparks gossip, and that alone destabilizes me. Just thinking about returning to the department gives me insomnia.” As emotional detachment and loss of meaning surfaced, even achievements failed to elicit joy: “In the middle of all this, I received a merit medal as the top student in my psychology class and a patent award for technological innovation. I knew I was excelling, but I felt no joy. I’ve always been spirited, but now it feels like nothing matters anymore.” Coping strategies such as relational avoidance became increasingly entrenched: “I archived all departmental group chats because just seeing a notification gave me chills. I would clock in at times I knew I wouldn’t encounter anyone and use restrooms in other departments to avoid hallways.” Together, these patterns depict a trajectory of psychological withdrawal and emotional numbing. In Fig. 2, “relational avoidance” and “depersonalization” cluster tightly around “occupational stress” and “psychological suffering”, illustrating how workplace violence cascaded into emotional, physical, and social domains, progressively undermining health and functional engagement. Resilience Mechanisms as Protective Factors As the participant navigated the trajectory from distress to recovery, resilience mechanisms emerged as critical protective forces counteracting the cumulative effects of prolonged occupational violence. Individual resilience became evident as he progressively secured autonomy and workplace accommodations, enabling a gradual restoration of agency and self-determination. In parallel, collective resilience played an equally pivotal role—initially through the sustained support of occupational health professionals and later through validation and engagement from newly appointed faculty members. Together, these actors co-constructed a reconfigured work environment characterized by adequate infrastructure, administrative and social support, workplace flexibility, and systematic feedback. This collaborative effort consolidated a network of care, which not only sustained his reintegration but also catalyzed a profound reconfiguration of identity and belonging. The longitudinal trajectory visualization (see Fig. 5) captures this inflection point, marked by a steady decline in distress scores and a concurrent rise in resilience indicators. It was during this phase that the participant began to reframe his role within the institution and prioritize self-care as a central element of his professional identity: “I’ve started to realize that I can no longer carry the department’s problems on my shoulders. I need to take care of my well-being.” This shift reflects more than a coping strategy; it signals a deeper reorientation of priorities, as he came to recognize his right to set boundaries and disengage from dysfunctional organizational dynamics—transforming self-care from a mere act of survival into a cornerstone of his renewed sense of purpose and professional identity. Taken together, these findings provide compelling evidence in support of our initial hypotheses. Consistent with Hypothesis 1, perceived social support—particularly through active and empathetic managerial engagement—emerged as a critical factor in fostering employees’ career adaptability and renewing their occupational commitment in the aftermath of workplace adversity. Furthermore, in alignment with Hypothesis 2, the results underscore how supportive organizational practices exert indirect positive effects on employee well-being, mediated by enhanced resistance capacity and adaptive flexibility. The convergence of these patterns across emotional, behavioral, and psychosomatic domains reinforces the veracity of our theoretical model and highlights the transformative potential of organizational care systems in mitigating harm and enabling post-adversity growth. Reintegration and Growth: Pathways to Recovery The final stage of the participant’s trajectory reflects a gradual yet transformative process of reintegration and personal growth. Institutional support played a decisive role in this phase, fostering a renewed sense of empowerment and belonging: “The new supervisor has been very generous, empathetic. I feel more independent. He listens to me and doesn’t leave me stranded.” Although resilience mechanisms could not entirely erase the scars of past violence, their emergence marked a pivotal juncture in the trajectory from illness to recovery. Positive indicators of identity empowerment and emotional renewal began to coexist with lingering vulnerabilities such as hypervigilance and anticipatory anxiety. This inflection point is reflected in the longitudinal trajectory visualization (Fig. 3), where a sharp decline in distress scores aligns with steady increases in resilience and positive self-reports. “I can hardly believe how happy I feel in my new workplace. The professor here is empathetic, gives me space to grow, and listens to me. I finally feel like I belong.” This renewed sense of belonging was accompanied by psychosomatic improvements: better sleep, cessation of chronic rhinitis, and a noticeable reduction in episodes of anger and physical tension. “My insomnia has decreased more and more, and even my allergies are gone. I’ve started taking initiative again, working late voluntarily, and I feel proud of that.” While traces of vulnerability persisted—particularly fear of losing his newfound stability—the participant’s narrative reflects a profound shift from mere survival to purpose-driven engagement: “Sometimes I’m afraid of losing this joy I’ve found, but I know I’m building something solid now. Even the proposal for a postdoctoral project has come through, and I feel capable again. I feel like I’ve switched on turbo mode again: researcher and civil servant in full force!” This phase also brought a deeper reframing of past pain into a sense of mission and generativity: “I’m reframing all that pain into something meaningful. Helping others like me has become a personal mission, and the illness of technical-administrative staff has now become the focus of my postdoctoral research.” Within the semantic network (Fig. 2), resignification and reintegration nodes form smaller yet densely interconnected clusters (red cluster), underscoring their critical role in the recovery trajectory. Although less central than violence-related terms, these themes highlight how supportive environments and restored autonomy enable individuals to transcend trauma, rebuild agency, and rediscover professional fulfillment. These findings provide strong support for our theoretical propositions. Consistent with Hypothesis 3, the data demonstrate that the strength of workplace violence moderates the relationship between social support, career adaptability, and resilience responses. As predicted, higher levels of violence attenuated the positive influence of social support on adaptive flexibility, while simultaneously amplifying resistance capacity as a defensive adaptation to persistent adversity. Maladaptive schemas—such as impaired autonomy or mistrust—were reactivated in hostile environments, constraining emotional regulation and fostering hypervigilant coping strategies (Pilkington et al., 2021; Huang et al., 2023). Supporting Hypothesis 4, social support characterized by active listening and responsiveness had positive indirect effects beyond functional reintegration, facilitating renewed occupational commitment and reducing disengagement intentions. The participant described how responsive organizational practices helped him reconstruct his professional identity and sustain engagement despite prior adversity. Instances of workplace violence were reported as intense, time-bounded episodes that shaped long-term adaptation trajectories. When organizational systems provided space for healing and autonomy restoration, he highlighted processes of resilience and renewed commitment. Discussion Workplace power asymmetries Our analysis revealed that workplace violence, in its multiple forms—ranging from symbolic humiliation to institutional neglect and normative coercion—cumulatively eroded the participant’s psychological and physical health. As prior studies demonstrate (Herschcovis & Barling, 2010; Nielsen & Einarsen, 2018), these covert dynamics embed power asymmetries into organizational routines, transforming them into chronic stressors that undermine functional capacity and agency. The participant’s account illustrated how symbolic violence—dismissed by institutional actors as intangible or minor—left deep emotional scars. Subtle exclusions, sarcastic remarks, and bureaucratic inertia converged to intensify psychosomatic symptoms, including sleep disturbances, recurrent headaches, and respiratory issues. These symptoms peaked during critical moments, such as when the institutional medical board questioned the legitimacy of his suffering or imposed workplace reintegration despite evident psychological distress. Consistent with findings in other hierarchical organizations (Kallio et al., 2025; Thompson et al., 2025; Trépanier et al., 2023), institutional neglect emerged not only as a barrier to recovery but also as a catalyst for silenced violence, driving the participant toward withdrawal and self-suppression. “I was left in disbelief that, after everything I endured over the past six years, I still had to justify why I didn’t approach the ombudsman during my probationary period… It’s absurd that everything happens behind closed doors and I still have to face abuse from the official medical board (JMO). Everyone knows that a probationary employee is terrified of losing stability.” Institutional microaggressions are perpetuated by organizational cultures that normalize distrust and retaliation, leaving victims unwilling or unable to seek help. This resonates with Lee et al. (2024), who identify workplace incivility as a predictor of emotional exhaustion, and Mdletshe and Makhaye (2025), who observe how hierarchical systems suppress disclosures of harm. In this study, such patterns were evident in the participant’s trajectory, as moments of institutional invalidation—from medical boards lacking mental health expertise to prolonged bureaucratic processes—consistently reignited psychosomatic distress. Structural contributors include a lack of accountability mechanisms for psychosocial harm (Buta et al., 2024; Mendonça et al., 2024), medical governance frameworks that trivialize psychological suffering (Trépanier et al., 2023), and employment structures that embed fear among probationary staff (Fogaça et al., 2021; Griep et al., 2025). These factors, though less visible than overt aggression, institutionalize silence and erode trust. As Strand & Cohen (2022) summarize, “the overt and covert asymmetries linked to workplace violence are reinforced by cultural, hierarchical, and procedural practices that constitute the backbone of most organizational contexts […].” A paradox emerges when we contrast this with findings from physical injury cases. While de Groot et al. (2025) suggest that limited follow-up may, paradoxically, promote return by fostering autonomy, our study shows the opposite: in contexts of psychological distress, the absence of support signaled abandonment, not empowerment. Rather than catalyzing recovery, medical detachment reinforced institutional neglect and deepened the experience of symbolic violence. We hypothesize that, for invisible wounds, silence from the system does not liberate—it legitimizes suffering as irrelevant, transforming resilience into solitary endurance. Resilience as a mediating and moderating process This study revealed that cumulative exposures to violence—particularly normative, symbolic, and institutional forms—exerted profound effects on psychosocial functioning and resilience. These dynamics were reflected in the participant’s escalating psychosomatic symptoms and avoidance behaviors during periods of heightened aggression. Notably, the interplay of these violence types shaped not only individual well-being but also adaptive capacities, determining whether resilience manifested as rigid compliance or participatory engagement. Understanding these patterns requires unpacking how violence reinforces hierarchical structures and psychological vulnerability. Normative violence subtly enforces behavioral conformity, fostering self-censorship and complicity: “I tried to convince myself it was just how things worked here, but inside, I felt like I was disappearing.” Symbolic violence, through invalidation and humiliation, erodes self-worth and entrenches power asymmetries. Institutional violence amplifies these harms through bureaucratic inertia and dismissive practices, as illustrated by the participant’s experience with the admissions and relocation office: “Your situation is very difficult.” She didn’t even ask how I was or offer any help, implying that bureaucratic concerns outweighed my professional well-being. These dynamics extend to broader cultural patterns among technical staff, where resignation and mediocrity become survival strategies. Rather than challenging organizational harm, colleagues internalize patriarchal norms and normalize violence as an inevitable feature of university life: “It’s as if we’re shooting ourselves in the foot to keep the system alive.” Such behaviors embody what Bonanno et al. (2023) describe as rigid resilience—a defensive adaptation that risks legitimizing institutional dysfunction. Similarly, Zhang et al. (2024) warn that overemphasizing personal adaptability normalizes abuse and delays organizational reform. These insights resonate with Azimi et al. (2024) theoretical model, which positions resilience as a mediator between burnout and workplace safety behaviors. Emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment influence two dimensions of safety: safety compliance, defined as rigid adherence to rules, and safety participation, marked by voluntary, proactive engagement. In the participant’s trajectory, emotional exhaustion initially drove compliance: “I followed all the protocols just to stay invisible.” Yet as depersonalization and self-doubt deepened, participatory engagement waned: “I stopped going to meetings or offering help because I felt everything was pointless. In the end, I would earn the same as the technician who spends the day sunbathing and doing no work, while my immediate supervisor kept turning a blind eye to professors who continued working “remotely” on their own, even though the pandemic was over.” Resilience, often defined as the capacity to recover from adversity (Fletcher & Sarkar, 2013; Robertson et al., 2023), emerged here as a dynamic process shaped by personal agency and organizational context. Initially stifled by structural hostility, it flourished only after the participant’s relocation to a supportive department: “Starting over allowed me to rediscover who I was professionally.” This transition from survival-oriented compliance to participatory empowerment illustrates the conditional nature of resilience. Hollaar et al. (2025) emphasize that resilience demands regulatory flexibility, not rigid perseverance, in toxic environments. Paradoxically, resilience can act as both a protective factor and a risk. In unsupportive systems, it risks becoming an individual burden, as workers internalize responsibility for adapting to hostile conditions. Overreliance on personal adaptability may normalize abuse and perpetuate harm (Zhang et al., 2024; Bonanno et al., 2023). Only organizational practices fostering psychological safety amplify adaptive capacity (Di Tecco et al., 2023), while even highly resilient workers may disengage under hierarchical opacity and fear of retaliation (Xintian & Peng, 2023). Workplace violence constrains resilience, reducing adaptability to rigid conformity. Yet resilience does not emerge solely from the removal of structural barriers; it thrives in environments where the beautiful (a renewed physical space and relational harmony), the good (adequate tools and supportive working conditions), and the true (recognition of the technician as a unique and irreplaceable contributor) converge. In such contexts, the workplace becomes not only tolerable but desirable—so much so that the participant occasionally chose to return on weekends, finding in the new environment a sense of belonging and purpose strong enough to dissolve the impulse to withdraw. Organizational barriers to reintegration and identity reconstruction The reintegration of workers following prolonged illness represents a critical juncture where organizational structures and individual vulnerabilities converge. For employees recovering from psychosocial distress, the return-to-work process is not merely a medical transition but a complex socio-organizational endeavor that often entails navigating power dynamics, stigma, and institutional inertia (Corrigan & Rao, 2012). As highlighted by this study, organizational dynamics—ranging from limited managerial support to unsupportive workplace cultures and structural obstacles—can hinder reintegration and undermine well-being, particularly in cases of psychological health-related leaves (Figueredo et al., 2020). In the present case, the participant’s narrative reflects these tensions, revealing how the absence of supportive structures exacerbated anxiety and impeded a smooth transition: “I don’t even know where I’m supposed to sit or what tasks I’m expected to perform. It feels like I’m invisible.” Institutional barriers such as ambiguous role expectations, lack of accommodations, and unaddressed interpersonal conflicts create environments where employees perceive reintegration not as recovery but as a continuation of prior harm. This is consistent with evidence from Olsson et al. (2025) , who found that employees returning from mental health-related absences often encounter subtle forms of exclusion and role marginalization, contributing to feelings of alienation and renewed distress. Moreover, the participant’s avoidance behaviors— “I punch in at odd hours to avoid seeing anyone” —exemplify how organizational climates saturated with mistrust and stigma undermine attempts to resume functionality. “Except for a colleague who was also a childhood friend, in a department with more than sixty people—both technical staff and faculty—not a single person called or messaged to ask if I was okay or needed anything. It feels as if their silence says it all: what bleeds in silence is not considered blood. Blood is what you spill in a workplace accident. If I died of cancer, I would be a martyr. If I died of burnout, it would probably be seen as my own fault”. Stigmatization emerged as a central theme in the participant’s experience, compounding the challenges of reintegration. Fear of being perceived as “fragile” or “unreliable” deterred help-seeking and fostered hypervigilance: “Even in the cafeteria, I avoid times when those professors might gather for coffee, hoping to prevent further awkwardness—like the piercing looks that seem to ask when I’ll be taking my next leave.” This aligns with recent findings that workplace stigma around mental illness reduces employee engagement and increases turnover intentions, particularly in hierarchical institutions where disclosure can lead to professional repercussions (Steele et al., 2019). Identity reconstruction in such contexts is fraught with ambivalence. Initially, the participant framed resilience in survivalist terms, describing an emotional “armor” necessary to endure daily interactions. However, following a transfer to a new department, narratives shifted towards empowerment and growth: “In this new environment, I finally feel recognized for who I am and not defined by my illness. I started dreaming again, planning again, investing in my professional development. Back then, my suffering would begin on Saturdays, just imagining having to step into work on Monday. The Sunday neurosis is almost gone. Sometimes I still feel insecure, like when I catch myself thinking: What if the leadership changes and I end up reliving the same experiences? But no—I know, in those moments, it’s just my insecurities trying to force me to look in the rearview mirror, when in fact, there’s a wide windshield of opportunities ahead.” This transformation resonates with theories of post-traumatic growth and underscores the role of supportive organizational ecosystems in facilitating positive identity renegotiation (Maitlis, 2020). Visual analyses reinforce these dynamics. In Fig. 2, the marked increase in positive indicators post-relocation—highlighted in red (self-strengthening, active management, and occupational health)—illustrates how contextual change catalyzes recovery. Conversely, the peripheral positioning of purple nodes (identity empowerment and psychological suffering) during earlier phases underscores their emergent nature, gaining centrality only after systemic barriers were dismantled. As Di Tecco et al. (2023) argue, successful reintegration depends not on individual resilience alone, but on the organization’s willingness to reimagine roles, workflows, and cultural norms—transforming recovery from an act of survival into a process of renewal. This temporal reconfiguration aligns with18et al. (2024), who conceptualize return to work not as a singular event but as an adaptive, relational trajectory shaped by dynamic interactions between workers’ personal resources, organizational affordances, and health-related identity shifts. Popa et al. (2022) similarly emphasize that sustained reintegration demands alignment between subjective readiness and workplace reinvention, particularly when chronic stressors have fractured role coherence or damaged self-efficacy. In our case, this shift became evident when the participant moved from a stigmatized role to leading a complex project, regaining autonomy and competence. As he noted, “They gave me a chance to solve something on my own—and I realized I wasn’t broken, just misused.” This moment reflects more than functional recovery; it signals narrative repair—an element increasingly recognized in psychosocial rehabilitation. The CHIME framework (Connectedness, Hope, Identity, Meaning, and Empowerment) offers a compelling lens to interpret this transformation, particularly the restoration of agency and occupational purpose through supportive relationships (Green et al., 2025). Similarly, de Geus et al. (2022) emphasize that effective vocational rehabilitation depends not on isolated techniques but on personalized, multi-stage interventions. Lettinga et al. (2025) further underscore the importance of timing, task alignment, and coordination between stakeholders. These findings resonate with our case, in which successful reintegration only occurred when three conditions converged: (i) the appointment of an occupational health coordinator who bridged institutional actors; (ii) the participant’s assignment to a clearly defined, meaningful task that leveraged his competencies; and (iii) the provision of adequate infrastructure that allowed him to work with autonomy and psychological safety. These elements functioned as a turning point, revealing that resilience alone is insufficient without systemic scaffolding that enables role renegotiation, relational repair, and sustainable re-engagement. From Demands to Resources: Mapping Identity Reconstruction After Harm Recovery only became feasible when the participant entered environments that recognized both his suffering and potential. Supportive colleagues and empathic leadership catalyzed identity repair, while self- and relational affirmations fostered psychological grounding and reframed adversity within a coherent life narrative (Corrigan & Rao, 2012; Jessop et al., 2023). Organizational interventions—such as peer networks, psychological safety training, and the Reflected Best Self exercise (Jackson et al., 2025; Roberts & Caza, 2025)—highlight the institutional conditions necessary to scaffold resilience, shifting it from individual burden to collective responsibility. Absent systemic alignment, resilience rhetoric risks obscuring institutional failure and perpetuating harm (Zhang et al., 2024; Bonanno et al., 2023; Xintian & Peng, 2023). The case findings converge with key principles of the Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) model (Demerouti et al., 2001; Bakker & Demerouti, 2017), which posits that chronic demands, if unmitigated by adequate resources, culminate in burnout, whereas the availability of supportive resources fosters motivation and growth. In this narrative, persistent exposure to institutional violence, symbolic discredit, and ambiguous roles—reflected in FCA clusters such as “occupational violence” and “psychological suffering”—eroded self-efficacy and cognitive resources. This deterioration is indexed by terms like “submission,” “disassembled,” and “disconnected,” mirroring the model’s health impairment pathway. The case findings align with central tenets of the Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) model (Demerouti et al., 2001; Bakker & Demerouti, 2017), which posits that chronic job demands—when unbuffered by adequate resources—initiate a health impairment process culminating in burnout, while the presence of contextual resources activates a motivational pathway. In this narrative, prolonged exposure to institutional violence, symbolic discredit, and role ambiguity generated cumulative strain, depleting the participant’s psychological capital. These dynamics are vividly reflected in the factorial correspondence analysis (FCA): clusters such as “occupational violence,” “institutional violence,” and “transnational violence,” located in the upper-left quadrant, coalesce around terms like “submission,” “disassembled,” and “disconnected,” signaling a collapse of self-efficacy and identity continuity. The semantic proximity between “university hierarchy,” “academic,” and “silenced violence” highlights how epistemic invalidation and organizational opacity functioned as embedded psychosocial stressors. Crucially, the FCA reveals a structural counterpoint: in the lower-left quadrant, codes such as “resilience,” “identity empowerment,” and “institutional support” occupy a semantically distal position, indicating a shift toward repair. These elements did not arise spontaneously but were activated through access to relational and structural resources. The educational violence cluster—positioned at the intersection of symbolic, normative, and early-life violence—illustrates how institutional demands often echo unresolved developmental vulnerabilities, reinforcing the cumulative nature of psychosocial risk. This multilevel configuration, visually expressed through the FCA and conceptually framed by the JD-R model, underscores how environments of adversity can produce both chronic strain and limited pathways to resilience. In this case, the delayed transition from impairment to motivation highlights the necessity of recovery-enabling contexts, echoing insights by Bakker and de Vries (2021) and recent empirical validation of reciprocal causality between demands, resources, and well-being (Lesener et al., 2019). The structural model proposed by Azimi et al. (2024), incorporated into this analysis, further substantiates this interpretation by demonstrating how depersonalization suppresses both resilience and professional accomplishment. These mechanisms were clearly reflected in the participant’s experience: during phases marked by symbolic invalidation and emotional detachment, his narratives conveyed numbness, defeat, and a disassembled sense of self. As organizational support and interpersonal recognition gradually re-emerged, his language shifted toward expressions of competence, coherence, and restored dignity. Such transitions were not dispositional in nature, but rather reflected a contextual responsiveness to shifting demands and available resources—corroborating Schaufeli and Taris’ (2013) proposition that the JD-R model is particularly attuned to the role of organizational structure and perceived justice in shaping adaptive trajectories. In sum, this case underscores that resilience is not a static trait but an emergent capacity, co-produced by adversity and support. It is within adverse contexts that structural conditions and relational trust become salient, transforming potential pathology into trajectories of recovery. By aligning the JD-R framework with lived experience and semantic evidence, this study advances a contextualized understanding of resilience—as a relational, dynamic, and system-contingent phenomenon. Limitations and future directions This study offers a rich temporal analysis of identity reconstruction in the aftermath of workplace violence, integrating narrative methods with factorial correspondence and sentiment mapping. While the mixed-methods approach enhanced interpretive depth—visually capturing transitions from distress to agency—it remains constrained by the limitations of a single-case design. The findings, though transferable in a conceptual sense, cannot be generalized to broader populations without empirical caution. Retrospective self-reporting may also introduce memory distortions or narrative bias, especially in emotionally charged contexts. Theoretical frameworks such as the Job Demands–Resources model (Demerouti et al., 2001; Bakker & Demerouti, 2017) and the structural model by Azimi et al. (2024) were employed to guide the interpretation of key dynamics, especially regarding the interplay between emotional exhaustion, resilience, and role reengagement. While not used as formal modeling tools, these frameworks offered valuable conceptual lenses that helped contextualize observed patterns and supported the synthesis of findings with existing literature. Future research should prioritize multi-case longitudinal designs across diverse occupational settings to identify which recovery and disengagement mechanisms are universal and which are context-specific. Experimental and intervention studies are particularly needed to test how organizational variables—such as recovery-supportive policies, leadership behavior, and task clarity—influence resilience development and reduce chronic occupational stress. Methodological triangulation, incorporating personal narratives, institutional records, peer accounts, and physiological data, could enhance validity and reveal overlooked dimensions of suffering and adaptation. In particular, interventions targeting structural conditions—such as restorative leadership and policies aimed at reducing institutional violence—should be evaluated for their potential to create environments conducive to identity reconstruction and sustained well-being (Arifin, 2024; Di Tecco et al., 2023; Khan et al., 2024). Conclusion This study offers a situated understanding of how workplace violence infiltrates psychological life and identity through symbolic, institutional, and normative channels. The participant’s reintegration did not follow a linear path of recovery, but rather a dynamic reconfiguration of meaning—enabled by the alignment between demands and available resources. Critical turning points included: (i) the appointment of an occupational health coordinator who bridged fragmented institutional actors; (ii) the assignment to a clearly defined, meaningful task that reactivated his dormant competencies; and (iii) the provision of adequate infrastructure that afforded both autonomy and psychological safety. Together, these elements allowed the participant to transition from passive endurance to narrative authorship and functional agency. Beyond these micro-political shifts, the findings reveal deeper structures of exclusion. The participant’s earlier exposure to transnational academic violence illustrates how institutional neglect operates across borders, while the rigid posture of the local medical board reproduced similar dynamics—delegitimizing psychological suffering through technocratic authority. These patterns are far from neutral: they are shaped by intersectional hierarchies of class, professional status, and normative mental health expectations that determine whose pain is recognized and whose is denied. Reintegration, in this light, is not merely a return to function, but a reclaiming of narrative agency within systems capable of transformation. Declarations Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. Author Contribution V. R. A. P., K. V., C. F. V., and M. A. S. A. ideated the study. V. R. A. P. and T. D. S. prepared the figures and tables. V. R. A. P. drafted the manuscript. C. F. V. contributed to data analysis. M. A. S. A., C. F. V. and K. V. revised the draft. References Alfes, K., Tham, T. L., Pariona‐Cabrera, P., Holland, P., & Bartram, T. (2025). The Buffering Role of Anti‐Violence Human Resource Management Practices in Shaping How Police Officers Cope With Workplace Violence. Human Resource Management , 64 (3), 713-730. Alqarni, F., Sagheer, A., Alabbad, A., & Hamdoun, H. (2025). Emotion-Aware RoBERTa enhanced with emotion-specific attention and TF-IDF gating for fine-grained emotion recognition. Scientific Reports , 15 (1), 17617. Arifin, Y. (2024). The Role of Leadership in Mitigating Toxic Workplace Culture: A Critical Examination of Effective Interventions. The Journal of Academic Science , 1 (4), 389-397. Azimi, R., Al Sulaie, S., Yazdanirad, S., Khoshakhlagh, A. H., Park, J. W., & Kazemian, F. (2024). The role of resilience as a key player in mitigating job burnout's impact on workplace safety. Scientific Reports , 14 (1), 16925. Bakker, A. B., & de Vries, J. D. (2021). Job Demands–Resources theory and self-regulation: New explanations and remedies for job burnout. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 34 (1), 1–21. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22 (3), 273–285. Bellana, B., Mahabal, A., & Honey, C. J. (2022). Narrative thinking lingers in spontaneous thought. Nature Communications, 13 , 4585. Bingham, A. J. (2023). From data management to actionable findings: A five-phase process of qualitative data analysis . International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22 , 16094069231183620. Bonanno, G. A., Romero, S. A., & Klein, S. I. (2023). Regulatory flexibility and the paradox of resilience. Nature Reviews Psychology , 2(4), 210–224. Bowie, V., & Fisher, B. S. (Eds.). (2012). Workplace violence . New York, NY: Routledge. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2), 77–101. Brun, J. P., Tremblay, M., & Pelletier, D. (2025). Adaptive coping and resilience trajectories in healthcare professionals: A longitudinal field study. Journal of Occupational Health , 67 (1), e12345. Buta, F. R., Carvalho, L. F., & Mendonça, H. R. (2024). Mental health literacy for public employees: A key factor in mitigating psychosocial risks and workplace violence. Revista Brasileira de Saúde Ocupacional, 49 (1), e20240117. Carter, N. (2014). The use of triangulation in qualitative research. Number 5/September 2014, 41 (5), 545-547. Casey, J. R., Hanson, C. S., Winkelmayer, W. C., Craig, J. C., Palmer, S., Strippoli, G. F., & Tong, A. (2014). Patients’ perspectives on hemodialysis vascular access: a systematic review of qualitative studies. American journal of kidney diseases , 64 (6), 937-953. Chun, C. A., Moos, R. H., & Cronkite, R. C. (2006). Culture: A fundamental context for the stress and coping paradigm . In Handbook of multicultural perspectives on stress and coping (pp. 29-53). Boston, MA: Springer US. ComPsych. (2024). Mental health leaves of absence surge, increasing 33% over prior year. ComPsych Corporation . Retrieved from https://www.compsych.com/press-release/mental-health-leaves-of-absence-surge-increasing-33-over-prior-year/ Corrigan, P. W., & Rao, D. (2012). On the self-stigma of mental illness: Stages, disclosure, and strategies for change. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry , 57 (8), 464-469. de Geus, C. J., Huysmans, M. A., van Rijssen, H. J., de Maaker-Berkhof, M., Schoonmade, L. J., & Anema, J. R. (2024). Elements of return-to-work interventions for workers on long-term sick leave: a systematic literature review. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation , 1-22. de Groot, E., Hermans, A. M., de Jongh, M. A. C., Geuze, R. E., van Dongen, I. M., Hommes, S., ... & Joosen, M. C. W. (2025). What Works (or Doesn’t) in Return to Work after Physical Injury? A Qualitative Study on the Perspectives of Trauma Patients and Health Care Professionals on Barriers and Facilitators in Return to Work. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation , 1-18. 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. Demerouti, E., & Bakker, A. B. (2022). Job demands–resources theory in times of crises: New propositions. Organizational Psychology Review, 12 (2), 101–124. Devlin, J., Chang, M. W., Lee, K., & Toutanova, K. (2019). Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 conference of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics: human language technologies, volume 1 (long and short papers) (pp. 4171-4186). Di Tecco, C., Persechino, B., & Iavicoli, S. (2023). Psychosocial risks in the changing world of work: moving from the risk assessment culture to the management of opportunities. La Medicina del lavoro, 114 (2), e2023013. Dunkel-Schetter, C., & Dolbier, C. L. (2021). The integrative process model of resilience in work settings. American Psychologist , 76(5), 761–775. Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62 (1), 107–115. Erwe, L., & Wang, X. (2024). Comparison of VADER and Pre-Trained RoBERTa: A Sentiment Analysis Application. Felblinger, D. M. (2008). Incivility and bullying in the workplace and nurses’ shame responses. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic & Neonatal Nursing, 37 (2), 234-242. Figueredo, J. M., García-Ael, C., Gragnano, A., & Topa, G. (2020). Well-being at work after return to work (RTW): a systematic review. International journal of environmental research and public health, 17( 20), 7490. Fletcher, D., & Sarkar, M. (2013). Psychological resilience: A review and critique of definitions, concepts, and theory. European Psychologist , 18 (1), 12–23. Fogaça, N., Coelho Junior, F. A., Paschoal, T., Ferreira, M. C., & Torres, C. C. (2021). Relationship between job performance, well-being, justice, and organizational support: A multilevel perspective. RAM. Revista de Administração Mackenzie, 22, eRAMG210108. García‑Izquierdo, M., Martín‑Rodríguez, M., & Sánchez‑Moraleda, F. (2025). Resilience as a mediator between workplace violence and psychological outcomes among hospital nurses. Frontiers in Psychology , 16, 1045678. Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16 (1), 15–31. Green, F., Matthews, L. R., & Hancock, N. (2025). Return-to-work experiences of individuals with common mental disorders within disability-based insurance systems explored within a mental health recovery framework: a scoping review. Disability and Rehabilitation , 1-15. Griep, Y., Kraak, J. M., Knol, W. M., Dolislager, J., & Beekman, E. M. (2025). The ripple effect of abusive supervision: A longitudinal examination of psychological contract breach, turnover intentions, and resilience among third parties. Journal of Business Research, 189 , 115141. Hendry, E., McCallister, B., Elman, D. J., Freeman, R., Borsook, D., & Elman, I. (2024). Validity of mental and physical stress models. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 158 , 105566. Herschcovis, M. S., & Barling, J. (2010). Towards a better understanding of workplace aggression: A meta-analytic review of antecedents and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95 (1), 73–100. Holm, K., Torkelson, E., & Bäckström, M. (2022). Workplace incivility as a risk factor for workplace bullying and psychological well-being: a longitudinal study of targets and bystanders in a sample of swedish engineers. BMC psychology, 10 (1), 299. Huang, L. S., Molenberghs, P., & Mussap, A. J. (2023). Cognitive distortions mediate relationships between early maladaptive schemas and aggression in women and men. Aggressive behavior, 49 (4), 418-430. Ingr, M., Kovářová, M., & Chráska, M. (2024). Resilience-based interventions in occupational health: A systematic review. Work & Stress , 38 (1), 32–50. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE). (2025). Health and work in Brazil: Annual statistical report . Brasília: IBGE Press. International Labour Organization (ILO). (2024). Global prevalence of workplace violence and harassment: recent findings . ILO Publications. Jackson, D. I., Maa, T., Luna, J., Huang, Y., Fristad, M. A., & Sezgin, E. (2025). Challenges and opportunities in healthcare workplace violence training: A qualitative study of staff experiences. Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health , 1-14. Jessop, D. C., Harris, P. R., & Gibbons, T. (2023). Individual differences in spontaneous self-affirmation predict well-being. Self and Identity , 22 (2), 247-275. Kallio, J., Vildjiounaite, E., Tervonen, J., & Bordallo López, M. (2025). A Survey on Sensor-Based Techniques for Continuous Stress Monitoring in Knowledge Work Environments. ACM Transactions on Computing for Healthcare, 6 (3), 1-31. Kelemen, T. K., Matthews, S. H., & Breevaart, K. (2020). Leading day-to-day: A review of the daily causes and consequences of leadership behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly , 31 (1), 101344. Khan, I. U., Siddique, M., & Mughal, Y. H. (2024). Impact of toxic leadership on employees’ performance: To what extent employees’ resilience matters. Journal of Social Research Development, 5( 2), 109. Ko, H., Kim, D., Cho, S. S., Lee, D. W., Choi, J., Kim, M., ... & Kang, M. Y. (2024). The association of emotional labor and workplace violence with health-related productivity loss. Journal of Occupational Health, 66 (1). Lansisalmi, H., Peiro, J. M., & Kivimaki IV, M. (2000). Collective stress and coping in the context of organizational culture. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 9 (4), 527-559. Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2015). Practical research . Pearson Education UK. Lee, Y.-H., Wu, Y.-H., Chen, C.-Y., Chiao‑Tzu Lee, P., Lin, T.-H., & Lai, C.-Y. (2024). Relationship between workplace violence and mental and physical health of security guards during the COVID‑19 pandemic in Taiwan: A cross-sectional study. Frontiers in Public Health, 12 , Article 1333139. Lesener, T., Gusy, B., & Wolter, C. (2019). The job demands-resources model: A meta-analytic review of longitudinal studies. Work & Stress, 33 (1), 76–103. Lettinga, H. A., van Oostrom, S. H., Zijlstra, H. P., Anema, J. R., & Proper, K. I. (2025). Facilitators and Barriers for a Stepped Care Approach to Promote Return to Work of Employees with Distress: A Multi-perspective Qualitative Study. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation , 1-12. Li, Y., Song, Y., Wang, M., Wu, Y., Zhu, X. S., & Alonso, A. (2025). Inclusion management practices as a pathway to enhance organizational resilience in response to a crisis: an empirical test in the context of the COVID‐19 pandemic. Personnel Psychology, 78 (2), 177-203. Lim, M. C., Jeffree, M. S., Saupin, S. S., Giloi, N., & Lukman, K. A. (2022). Workplace violence in healthcare settings: The risk factors, implications and collaborative preventive measures. Annals of Medicine and Surgery, 78 , 103727. Maitlis, S. (2020). Posttraumatic growth at work. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior , 7 , 395–419. Mehmood, S., Rasool, M., Ahmed, M., Haddad, H., & Al-Ramahi, N. M. (2024). Role of workplace bullying and workplace incivility for employee performance: Mediated-moderated mechanism. Plos one, 19 (1), e0291877. Mendonça, H. R., Silva, P. V., & Almeida, F. J. (2024). Sick leave due to occupational mental disorders in Brazil: An ecological analysis of trends and determinants. Revista Brasileira de Saúde Ocupacional , 49(1), e-20240112. Ministério da Previdência Social. (2025). Relatório anual de afastamentos por transtornos mentais no Brasil: 2023–2024 . Brasília: MPS. Morgeson, F. P., Liu, D., Cannella Jr, A. A., Hillman, A. J., Seibert, S. E., & Tushman, M. L. (2025). This is an eventful era: Exploring event-oriented approaches to organizational research. Journal of Management, 51 (3), 953-966. Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (1998). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence concerning specific forms, potential causes, and preferred targets. Journal of management, 24 (3), 391-419. Nielsen, M. B., & Einarsen, S. (2018). What we know, what we do not know, and what we should and could have known about workplace bullying: An overview of the literature and agenda for future research. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 42 , 71-83. Nielsen, K., Yarker, J., Munir, F., & Bültmann, U. (2018). IGLOO: An integrated framework for sustainable return to work in workers with common mental disorders. Work & Stress, 32 (4), 400-417. Notebaert, L., Crane, M., Carpini, J. A., Timming, A. R., & Eastham, J. (2025). Resilience to Workplace Incivility: How Different Recovery Experiences Influence Resilience Dimensions. Adversity and Resilience Science , 1-15. O'Brien, C. J., van Zundert, A. A., & Barach, P. R. (2024). The growing burden of workplace violence against healthcare workers: trends in prevalence, risk factors, consequences, and prevention–a narrative review. EClinicalMedicine, 72 , 102641. Olsson, C., Jensen, I., Nybergh, L., Björk Brämberg, E., & Tinnerholm Ljungberg, H. (2025). The return to work after sick leave due to common mental disorders among young employees: A qualitative interview study with young employees and managers. BMC Public Health, 25(1) , 1383. Petermann, F., & Müller, J. M. (2001). Psychotherapy: Case study. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (pp. 12473–12475). Elsevier. Pfeifer, V. A., & Pexman, P. M. (2023). Mixed and ambiguous emotions can be studied with verbal irony. Cognitive Neuroscience , 14 (2), 65-67. Pilkington, P. D., Bishop, A., & Younan, R. (2021). Adverse childhood experiences and early maladaptive schemas in adulthood: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Clinical psychology & psychotherapy, 28 (3), 569-584. Popa, A. E., Bejenaru, A., Mitrea, E. C., Morândău, F., & Pogan, L. (2023). Return to work after chronic disease: A theoretical framework for understanding the worker-employer dynamic. Chronic Illness , 19 (4), 704-718. Portoghese, I., Galletta, M., Leiter, M. P., Cocco, P., D'Aloja, E., & Campagna, M. (2017). Fear of future violence at work and job burnout: A diary study on the role of psychological violence and job control. Burnout Research, 7, 36–46. Ramos-Vera, C., Basauri-Delgado, M., Calizaya-Milla, Y. E., & Saintila, J. (2025). Exploring the Mediation of Stress and Emotional Exhaustion on Academic Ineffectiveness and Cynicism Among University Students. Psychiatry Investigation, 22 (4), 365. Rasool, S. F., Wang, M., Tang, M., Saeed, A., & Iqbal, J. (2021). How toxic workplace environment effects the employee engagement: The mediating role of organizational support and employee wellbeing. International journal of environmental research and public health , 18 (5), 2294. Ratinaud, P. (2009). IRaMuTeQ: Interface de R pour les Analyses Multidimensionnelles de Textes et de Questionnaires . Toulouse: Université de Toulouse II. Rees, C. S., Breen, L. J., Cusack, L., & Hegney, D. (2015). Understanding individual resilience in the workplace: the international collaboration of workforce resilience model. Frontiers in psychology, 6 , 73. Roberts, L. M., & Caza, B. B. (2025). Positive identity construction in diverse organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior , 12 (2025), 423-451. Robertson, I. T., Cooper, C. L., Sarkar, M., & Curran, T. (2023). Resilience training in the workplace from 2000 to 2023: A systematic review and future research agenda. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , 96(2), 321–345. Saha, S., Showrov, M. I. H., Rahman, M. M., & Majumder, M. Z. H. (2022). Vader vs. bert: A comparative performance analysis for sentiment on coronavirus outbreak. In International Conference on Machine Intelligence and Emerging Technologies (pp. 371-385). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland. Schaufeli, W. B., & Taris, T. W. (2013). A critical review of the Job Demands–Resources Model: Implications for improving work and health . In G. F. Bauer & O. Hämmig (Eds.), Bridging Occupational, Organizational and Public Health (pp. 43–68). Springer. Sciepura, A., & Linos, E. (2024). When perceptions of public service erode: The impact of workplace violence on burnout and performance among U.S. government employees. Public Administration Review, 84 (2), 301–314. Sharma, T., & Johnson, L. (2024). Workplace violence and mental health outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 29 (1), 23–38. Shi, Y., Mao, F., & Zhang, X. (2025). Association between fear of future workplace violence and burnout among pediatricians in China with psychological resilience as a moderator. Journal of Occupational Health, 67 (1), uiaf029. Slopen, N., Meyer, C., & Williams, D. R. (2018). Cumulative stress and health. The Oxford handbook of integrative health science , 75-93. Stanisławski, K. (2019). The coping circumplex model: An integrative model of the structure of coping with stress. Frontiers in psychology, 10 , 694. Strand, P. J., & Cohen, C. E. (2022). Microaggressions and macro-injustices: How everyday interactions reinforce and perpetuate social systems of dominance and oppression. Understanding and Dismantling Privilege, 12 (2), 1-30. Steele, C. M., Spencer, S. J., & Aronson, J. (2019). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Frontiers in Psychology, 10 , 1879. Tabakakis, C., Bradshaw, J., McAllister, M., & Sahay, A. (2025). Exploring Registered Nurses' Experiences of Workplace Adversity: A Descriptive Qualitative Study. Nursing Open, 12 (4), e70233. Taris, T. W., Kessler, S. R., & Kelloway, E. K. (2021). Strategies addressing the limitations of cross-sectional designs in occupational health psychology: What they are good for (and what not). Work & Stress, 35 (1), 1-5. Taris, T. W., & Kompier, M. (2003). Challenges in longitudinal designs in occupational health psychology. Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health , 1-4. Thompson, A., Perez, M., & Cheng, E. (2025). Sleep disturbances among healthcare workers: The role of occupational stress and violence. Sleep Health, 11 (2), 101–108. Trépanier, S. G., Peterson, C., Ménard, J., & Notelaers, G. (2023). When does exposure to daily negative acts frustrate employees’ psychological needs? A within-person approach. Journal of occupational health psychology , 28 (2), 65. Wang, H., Li, X., & Chen, Y. (2023). Resilience as a moderator of workplace aggression and perceived job insecurity in healthcare workers. BMC Public Health , 23(1), 1122. World Health Organization. (2019). Burn-out an “occupational phenomenon”. WHO Classification. World Medical Association. (2013). World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Jama, 310 (20), 2191-2194. Xintian, L., & Peng, P. (2023). Does inclusive leadership foster employee psychological resilience? The role of perceived insider status and supportive organizational climate. Frontiers in Psychology, 14 , 1127780. Yoon, A. S., Lee, H. J. D., & Moon, I. (2023). Social determinants of mental health . (3rd ed., Vol. 3). Elsevier. Zhang , L., Sun, J., & Chen, Y. (2024). The dark side of resilience: Overcommitment, burnout, and organizational toxicity. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology , 29 (1), 15–28. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 23 Jan, 2026 Reviews received at journal 23 Jan, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 22 Jan, 2026 Reviews received at journal 22 Nov, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 16 Nov, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 16 Sep, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 13 Sep, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 09 Sep, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 08 Sep, 2025 First submitted to journal 07 Sep, 2025 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-7558875","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":518216294,"identity":"929fd832-3d04-441f-8b8f-2b699c32e7b5","order_by":0,"name":"Vinícius Rodrigues Arruda Pinto","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of São João del-Rei (UFSJ)","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Vinícius","middleName":"Rodrigues Arruda","lastName":"Pinto","suffix":""},{"id":518216295,"identity":"1f0e8110-f1bc-4de8-8180-12c3ef77dc3d","order_by":1,"name":"Katia Vione","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Birmingham","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Katia","middleName":"","lastName":"Vione","suffix":""},{"id":518216296,"identity":"74cd486a-ac92-4087-9ca4-4775c018ec1f","order_by":2,"name":"Cristiane Figueiredo Vasconcellos","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Federal University of Viçosa (UFV)","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Cristiane","middleName":"Figueiredo","lastName":"Vasconcellos","suffix":""},{"id":518216297,"identity":"a35db054-f08b-4901-8ee8-1e17fa6a0e77","order_by":3,"name":"Thiago Duarte Souza","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Federal University of Viçosa (UFV)","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Thiago","middleName":"Duarte","lastName":"Souza","suffix":""},{"id":518216298,"identity":"be702fcc-3641-45e0-806c-0e798d70db8c","order_by":4,"name":"Marco Antônio Silva Alvarenga","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Federal University of São João del-Rei (UFSJ)","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Marco","middleName":"Antônio Silva","lastName":"Alvarenga","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-09-08 00:53:09","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7558875/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7558875/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":91939463,"identity":"88e3ab43-9e50-40a5-84dd-176491104c2e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-23 03:13:11","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":1364048,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Manuscript.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7558875/v1/767af06b0c33e2bf82cceffb.docx"},{"id":91938104,"identity":"633707f7-37a5-43b8-a9fc-97e3929b8f8e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-23 03:05:11","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":7204,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"00489888f1f64ee2a16535b4a33920c8.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7558875/v1/a3e2f827cc070c96b55a66ff.json"},{"id":91938110,"identity":"f2136b66-f6b5-412a-9a36-60b1707c4767","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-23 03:05:11","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":232691,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"00489888f1f64ee2a16535b4a33920c81enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7558875/v1/691c79865b73c67d0b967b6f.xml"},{"id":91939467,"identity":"90d5e222-f585-4b9a-a373-cc8ad6de48b9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-23 03:13:11","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":152668,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7558875/v1/e2a5aa4db009962ea519ebcb.png"},{"id":91939469,"identity":"b1794cea-862f-4ca3-a62d-b67c1f352d8b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-23 03:13:11","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":740658,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7558875/v1/687cc6023727e3bd988b135d.png"},{"id":91938112,"identity":"6b8c6f28-7269-4bbf-944e-952d0322cfb0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-23 03:05:11","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":160619,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7558875/v1/61b2d51859ee0551655aa013.png"},{"id":91938106,"identity":"4baa9b1e-165e-45d6-b683-0be9719c0f38","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-23 03:05:11","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":68933,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7558875/v1/1b5a949e52c61397a77a0b2e.png"},{"id":91939738,"identity":"5ff35ee9-4ee9-4cd8-9cfd-dcf203b806f3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-23 03:21:11","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":153919,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7558875/v1/03c5da116bd44e4f635e637c.png"},{"id":91938108,"identity":"494573a6-9267-41fa-baad-e0736f14fb86","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-23 03:05:11","extension":"png","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":46412,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7558875/v1/dde4e0dd2514feebf4b5ad3c.png"},{"id":91938122,"identity":"9810e8bb-44fd-4e3a-a6fe-9853aabd1180","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-23 03:05:11","extension":"png","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":109861,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7558875/v1/5ee7f0be19b355a5f13dc111.png"},{"id":91938120,"identity":"f8338e00-76df-40cc-9ce9-17c62206d640","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-23 03:05:11","extension":"png","order_by":10,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":54921,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7558875/v1/9f81426a622aab751c73d92d.png"},{"id":91939736,"identity":"809d2677-c6d3-4342-a183-6ac81af026a2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-23 03:21:11","extension":"png","order_by":11,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":19860,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7558875/v1/ddba34351cf5b58e81e1b1cd.png"},{"id":91938115,"identity":"f88785d3-252d-4bae-9d4a-31e29c1b0836","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-23 03:05:11","extension":"png","order_by":12,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":31948,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7558875/v1/44b2dbdcf9e28cda06a1004a.png"},{"id":91939472,"identity":"f1560861-7a41-4d7e-93dc-87036aab9220","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-23 03:13:11","extension":"xml","order_by":13,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":229971,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"00489888f1f64ee2a16535b4a33920c81structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7558875/v1/791e7f5cc07da15475cff2e4.xml"},{"id":91938131,"identity":"0dc2ce1d-ec77-4102-bc2a-20e74bab3fad","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-23 03:05:12","extension":"html","order_by":14,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":242219,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7558875/v1/e2bf8ebef4293abd45b033dd.html"},{"id":91938105,"identity":"56bdf233-f72a-43f8-844b-061a760b52ea","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-23 03:05:11","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":201513,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eTerm frequencies derived from a qualitative content analysis of a self-narrative synthesizing the participant’s lived experience over 24 months of occupational health monitoring. Higher frequencies reflect core themes (e.g., anxiety, insomnia, low immunity), while less frequent terms represent secondary or contextual aspects. The color gradient indicates frequency intensity, with darker shades corresponding to higher occurrence\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7558875/v1/503fa4cd9bfa99452db8da73.png"},{"id":91938118,"identity":"f0f51019-f91a-4d68-a22b-f079cf71b31b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-23 03:05:11","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":346980,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThematic network of workplace violence, psychosocial distress, and resilience. This graph illustrates the co-occurrence network of terms derived from qualitative content analysis of a longitudinal narrative. Central nodes (e.g., \u003cem\u003e“occupational violence”\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e“psychological suffering”, “institutional violence”\u003c/em\u003e) indicate highly interconnected themes reflecting the participant’s experience of workplace violence and its psychosocial consequences. Peripheral clusters (e.g., \u003cem\u003e“self-strengthening”\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e“institutional support”\u003c/em\u003e) represent emergent resilience and reintegration processes. Node size reflects term frequency, while edge thickness denotes the strength of co-occurrence. Colors indicate thematic clusters identified via modularity analysis, with warm tones (orange, red) highlighting violence-related domains and cool tones (blue, green, purple) corresponding to recovery and empowerment trajectories\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7558875/v1/66c1f2d0319f0b3e5093a7c4.png"},{"id":91940366,"identity":"4be4ec89-7085-4356-9f53-5c858115c5af","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-23 03:29:11","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":135802,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eDominant and subdominant scores for thematic categories derived from qualitative content analysis and automated sentiment scoring. Each scatterplot represents a distinct thematic domain, including forms of violence (e.g., early-life, educational, occupational) and protective factors (resilience and identity empowerment). The x-axis reflects subdominant scores derived from VADER sentiment analysis, while the y-axis represents dominant scores calculated using a fine-tuned RoBERTa model. Points are color-coded by affective valence, with red indicating negative feelings, yellow neutral feelings, and green positive feelings within each domain. The transformer-based model leverages contextual embeddings that are highly sensitive to linguistic nuances, providing a more robust and accurate representation of sentiment polarity\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7558875/v1/1dfc920abe87a5bf6fb9c023.png"},{"id":91939462,"identity":"5e17f8fe-2410-4620-99e9-73ba87195a67","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-23 03:13:11","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":108694,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eFactorial Correspondence Analysis of workplace violence and resilience themes. The figure displays thematic clusters from narrative content analysis projected onto two factorial dimensions. Red nodes represent categories of violence, while blue nodes denote lived experience factors strongly associated with individual meaning-making. Spatial proximity reflects semantic co-occurrence, and ellipses highlight major conceptual groupings. Note that some highly frequent terms shown in Figure 1 do not emerge as distinct clusters here, since the analysis emphasizes patterns of co-occurrence rather than absolute frequency. This highlights the complementarity between the two visualizations.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7558875/v1/2fefebcbbc4de521ba6d52e0.png"},{"id":91939464,"identity":"f5d9b075-a2ed-4ba2-97d2-a4814c062886","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-23 03:13:11","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":96763,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eLongitudinal trajectories of distress, resilience, and positive indicators across a 24-month period. Scores were derived from qualitative content analysis of self-reported narratives and quantified on a 0-to-1 scale. Distress remained elevated during most periods but decreased sharply after workplace relocation, while resilience and positive indicators increased markedly in the final interval\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7558875/v1/45a6f0a65bdc519ebe59828e.png"},{"id":91940525,"identity":"8e30c301-dc20-4bf0-94ef-0d919ea479ce","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-23 03:37:12","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1823357,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7558875/v1/598e6ae0-4d86-4a06-bb75-03b0b6b9830c.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"“You are not what they did to you”: A longitudinal single-case study of workplace violences and identity recovery in Brazil","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eWorkplace violence poses a growing global threat to occupational health. According to the International Labour Organization, 23% of workers report exposure to some form of violence\u0026mdash;34.3% in the Americas alone\u0026mdash;most commonly psychological, including verbal abuse, threats, and institutional neglect (ILO, 2024).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe World Health Organization now classifies burnout as an occupational phenomenon, emphasizing chronic stress and emotional exhaustion in work settings (WHO, 2019; Ramos-Vera et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Evidence links such violence to heightened anxiety, depression, and insomnia (Sharma \u0026amp; Johnson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Thompson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR90\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e), fueling calls for systemic interventions. In Brazil, these patterns are intensified: mental-health-related leaves rose 68% from 2023 to 2024, affecting nearly half a million workers (Minist\u0026eacute;rio da Previd\u0026ecirc;ncia Social, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). National statistics place mental and behavioral disorders among the main causes of long-term absence (IBGE, 2025), and psychosocial stressors\u0026mdash;including workplace violence\u0026mdash;have been directly tied to somatic and emotional symptoms (Mendon\u0026ccedil;a et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Tr\u0026eacute;panier et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR91\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Global corporate data mirror these trends, with a 300% rise in mental health-related leaves (ComPsych, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eExposure to workplace violence predisposes individuals to a wide range of psychological consequences, including burnout, anxiety, and disengagement, and constitutes a critical risk factor for persistent occupational dysfunction. Rather than isolated incidents, violence in the public sector often takes the form of cumulative harm\u0026mdash;layered across verbal harassment, normative coercion, institutional neglect, and spillovers from personal stress (Herschcovis \u0026amp; Barling, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Nielsen \u0026amp; Einarsen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). These dynamics not only compromise well-being but also distort perceptions of what constitutes tolerable behavior, gradually normalizing dysfunction. For instance, Sciepura and Linos (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) report that 33% of U.S. government workers experiencing high demands and low organizational support show symptoms of burnout, while 21% develop compassion fatigue. Similarly, Buta et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) found that workplace aggression and limited mental health literacy contribute to prolonged sick leave among Brazilian public employees.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile psychological resilience has been proposed as a buffer, its operation within these environments is far from straightforward. Shi et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e), for example, found that resilience attenuated emotional exhaustion among pediatricians fearful of future violence. Yet such buffering is not uniformly protective; resilience itself may be destabilized or rendered inert by chronic exposure to injustice, blurred responsibilities, and institutional silence.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese findings suggest that violence does not merely harm\u0026mdash;over time, it alters how workers interpret and respond to harm. Despite these risks, longitudinal studies capable of tracing the dynamic interplay between structural violence, coping, and identity over time remain scarce. This study addresses that gap through a 24-month case analysis of a Brazilian public-sector employee, tracing how intersecting stressors led to psychological illness and how workplace reintegration unfolded as a process of identity reconstruction. By bridging frameworks of job demands and control, organizational justice, and resilience, this research offers insights for organizational systems seeking to support recovery from occupational crises.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Theoretical framework","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eWorkplace Violence\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWorkplace violence is a multidimensional phenomenon encompassing physical assaults, verbal abuse, psychological intimidation, sexual harassment, and systemic neglect (Bowie \u0026amp; Fisher, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). In higher education institutions, particularly federal universities, horizontal violence\u0026mdash;manifested through bullying and academic mobbing\u0026mdash;has emerged as a pervasive issue. These contexts often reflect entrenched power hierarchies and normative coercion, disproportionately affecting technical and administrative staff, compounding stress, and eroding professional identity (Lee et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDrawing on interactional and organizational aggression models (Neuman \u0026amp; Baron, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e; Felblinger, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e), workplace violence spans a broad continuum of harmful experiences. Recent studies demonstrate that workplace incivility often precedes overt bullying and exerts distinct, long-lasting harm on employees\u0026rsquo; psychological well-being (Holm et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Mehmood et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). By undermining dignity and emotional safety, incivility fosters environments where aggression escalates, triggering shame responses and impairing emotional regulation. These insidious dynamics weaken both individual resilience and organizational functioning, highlighting how workers\u0026rsquo; exposure to violence is shaped by role, status, and identity within institutional hierarchies. This underscores the need for context-sensitive prevention and intervention strategies (Nielsen \u0026amp; Einarsen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA recent epidemiological study of security guards during the COVID-19 pandemic found a strong association between workplace violence and symptoms of depression, anxiety, insomnia, and somatic complaints. Exposure to multiple forms of aggression increased the likelihood of reporting severe psychological distress by 1.8 times (Lee et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Similarly, a cross-sectional survey of mental health nurses revealed that 70.4% experienced at least one incident of workplace violence in the preceding year, and nearly half exhibited clinical levels of psychological distress. Although resilience emerged as a moderating factor\u0026mdash;buffering depressive symptoms and supporting partial functionality\u0026mdash;it was not sufficient to fully mitigate the adverse outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOrganizational factors such as social support, role clarity, and perceptions of justice have been identified as critical buffers against workplace stress. In contrast, individual traits like emotional stability and problem-focused coping provide limited protection in highly toxic environments (Foga\u0026ccedil;a et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Lansisalmi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e). Notably, traditionally protective factors such as tenure and professional experience showed diminished effectiveness in such settings. These findings suggest that systemic organizational dynamics\u0026mdash;particularly team-level support and collective perceptions of justice\u0026mdash;can override personal resources in determining workers\u0026rsquo; vulnerability to violence. In rigid and unjust hierarchies, even highly resilient individuals may experience exhaustion and disengagement, underscoring the primacy of culture and leadership in shaping employee well-being (Alfes et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe detrimental consequences of workplace violence extend beyond individual suffering to institutional dysfunction. Fear of violence has been linked to emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and organizational cynicism, as shown by Shi et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) and Portoghese et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). While psychological resilience can mitigate burnout at the individual level, it does not prevent broader systemic erosion. Ko et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) quantified the organizational toll, demonstrating that violence-related absenteeism and presenteeism significantly reduce productivity through disrupted team functioning and knowledge loss. Beyond diminished performance, workplace violence undermines organizational culture, erodes trust, and fosters climates of fear. Financial burdens also accumulate through higher insurance premiums, compensation claims, and costs related to absenteeism and turnover. As Rasool et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) emphasize, reputational damage is an additional risk\u0026mdash;organizations known for tolerating violence may struggle to retain talent, secure partnerships, or maintain public legitimacy. These findings underscore that resilience, to be sustainable, must be embedded not only in individuals but in the organizational fabric itself.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eResilience and Coping in Occupational Contexts\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWorkplace violence is a widespread phenomenon with profound implications for employee well-being, institutional functioning, and long-term engagement. Evidence from occupational health research suggests that such violence\u0026mdash;ranging from episodic aggressions to chronic structural neglect\u0026mdash;produces cumulative psychological consequences that may manifest as anxiety, depression, burnout, and reduced occupational performance (Nielsen \u0026amp; Einarsen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Bonanno et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Zhang et al., 2024). In particular, employees exposed to persistent adversity in their work environment are more likely to exhibit signs of emotional exhaustion, disengagement, and attrition (Li et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Griep et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). The public service sector is especially vulnerable, given the prevalence of power asymmetries, hierarchical rigidity, and the normalization of institutional violence (Herschcovis \u0026amp; Barling, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). Yet not all individuals respond to such conditions in the same way, raising critical questions about what enables certain workers to sustain functionality and psychological integrity in hostile environments.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis heterogeneity of outcomes has placed individual resilience at the forefront of research on workplace adversity. Resilience is generally understood as the capacity to maintain or regain positive psychological functioning in the face of stressors (Rees et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Notebaert et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). However, resilience is not a fixed trait, but a dynamic process shaped by both individual capacities\u0026mdash;such as cognitive flexibility and emotional regulation\u0026mdash;and contextual affordances, including organizational climate, leadership style, and perceived justice (Dunkel-Schetter \u0026amp; Dolbier, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Brun et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Building on Moos\u0026rsquo; transactional model, Chun et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e) emphasized that coping occurs at the intersection of personal systems (e.g., social competence, resilience) and environmental systems (e.g., institutional support, organizational stressors). From this ecological perspective, resilience emerges not solely from internal strength, but from the alignment between internal resources and external conditions. Importantly, this process is culturally mediated, as cultural norms shape how individuals interpret adversity and mobilize coping strategies over time.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSeveral scholars have further nuanced the resilience construct by distinguishing between its protective and paradoxical forms. Protective resilience supports sustainable engagement, whereas paradoxical resilience\u0026mdash;marked by overadaptation or denial\u0026mdash;may perpetuate toxic organizational cultures by masking systemic dysfunction (Arifin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Khan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). For instance, while emotionally resilient employees may initially withstand psychosocial disruptions, sustained functionality depends on whether the organizational setting provides structural resources that reinforce or erode these capacities (Wang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR92\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). In hostile work environments, especially those characterized by repeated invalidation, blurred responsibilities, or hierarchical abuse, resilience can be either enabled or undermined by the broader institutional ecology (Robertson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR77\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Bonanno et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eChronic exposure to leadership-related violence exemplifies the structural burden imposed on individual resilience. In a study with over 3,000 employees, Griep et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) found that abusive supervision significantly predicted turnover intentions and actual turnover, with productivity losses most pronounced in low-cohesion teams. However, where collective resilience\u0026mdash;expressed through peer support and team solidarity\u0026mdash;was strong, these negative outcomes were mitigated. This underscores that resilience is not only an individual variable but also a collective phenomenon, shaped by the social architecture of work environments.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn sum, workplace resilience must be understood as both a psychological and institutional process. While adaptive flexibility equips individuals to manage acute stressors, and resistance capacity prepares them to endure chronic adversities, neither dimension can be sustained without organizational justice, role clarity, and procedural support. Overemphasis on individual coping may obscure structural deficiencies and displace responsibility from institutions to individuals\u0026mdash;reinforcing the need for an integrated approach that aligns personal adaptation with systemic transformation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTaken together, resistance capacity and adaptive flexibility serve as complementary mechanisms that enable employees to maintain functionality across diverse workplace challenges. These insights ground the following hypotheses:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHypothesis 1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003ePerceived social support through active managerial engagement positively contributes to employees\u0026rsquo; career adaptability, fostering renewed occupational commitment following workplace adversity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHypothesis 2\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003eSupportive organizational practices exert positive indirect effects on employee well-being, mediated by (a) resistance capacity and (b) adaptive flexibility.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eFrom Adversity to Resilience: Theoretical Pathways of Reintegration\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo explain divergent resilience trajectories, we integrate schema theory and the ACE framework. According to schema theory, early maladaptive schemas\u0026mdash;cognitive structures shaped by adverse childhood experiences\u0026mdash;influence how individuals perceive and respond to stressors (Pilkington et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). When these schemas involve impaired autonomy or limits, they can heighten vulnerability to emotional dysregulation, especially in environments that reinforce feelings of helplessness or devaluation (Huang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) further compound this sensitivity by disrupting emotion regulation and social functioning across the life course (Yoon et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR96\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe conceptualize the strength of workplace violence events as a contextual trigger that can activate such schemas and compromise adaptive responses. Event strength can be assessed across three dimensions: novelty (how unexpected the event is), disruption (the degree to which it destabilizes functioning), and criticality (the level of perceived threat that necessitates psychological adjustment) (Morgeson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Higher event strength tends to intensify emotional and behavioral responses, particularly among individuals with unresolved developmental trauma.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eReturn-to-work (RTW) outcomes among individuals with common mental disorders (CMDs) have increasingly been studied through ecological frameworks. Nielsen et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) propose that sustainable reintegration depends on multilevel conditions\u0026mdash;organizational justice, interpersonal trust, and procedural flexibility\u0026mdash;that shape whether returning employees feel supported or marginalized. This perspective resonates with public service contexts, where role ambiguity, bureaucratic inertia, and power asymmetries frequently compromise perceived fairness and obstruct adaptive coping. Popa et al. (2022) argue that RTW is not a linear transition but a negotiation between functional demands and the worker\u0026rsquo;s evolving self-concept, requiring both structural accommodation and narrative coherence. Similarly, Green et al. (2024) emphasize that adaptive capacities such as emotional regulation only foster lasting reintegration when embedded in responsive institutional contexts. Kelemen et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) further show that how organizations validate or silence employees' experiences profoundly shapes recovery trajectories, with self-efficacy and task clarity facilitating reintegration, while opacity and stigma impede it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese insights suggest that reintegration is influenced less by symptom resolution than by the interaction between systemic demands and the perceived meaning of the work role. For public servants\u0026mdash;often operating under high pressure with minimal support\u0026mdash;experiences of institutional injustice and blurred responsibilities persist beyond the workday, shaping emotional regulation, self-perception, and motivation over time. Chronic exposure to ambiguous authority or social exclusion tends to resurface in private thought, undermining confidence and adaptability. More broadly, workplace stressors and the absence of recovery opportunities exert lasting effects on psychological functioning, often outside conscious awareness (Sharma \u0026amp; Johnson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTaken together, these models underscore that resilience is contextually contingent. While individuals may exhibit initial adaptability, sustainable reintegration depends on institutional affordances. Echoing the equifinality logic of cumulative protection theory (Stoddard et al., 2012), diverse adaptive pathways may support recovery\u0026mdash;but all hinge on the alignment between personal resources and environmental conditions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn this regard, the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model provides further insight: burnout stems from chronic imbalance between demands and resources, especially when recovery is obstructed (Demerouti \u0026amp; Bakker, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). In this view, resilience emerges not merely from personal stamina but from structural supports such as fairness, clarity, and validation. Azimi et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) demonstrate that resilience mediates the link between emotional exhaustion and re-engagement, especially when safety behavior is enabled by the organization.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSocial support\u0026mdash;particularly from occupational health professionals and attentive supervisors\u0026mdash;plays a central role (Garc\u0026iacute;a-Izquierdo et al., 2025). When event strength is moderate, this support encourages adaptive flexibility and renewed occupational commitment. However, in contexts of high event strength\u0026mdash;such as chronic harassment or institutional neglect\u0026mdash;support functions to build resistance capacity, enabling individuals to endure without collapse (Bonanno et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Notebaert et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn light of this, we propose that as workplace violence intensifies, employees shift from adaptive flexibility to resistance-based resilience. Accordingly:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHypothesis 3\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe strength of workplace violence moderates the relationship between social support, career adaptability, and resilience. Under high violence, adaptive flexibility declines while resistance capacity becomes pivotal for reintegration.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHypothesis 4\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhen social support is characterized by active listening and responsiveness to individual needs, it fosters career adaptability and occupational recommitment, even after severe adversity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Method","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResearch strategy\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe employed a longitudinal single-case study design to explore the evolving interplay between workplace violence, psychological illness, and reintegration over time. This approach enabled the tracing of therapeutic trajectories and yielded context-sensitive insights into the lived experience of occupational suffering within a Brazilian public university (Petermann \u0026amp; M\u0026uuml;ller, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e; Crowe et al., 2011). Longitudinal designs, such as that used by Tabakakis et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR87\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e), are particularly effective for capturing fluctuations in meaning and emotional intensity. A two-year observation period was adopted to document temporal variations in the participant\u0026rsquo;s emotional and behavioral states.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eDesign\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe participant was a 33-year-old White male, married with two children, and held a doctoral degree. Employed in the public sector for eight years, he worked as a laboratory technician at a Federal University in Minas Gerais, Brazil. Between June 2023 and June 2025, he was monitored by the university\u0026rsquo;s Division of Occupational Health and supported by a multidisciplinary team.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eParticipant\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt baseline, the participant presented with severe emotional exhaustion linked to recurrent role changes, excessive demands, and moral harassment by supervisors. Previous episodes of workplace violence included coercive incidents leading to emotional breakdowns. He reported being forced to clean lab ceilings with sodium hypochlorite, a task far outside his job description, under humiliating circumstances. These stressors contributed to a marked decline in mental and physical health.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBy June 2023, symptoms included emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, anxiety, sleep disturbances, gastrointestinal issues, and reduced performance. Physical complaints included fatigue, headaches, weight fluctuation, pain, palpitations, hypertension, and lowered immunity. Emotionally, he reported hopelessness and questioned his purpose, though he denied suicidal intent.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFollowing referral by the occupational psychologist, the participant was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood (ICD-11: 6B43), resulting in a sequence of psychiatric leaves: July 2023 (15 days), September 2023 (30 days), February 2024 (60 days, with relocation recommendation), July 2024 (renewed recommendation), August 2024 (30 days), September 2024 (30 days), October 2024 (60 days), November 2024 (ICD-11: 6B43 and 6B40; leave granted), and March 2025 (20 days). Except for the November 2024 assessment, all were issued by two psychiatrists from UFV's Psychosocial Division, evidencing multidisciplinary continuity of care.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWorkplace relocation was twice denied by a medical board despite unanimous recommendations from mental health professionals. The board justified the refusals with the claim that treatment continuation in the same environment would suffice. Additional support from a social worker and two occupational safety engineers was also disregarded. This institutional intransigence exacerbated symptoms and extended the participant\u0026rsquo;s period of incapacitation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn late 2024, a new medical board approved his transfer following occupational physician evaluation. Support during a three-month adaptation period\u0026mdash;provided by the Occupational Health Division, departmental leadership, and the Pro-Rectorate for People Management\u0026mdash;facilitated clinical and functional recovery, marked by a tapering of medication. The case illustrates the entangled dynamics of violence, resilience, and reintegration in Brazil\u0026rsquo;s public service context. The longitudinal design enabled real-time, layered analysis (Leedy \u0026amp; Ormrod, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Taris \u0026amp; Kompier, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR89\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e; Taris et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR88\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eProcedure\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe collected data from semi-structured clinical interviews, medical records, and observational field notes, providing a triangulated, multi-perspective account of the participant\u0026rsquo;s experience (Carter, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Interviews occurred at key junctures\u0026mdash;diagnosis, leave, relocation, and reintegration\u0026mdash;ranging from 30 to 90 minutes, audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Additional sources included psychiatric reports, treatment logs, and workplace behavioral observations.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConsent to Participate and Publish\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study was submitted and approved by the Ethics Committee for Research Involving Human Subjects at the Federal University of S\u0026atilde;o Jo\u0026atilde;o del-Rei (CEPES-UFSJ) (CAAE 08550819.3.0000.5151) under the assent No. 3.382.018. The ethical procedures for conducting this research with human are outlined in UFSJ Resolution No. 023, dated October 28, 2015, which was prepared in accordance with the guidelines of Resolution National Health Council (CNS ) No. 466/2012 and 510/2016, and in accordance with the Code of Ethics of the World Medical Association (Declaration of Helsinki).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll sessions were conducted in Portuguese, the participant\u0026rsquo;s native language, by trained occupational psychology professionals. Written informed consent for publication of clinical details was obtained from the participant. A copy of the signed consent form is available to readers as supplementary material.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Collection and Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eNarratives, WhatsApp\u0026reg; messages, and field notes were imported into Iramuteq (Ratinaud, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e) and analyzed using a hybrid strategy informed by schema and event system theory (Gioia et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Co-word network analysis was conducted using the most recent version of VOSviewer (v1.6.20), enabling the identification of semantic proximities and thematic clusters across the dataset, thus providing a visual structure to the evolving discursive fields.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSubsequently, segments were reorganized into meaning units (Bellana et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), and codes refined through iterative analysis by three researchers (C.F.V., D.D.S.M., and V.R.A.P.), supported by reflexive memoing (Casey et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Credibility was ensured through data triangulation and prolonged engagement (Carter, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e); dependability through systematic documentation; confirmability via peer debriefing; and transferability through rich contextual descriptions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEach temporal segment underwent close reading, with semantic coding guided by Braun and Clarke\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e) thematic analysis framework. Initial codes captured emotional expressions and implicit behaviors. Bingham\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) five-phase procedure informed deductive and inductive coding, drawing on occupational stress and coping models (Stanisławski, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Brun et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Dunkel-Schetter \u0026amp; Dolbier, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). The Coping Circumplex Model (Stanisławski, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) was used to classify coping styles and trace longitudinal adaptation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCodification considered the frequency and intensity of emotional expressions, emotional valence, and the functional implications reported. Based on qualitative content analysis principles (Elo \u0026amp; Kyng\u0026auml;s, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e), continuous scores (0 to 1, in 0.1 increments) were assigned to each dimension, reflecting thematic prevalence and linguistic markers of deterioration or recovery. To capture nuanced affective shifts, sentiment analysis was performed using a hybrid method that combined rule-based tools (e.g., VADER) and transformer-based models (e.g., BERT and RoBERTa) fine-tuned for Portuguese (Devlin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Erwe \u0026amp; Wang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Saha et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). This allowed detection of mixed emotions and contextual irony, common in occupational health narratives (Alqarni et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Pfeifer \u0026amp; Pexman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Scores across dimensions and time periods were plotted longitudinally to visualize trajectories of Distress, Resilience, and Positive Indicators, highlighting critical inflection points\u0026mdash;such as the marked decrease in distress and rise in resilience following workplace relocation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFinally, Factorial Correspondence Analysis (FCA) was conducted to explore co-occurrence patterns between violence and resilience categories, revealing the evolving semantic structure of the participant\u0026rsquo;s trajectory.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWorkplace violence as a systemic stressor\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe participant\u0026rsquo;s narrative foregrounded workplace violence as a pervasive and multifaceted stressor that operated across interpersonal, symbolic, and institutional dimensions. Rather than being confined to isolated incidents, violence was experienced as a chronic, systemic condition that shaped his sense of identity, belonging, and agency at work.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eContent analysis revealed that abusive leadership, institutional neglect, and symbolic humiliation were the most recurrent themes during the early phases of occupational illness. As shown in Fig. 1, terms such as anxiety, insomnia, and emotional overload emerged with high frequency, underscoring the psychological and somatic burden of sustained exposure to hostile environments. The participant described feeling \u0026ldquo;trapped in a cycle of emotional exhaustion and professional invisibility,\u0026rdquo; reflecting a cumulative toll that extended beyond professional boundaries into his personal life: \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;I am tired of this place, of the hypocrisy, the conflicts, of being caught in the crossfire between professors. I even feel nauseated when I see the cars of some of them. This department has become toxic to me.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe participant\u0026rsquo;s reflections suggest that early childhood memories act as latent mediators between core and contextual aspects of his lived experience (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 2). Growing up in a family environment marked by emotional neglect and coercive dynamics, he internalized patterns of submission and over-adaptation to authority figures. These early imprints resurfaced in adulthood as heightened anxiety, persistent sleep disturbances, and psychosomatic symptoms, amplifying his vulnerability to workplace violence and impairing his ability to establish healthy boundaries in professional settings. The enduring influence of these dynamics emerges vividly in his accounts of recurrent stress responses:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;During military enlistment, I lost nights of sleep, overwhelmed by anxiety at the thought of being ridiculed by the general in front of my peers and feeling utterly alone with no way out. It was the same with physics and calculus courses, when I would lie awake with insomnia and pain in my lower abdomen, imagining how it would feel to fail or endure the pressure of passing. The same occurred in my first job, as I agonized over being reassigned, feeling isolated while bearing technical responsibility for irregularities at the federal institute and fearing that during my management the supervisory body would blame me for unresolved errors left by previous administrators.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWithin the semantic co-occurrence network (see Fig. 2), occupational violence (green cluster) and institutional violence (blue cluster) emerge as central nodes, densely interconnected with symbolic violence (purple cluster), authoritarianism, and psychological suffering (at the blue-purple interface). In contrast, early-life adversities such as rejection and parental pressure appear as peripheral nodes (early-life violence and family violence in the yellow and purple clusters), indicating how these pre-existing vulnerabilities were reactivated in response to occupational strain.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInstitutional practices\u0026mdash;most notably the dismissal of legitimate accommodation requests\u0026mdash;further compounded this trajectory of distress. These systemic dynamics amplified the psychological burden, undermined emotional regulation, and fueled a sense of helplessness in the participant\u0026rsquo;s narrative:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;They say that technicians don\u0026rsquo;t do anything, but when they want me to do a professor\u0026rsquo;s job, they call me \u0026lsquo;doctor.\u0026rsquo; I screamed on the phone once, just like the professor screamed at me. I\u0026rsquo;m at the breaking point. [\u0026hellip;]and worse: I always feel like I owe something more to someone. If I buy a gift, I choose the biggest or most expensive one because I fear it might seem insufficient. I constantly feel I\u0026rsquo;m not giving enough and end up overcompensating, trying to please everyone as much as I can. My conscience often accuses me, as if someone is never satisfied with me. I know this is unhealthy, but I cannot always stop feeling this way or truly believe otherwise.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese accounts vividly illustrate the intricate links between emotional outbursts (orange cluster), symbolic pressure (green cluster), and hopelessness (orange cluster). They also point to internalized patterns of guilt and overadaptation (pursuit of approval and internalized guilt in the yellow cluster). The proximity of these nodes in the network highlights how hierarchical and institutional forces sustained a hostile work environment, while vulnerabilities rooted in earlier life stages intensified emotional and behavioral dysregulation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs visualized in Fig. 3, negative affect dominated across violence-related domains, with little evidence of neutral or positive reappraisal at this stage of the trajectory:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;I felt like I had no voice, no value. The chief dismissed my mental health issues as if they were a personal weakness. It\u0026rsquo;s humiliating.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCognitive schemas shaped by early boundary violations further exacerbated his perception of authority figures in the workplace, reinforcing a dynamic of subordination and self-inhibition. During childhood and adolescence, repeated experiences of boundary violations within his extended family deeply imprinted his sense of self and relational patterns. Reflecting on these early episodes, he described a persistent sense of fragility and vulnerability that carried into adulthood:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;From age 10 to 22, I worked at my mother\u0026rsquo;s copy shop and constantly felt I had no voice. I couldn\u0026rsquo;t say no when I didn\u0026rsquo;t want to work, while my younger brother, eight years my junior, had the freedom to refuse. Many times, my mother corrected me in front of clients, pointing out mistakes in ways that humiliated me, often saying I was doing things wrong or poorly. Those years taught me to suppress my own will, and even today I feel the weight of those moments in how I relate to authority.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis continuity between early family hierarchies and adult experiences in the workplace confirms how patterns of submission and emotional invalidation became deeply ingrained, shaping interactions with organizational authority figures. Leadership behaviors thus emerged not merely as contextual influences but as active determinants in escalating workplace violence and its psychological aftermath. The participant reported that his supervisor was \u0026ldquo;entirely closed to dialogue,\u0026rdquo; a dynamic that fostered relational avoidance and heightened anxiety. Similar dynamics, involving communication breakdowns and leadership disengagement that contribute to toxic workplace cultures, have been documented in organizational analyses (Lim et al., 2022; O\u0026rsquo;Brien et al., 2024).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn this case, the absence of dialogic leadership appears to have intensified hypervigilance and somatic distress, as powerfully reflected in his testimony:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;I developed panic even seeing cars similar to theirs. I avoid the department, the professors, everything. My body reacts\u0026mdash;rashes, headaches, insomnia\u0026mdash;just thinking about going back. That place was toxic: as an undergraduate, I was forced to stay until 2 a.m. for a master\u0026rsquo;s project and later publicly humiliated by a PhD student for inviting classmates to finish a task in the lab. The shame was so intense I quit my scholarship. I still carry many traumas from that department.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe narrative reveals repeated exposures to institutional tensions that progressively depleted the participant\u0026rsquo;s emotional resources, marked by cycles of exhaustion, identity destabilization, and impaired boundary-setting. Similar patterns of cumulative strain and organizational inertia have been documented in other contexts (Hendry et al., 2024; Slopen et al., 2018), underscoring the persistence of these dynamics in institutional environments.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHe described a persistent pattern of boundary violations, spanning from childhood to early academic experiences and resurfacing in his professional life as intense fear of requesting removal from a toxic department and anticipating retaliation during the redistribution process\u0026mdash;ironically orchestrated by the same institution responsible for his illness. These cumulative experiences fostered what he called an \u0026ldquo;invisible prison,\u0026rdquo; where social hierarchies and organizational dynamics reinforced a narrative of weakness and submission. Workplace violence thus emerged not merely as explicit aggression but as a constellation of symbolic, relational, and institutional forces that systematically eroded resilience and obstructed recovery.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 1 presents themes and codes identified through thematic content analysis of the participant\u0026rsquo;s narrative. Each code is accompanied by illustrative quotes that exemplify psychosocial distress and coping dynamics.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1\u003c/strong\u003e Themes and codes derived from content analysis of a workplace violences narrative\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThemes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCodes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eQuotes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"4\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStructural and Organizational Violence\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInstitutional Violence\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;The department\u0026rsquo;s leadership systematically ignored my requests for adjustments, reinforcing a sense of institutional neglect.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Administrative barriers felt like deliberate sabotage to my recovery process.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Every initiative I proposed was either delayed or dismissed without explanation\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;I felt trapped in a bureaucratic maze designed to exhaust me.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSilenced Violence\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Whenever I raised concerns, I was silenced with reminders to be grateful for what the department had already given me.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Speaking up against mistreatment only resulted in further isolation.\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;Whenever I approached my supervisor to express my occupational stress, he would compete with me over who had suffered more in life, leaving my concerns unheard.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOccupational Violence\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;I was yelled at in front of colleagues for errors I hadn\u0026rsquo;t made.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;I was pressured to perform tasks far beyond my expertise, setting me up for failure.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTransnational Violence\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;I felt like a second-class professional in global collaborations.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;My Italian supervisor dismissed my publications, refused to discuss my project, and sometimes mocked me as a \u0026ldquo;young pecorino.\u0026rdquo; At first, I didn\u0026rsquo;t understand the joke, but later I realized it was xenophobic. Things worsened when I was given 20 minutes less to present my work and accused of being prolix. He even questioned my and my advisor\u0026rsquo;s integrity when I requested a document to certify the end of my activities so I could return early from the sandwich PhD\u0026rdquo;.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePsychological Resources for Resilience and Empowerment\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResilience\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Despite the abuse, I clung to small routines that gave me a sense of control.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Therapy taught me to set boundaries and regain control over my life.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;I relied on daily rituals to stabilize myself.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Peer support became a lifeline during my darkest times.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Resilience, to me, became about surviving, not thriving.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIdentity Empowerment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Redefining my career values was liberating.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;The transfer gave me a chance to rebuild my confidence.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Reclaiming autonomy felt like breathing again.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;I turned my pain into a mission to support others in similar situations.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;In my new role, I finally feel recognized for who I am.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDevelopmental Trauma and Familial Stressors\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFamily Violence\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;At home, I constantly faced emotional invalidation, which shaped how I tolerated abuse at work.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;The lack of familial support worsened my resilience to workplace stressors.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Criticism at home taught me to fear confrontation in any context.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEarly-Life Violence\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Childhood bullying made me afraid of asserting myself.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Early trauma resurfaced every time I was humiliated at work.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Even in adulthood, I carried the wounds of being constantly belittled as a child.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCultural and Normative Workplace Aggression\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEducational Violence\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;The academic environment trained me to tolerate humiliation without resistance.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Faculty meetings often felt like arenas of intimidation rather than collaboration.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSymbolic Violence\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Recognition only came to those who conformed.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Subtle exclusion cut deeper than explicit insults.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;I felt erased in group projects, even when I contributed significantly.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;They used sarcasm and jokes to undermine me publicly.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNormative Violence\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Challenging the status quo led to retaliation.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Saying no wasn\u0026rsquo;t an option without being labeled uncooperative.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003c/em\u003eNoncompliance with unofficial norms was treated as opportunism\u003cem\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFig. 3 illustrates that even within the domains of workplace violence, neutral and positive emotions coexisted with an overarching atmosphere of negativity. Support from psychiatrists, the occupational psychologist, close friends, and family emerged as stabilizing forces, buffering against complete psychological collapse. However, it was only after his removal from the toxic workplace environment that positive emotions began to predominate, accompanied by a gradual restoration of autonomy and dignity. This transition suggests that autonomy functions not merely as a protective factor but as a catalytic force capable of disrupting deeply entrenched cycles of symbolic and structural violence.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs the narrative advanced, subtle yet significant signs of active coping and resource mobilization began to emerge:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;The head of the nutrition department told me everyone there wants me. Knowing that my work is appreciated gave me the strength to pursue a transfer\u0026rdquo;.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese statements reflect a shift from withdrawal to engagement, as the participant deliberately sought environments that validated his contributions and offered opportunities for growth. Within the semantic network (see Fig. 2), resilience-related nodes\u0026mdash;such as \u0026ldquo;renewed hope\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;self-strengthening\u0026rdquo;\u0026mdash;are concentrated in the red cluster positioned at the periphery of the network, in sharp contrast to the central clusters dominated by occupational violence (green), institutional violence (blue), and psychological suffering (purple).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough peripheral, the red cluster is characterized by dense internal connections and emerging links to the central violence domains, suggesting the gradual formation of an alternative narrative structure. This spatial configuration indicates the beginnings of a psychological reconfiguration, where resilience and identity empowerment operate as counterforces to the entrenched dynamics of symbolic and structural violence.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTurning to the FCA, two factors explain 32% and 17.4% of the model, which are represented on the X and Y axes in Fig. 4. The two-dimensional view delineates four distinct clusters: (i) silenced, institutional, occupational, and transnational violence concentrated in the upper-left quadrant; (ii) educational, symbolic, and normative violence distributed across the upper-right quadrant; (iii) family violence and early-life violence in the lower-right quadrant; and (iv) resilience and identity empowerment positioned in the lower-left quadrant. While the factorial correspondence analysis (FCA) visually situates these domains in semantic space, the coding structure itself was derived inductively through content analysis. Notably, the cluster of educational violence lies at the intersection of symbolic/normative violence and early-life/family violence, suggesting its bridging role between formal institutional settings and personal formative experiences. The proximity between \u0026ldquo;school,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;symbolic violence,\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;normative violence\u0026rdquo; reinforces the idea that coercive socialization patterns within educational environments are semantically linked to broader systems of structural harm.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile the FCA visually situates these domains within semantic space, the coding structure itself was inductively derived through content analysis. Importantly, the FCA highlights how resilience-related codes and identity empowerment surfaced at the edges of violence clusters, functioning as counterforces capable of reshaping the participant\u0026rsquo;s psychological trajectory and opening pathways toward recovery. These counterforces occupy a spatially opposed position relative to the violence clusters along Dimension 1, indicating a meaningful polarity between vulnerability and repair. Furthermore, variables such as \u0026ldquo;institutional,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;university hierarchy,\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;academic\u0026rdquo; appear tightly coupled with silenced and institutional violence, revealing the semantic entanglement between organizational structures and mechanisms of invisibilization. Conversely, codes like \u0026ldquo;resilience,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;self,\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;work\u0026rdquo; co-occur in the lower-left quadrant, indicating that the workplace\u0026mdash;although originally implicated in harm\u0026mdash;also became a domain for reconstructing meaning and restoring agency.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePsychosocial Distress and the Escalation of Suffering\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe participant\u0026rsquo;s longitudinal narrative reveals a progressive erosion of psychological and physical health, closely tied to sustained exposure to workplace violence. Within the semantic network (see Fig. 2), \u0026ldquo;occupational stress\u0026rdquo; occupies a central position, densely interconnected with \u0026ldquo;psychological suffering\u0026rdquo; (purple cluster) and surrounding nodes such as \u0026ldquo;anxious symptoms\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;depersonalization\u0026rdquo;, and \u0026ldquo;symbolic violence\u0026rdquo;. This configuration maps a constellation of mutually reinforcing experiences.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe participant repeatedly described patterns of hypervigilance and avoidance:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;It\u0026rsquo;s been nearly two months since I last went to the university\u0026rsquo;s grocery store because I can\u0026rsquo;t stand passing by my workplace.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSomatic complaints were equally prominent, with flare-ups of dermatitis, gastritis, and chronic headaches exacerbated by severe insomnia:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;I know this dermatitis on my face is stress-related. I can\u0026rsquo;t sleep; my throat hurts, and there are nights when I pace the house at 3 a.m., asking myself: how long will this last? I even dream of my boss chasing me or colleagues judging me for falling ill. Will it ever end?\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSentiment analysis (Fig. 3) further underscores the emotional toll: domains such as \u0026ldquo;Occupational Violence\u0026rdquo; (green cluster) and \u0026ldquo;Institutional Violence\u0026rdquo; (blue cluster) are dominated by negative affect, with data clustering in the lower-right quadrant\u0026mdash;an image of cumulative strain:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Their presence sparks gossip, and that alone destabilizes me. Just thinking about returning to the department gives me insomnia.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs emotional detachment and loss of meaning surfaced, even achievements failed to elicit joy:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;In the middle of all this, I received a merit medal as the top student in my psychology class and a patent award for technological innovation. I knew I was excelling, but I felt no joy. I\u0026rsquo;ve always been spirited, but now it feels like nothing matters anymore.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCoping strategies such as relational avoidance became increasingly entrenched:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;I archived all departmental group chats because just seeing a notification gave me chills. I would clock in at times I knew I wouldn\u0026rsquo;t encounter anyone and use restrooms in other departments to avoid hallways.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTogether, these patterns depict a trajectory of psychological withdrawal and emotional numbing. In Fig. 2, \u0026ldquo;relational avoidance\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;depersonalization\u0026rdquo; cluster tightly around \u0026ldquo;occupational stress\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;psychological suffering\u0026rdquo;, illustrating how workplace violence cascaded into emotional, physical, and social domains, progressively undermining health and functional engagement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResilience Mechanisms as Protective Factors\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs the participant navigated the trajectory from distress to recovery, resilience mechanisms emerged as critical protective forces counteracting the cumulative effects of prolonged occupational violence. Individual resilience became evident as he progressively secured autonomy and workplace accommodations, enabling a gradual restoration of agency and self-determination. In parallel, collective resilience played an equally pivotal role\u0026mdash;initially through the sustained support of occupational health professionals and later through validation and engagement from newly appointed faculty members. Together, these actors co-constructed a reconfigured work environment characterized by adequate infrastructure, administrative and social support, workplace flexibility, and systematic feedback. This collaborative effort consolidated a network of care, which not only sustained his reintegration but also catalyzed a profound reconfiguration of identity and belonging.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe longitudinal trajectory visualization (see Fig. 5) captures this inflection point, marked by a steady decline in distress scores and a concurrent rise in resilience indicators. It was during this phase that the participant began to reframe his role within the institution and prioritize self-care as a central element of his professional identity:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;I\u0026rsquo;ve started to realize that I can no longer carry the department\u0026rsquo;s problems on my shoulders. I need to take care of my well-being.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis shift reflects more than a coping strategy; it signals a deeper reorientation of priorities, as he came to recognize his right to set boundaries and disengage from dysfunctional organizational dynamics\u0026mdash;transforming self-care from a mere act of survival into a cornerstone of his renewed sense of purpose and professional identity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTaken together, these findings provide compelling evidence in support of our initial hypotheses. Consistent with Hypothesis 1, perceived social support\u0026mdash;particularly through active and empathetic managerial engagement\u0026mdash;emerged as a critical factor in fostering employees\u0026rsquo; career adaptability and renewing their occupational commitment in the aftermath of workplace adversity. Furthermore, in alignment with Hypothesis 2, the results underscore how supportive organizational practices exert indirect positive effects on employee well-being, mediated by enhanced resistance capacity and adaptive flexibility. The convergence of these patterns across emotional, behavioral, and psychosomatic domains reinforces the veracity of our theoretical model and highlights the transformative potential of organizational care systems in mitigating harm and enabling post-adversity growth.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReintegration and Growth: Pathways to Recovery\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe final stage of the participant\u0026rsquo;s trajectory reflects a gradual yet transformative process of reintegration and personal growth. Institutional support played a decisive role in this phase, fostering a renewed sense of empowerment and belonging:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;The new supervisor has been very generous, empathetic. I feel more independent. He listens to me and doesn\u0026rsquo;t leave me stranded.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough resilience mechanisms could not entirely erase the scars of past violence, their emergence marked a pivotal juncture in the trajectory from illness to recovery. Positive indicators of identity empowerment and emotional renewal began to coexist with lingering vulnerabilities such as hypervigilance and anticipatory anxiety. This inflection point is reflected in the longitudinal trajectory visualization (Fig. 3), where a sharp decline in distress scores aligns with steady increases in resilience and positive self-reports.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;I can hardly believe how happy I feel in my new workplace. The professor here is empathetic, gives me space to grow, and listens to me. I finally feel like I belong.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis renewed sense of belonging was accompanied by psychosomatic improvements: better sleep, cessation of chronic rhinitis, and a noticeable reduction in episodes of anger and physical tension.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;My insomnia has decreased more and more, and even my allergies are gone. I\u0026rsquo;ve started taking initiative again, working late voluntarily, and I feel proud of that.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile traces of vulnerability persisted\u0026mdash;particularly fear of losing his newfound stability\u0026mdash;the participant\u0026rsquo;s narrative reflects a profound shift from mere survival to purpose-driven engagement:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Sometimes I\u0026rsquo;m afraid of losing this joy I\u0026rsquo;ve found, but I know I\u0026rsquo;m building something solid now. Even the proposal for a postdoctoral project has come through, and I feel capable again. I feel like I\u0026rsquo;ve switched on turbo mode again: researcher and civil servant in full force!\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis phase also brought a deeper reframing of past pain into a sense of mission and generativity:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;I\u0026rsquo;m reframing all that pain into something meaningful. Helping others like me has become a personal mission, and the illness of technical-administrative staff has now become the focus of my postdoctoral research.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWithin the semantic network (Fig. 2), resignification and reintegration nodes form smaller yet densely interconnected clusters (red cluster), underscoring their critical role in the recovery trajectory. Although less central than violence-related terms, these themes highlight how supportive environments and restored autonomy enable individuals to transcend trauma, rebuild agency, and rediscover professional fulfillment.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese findings provide strong support for our theoretical propositions. Consistent with Hypothesis 3, the data demonstrate that the strength of workplace violence moderates the relationship between social support, career adaptability, and resilience responses. As predicted, higher levels of violence attenuated the positive influence of social support on adaptive flexibility, while simultaneously amplifying resistance capacity as a defensive adaptation to persistent adversity. Maladaptive schemas\u0026mdash;such as impaired autonomy or mistrust\u0026mdash;were reactivated in hostile environments, constraining emotional regulation and fostering hypervigilant coping strategies (Pilkington et al., 2021; Huang et al., 2023).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSupporting Hypothesis 4, social support characterized by active listening and responsiveness had positive indirect effects beyond functional reintegration, facilitating renewed occupational commitment and reducing disengagement intentions. The participant described how responsive organizational practices helped him reconstruct his professional identity and sustain engagement despite prior adversity. Instances of workplace violence were reported as intense, time-bounded episodes that shaped long-term adaptation trajectories. When organizational systems provided space for healing and autonomy restoration, he highlighted processes of resilience and renewed commitment.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWorkplace power asymmetries\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOur analysis revealed that workplace violence, in its multiple forms—ranging from symbolic humiliation to institutional neglect and normative coercion—cumulatively eroded the participant’s psychological and physical health. As prior studies demonstrate (Herschcovis \u0026amp; Barling, 2010; Nielsen \u0026amp; Einarsen, 2018), these covert dynamics embed power asymmetries into organizational routines, transforming them into chronic stressors that undermine functional capacity and agency.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe participant’s account illustrated how symbolic violence—dismissed by institutional actors as intangible or minor—left deep emotional scars. Subtle exclusions, sarcastic remarks, and bureaucratic inertia converged to intensify psychosomatic symptoms, including sleep disturbances, recurrent headaches, and respiratory issues. These symptoms peaked during critical moments, such as when the institutional medical board questioned the legitimacy of his suffering or imposed workplace reintegration despite evident psychological distress. Consistent with findings in other hierarchical organizations (Kallio et al., 2025; Thompson et al., 2025;\u0026nbsp;Trépanier et al., 2023), institutional neglect emerged not only as a barrier to recovery but also as a catalyst for silenced violence, driving the participant toward withdrawal and self-suppression.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e“I was left in disbelief that, after everything I endured over the past six years, I still had to justify why I didn’t approach the ombudsman during my probationary period… It’s absurd that everything happens behind closed doors and I still have to face abuse from the official medical board (JMO). Everyone knows that a probationary employee is terrified of losing stability.”\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInstitutional microaggressions are perpetuated by organizational cultures that normalize distrust and retaliation, leaving victims unwilling or unable to seek help. This resonates with Lee et al. (2024), who identify workplace incivility as a predictor of emotional exhaustion, and Mdletshe and Makhaye (2025), who observe how hierarchical systems suppress disclosures of harm. In this study, such patterns were evident in the participant’s trajectory, as moments of institutional invalidation—from medical boards lacking mental health expertise to prolonged bureaucratic processes—consistently reignited psychosomatic distress.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStructural contributors include a lack of accountability mechanisms for psychosocial harm (Buta et al., 2024; Mendonça et al., 2024), medical governance frameworks that trivialize psychological suffering (Trépanier et al., 2023), and employment structures that embed fear among probationary staff (Fogaça et al., 2021; Griep et al., 2025). These factors, though less visible than overt aggression, institutionalize silence and erode trust. As Strand \u0026amp; Cohen (2022) summarize, \u003cem\u003e“the overt and covert asymmetries linked to workplace violence are reinforced by cultural, hierarchical, and procedural practices that constitute the backbone of most organizational contexts […].”\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA paradox emerges when we contrast this with findings from physical injury cases. While de Groot et al. (2025) suggest that limited follow-up may, paradoxically, promote return by fostering autonomy, our study shows the opposite: in contexts of psychological distress, the absence of support signaled abandonment, not empowerment. Rather than catalyzing recovery, medical detachment reinforced institutional neglect and deepened the experience of symbolic violence. We hypothesize that, for invisible wounds, silence from the system does not liberate—it legitimizes suffering as irrelevant, transforming resilience into solitary endurance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResilience as a mediating and moderating process\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study revealed that cumulative exposures to violence—particularly normative, symbolic, and institutional forms—exerted profound effects on psychosocial functioning and resilience. These dynamics were reflected in the participant’s escalating psychosomatic symptoms and avoidance behaviors during periods of heightened aggression. Notably, the interplay of these violence types shaped not only individual well-being but also adaptive capacities, determining whether resilience manifested as rigid compliance or participatory engagement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUnderstanding these patterns requires unpacking how violence reinforces hierarchical structures and psychological vulnerability. Normative violence subtly enforces behavioral conformity, fostering self-censorship and complicity: \u003cem\u003e“I tried to convince myself it was just how things worked here, but inside, I felt like I was disappearing.”\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eSymbolic violence, through invalidation and humiliation, erodes self-worth and entrenches power asymmetries. Institutional violence amplifies these harms through bureaucratic inertia and dismissive practices, as illustrated by the participant’s experience with the admissions and relocation office: \u003cem\u003e“Your situation is very difficult.”\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShe didn’t even ask how I was or offer any help, implying that bureaucratic concerns outweighed my professional well-being. These dynamics extend to broader cultural patterns among technical staff, where resignation and mediocrity become survival strategies. Rather than challenging organizational harm, colleagues internalize patriarchal norms and normalize violence as an inevitable feature of university life: “It’s as if we’re shooting ourselves in the foot to keep the system alive.” Such behaviors embody what Bonanno et al. (2023) describe as rigid resilience—a defensive adaptation that risks legitimizing institutional dysfunction. Similarly, Zhang et al. (2024) warn that overemphasizing personal adaptability normalizes abuse and delays organizational reform.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese insights resonate with Azimi et al. (2024) theoretical model, which positions resilience as a mediator between burnout and workplace safety behaviors. Emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment influence two dimensions of safety: safety compliance, defined as rigid adherence to rules, and safety participation, marked by voluntary, proactive engagement. In the participant’s trajectory, emotional exhaustion initially drove compliance:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e“I followed all the protocols just to stay invisible.”\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eYet as depersonalization and self-doubt deepened, participatory engagement waned:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e“I stopped going to meetings or offering help because I felt everything was pointless. In the end, I would earn the same as the technician who spends the day sunbathing and doing no work, while my immediate supervisor kept turning a blind eye to professors who continued working “remotely” on their own, even though the pandemic was over.”\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eResilience, often defined as the capacity to recover from adversity (Fletcher \u0026amp; Sarkar, 2013; Robertson et al., 2023), emerged here as a dynamic process shaped by personal agency and organizational context. Initially stifled by structural hostility, it flourished only after the participant’s relocation to a supportive department:\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e“Starting over allowed me to rediscover who I was professionally.”\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis transition from survival-oriented compliance to participatory empowerment illustrates the conditional nature of resilience. Hollaar et al. (2025) emphasize that resilience demands regulatory flexibility, not rigid perseverance, in toxic environments.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParadoxically, resilience can act as both a protective factor and a risk. In unsupportive systems, it risks becoming an individual burden, as workers internalize responsibility for adapting to hostile conditions. Overreliance on personal adaptability may normalize abuse and perpetuate harm (Zhang et al., 2024; Bonanno et al., 2023). Only organizational practices fostering psychological safety amplify adaptive capacity (Di Tecco et al., 2023), while even highly resilient workers may disengage under hierarchical opacity and fear of retaliation (Xintian \u0026amp; Peng, 2023).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWorkplace violence constrains resilience, reducing adaptability to rigid conformity. Yet resilience does not emerge solely from the removal of structural barriers; it thrives in environments where the beautiful (a renewed physical space and relational harmony), the good (adequate tools and supportive working conditions), and the true (recognition of the technician as a unique and irreplaceable contributor) converge. In such contexts, the workplace becomes not only tolerable but desirable—so much so that the participant occasionally chose to return on weekends, finding in the new environment a sense of belonging and purpose strong enough to dissolve the impulse to withdraw.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOrganizational barriers to reintegration and identity reconstruction\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe reintegration of workers following prolonged illness represents a critical juncture where organizational structures and individual vulnerabilities converge. For employees recovering from psychosocial distress, the return-to-work process is not merely a medical transition but a complex socio-organizational endeavor that often entails navigating power dynamics, stigma, and institutional inertia (Corrigan \u0026amp; Rao, 2012). As highlighted by this study, organizational dynamics—ranging from limited managerial support to unsupportive workplace cultures and structural obstacles—can hinder reintegration and undermine well-being, particularly in cases of psychological health-related leaves (Figueredo et al., 2020). In the present case, the participant’s narrative reflects these tensions, revealing how the absence of supportive structures exacerbated anxiety and impeded a smooth transition:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e“I don’t even know where I’m supposed to sit or what tasks I’m expected to perform. It feels like I’m invisible.”\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInstitutional barriers such as ambiguous role expectations, lack of accommodations, and unaddressed interpersonal conflicts create environments where employees perceive reintegration not as recovery but as a continuation of prior harm. This is consistent with evidence from\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eOlsson et al. (2025)\u003c/strong\u003e, who found that employees returning from mental health-related absences often encounter subtle forms of exclusion and role marginalization, contributing to feelings of alienation and renewed distress. Moreover, the participant’s avoidance behaviors—\u003cem\u003e“I punch in at odd hours to avoid seeing anyone”\u003c/em\u003e—exemplify how organizational climates saturated with mistrust and stigma undermine attempts to resume functionality.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e“Except for a colleague who was also a childhood friend, in a department with more than sixty people—both technical staff and faculty—not a single person called or messaged to ask if I was okay or needed anything. It feels as if their silence says it all: what bleeds in silence is not considered blood. Blood is what you spill in a workplace accident. If I died of cancer, I would be a martyr. If I died of burnout, it would probably be seen as my own fault”.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStigmatization emerged as a central theme in the participant’s experience, compounding the challenges of reintegration. Fear of being perceived as “fragile” or “unreliable” deterred help-seeking and fostered hypervigilance:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e“Even in the cafeteria, I avoid times when those professors might gather for coffee, hoping to prevent further awkwardness—like the piercing looks that seem to ask when I’ll be taking my next leave.”\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis aligns with recent findings that workplace stigma around mental illness reduces employee engagement and increases turnover intentions, particularly in hierarchical institutions where disclosure can lead to professional repercussions (Steele et al., 2019).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIdentity reconstruction in such contexts is fraught with ambivalence. Initially, the participant framed resilience in survivalist terms, describing an emotional “armor” necessary to endure daily interactions. However, following a transfer to a new department, narratives shifted towards empowerment and growth:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e“In this new environment, I finally feel recognized for who I am and not defined by my illness. I started dreaming again, planning again, investing in my professional development. Back then, my suffering would begin on Saturdays, just imagining having to step into work on Monday. The Sunday neurosis is almost gone. Sometimes I still feel insecure, like when I catch myself thinking: What if the leadership changes and I end up reliving the same experiences? But no—I know, in those moments, it’s just my insecurities trying to force me to look in the rearview mirror, when in fact, there’s a wide windshield of opportunities ahead.”\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis transformation resonates with theories of post-traumatic growth and underscores the role of supportive organizational ecosystems in facilitating positive identity renegotiation (Maitlis, 2020).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eVisual analyses reinforce these dynamics. In Fig. 2, the marked increase in positive indicators post-relocation—highlighted in red (self-strengthening, active management, and occupational health)—illustrates how contextual change catalyzes recovery. Conversely, the peripheral positioning of purple nodes (identity empowerment and psychological suffering) during earlier phases underscores their emergent nature, gaining centrality only after systemic barriers were dismantled. As Di Tecco et al. (2023) argue, successful reintegration depends not on individual resilience alone, but on the organization’s willingness to reimagine roles, workflows, and cultural norms—transforming recovery from an act of survival into a process of renewal.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis temporal reconfiguration aligns with18et al. (2024), who conceptualize return to work not as a singular event but as an adaptive, relational trajectory shaped by dynamic interactions between workers’ personal resources, organizational affordances, and health-related identity shifts. Popa et al. (2022) similarly emphasize that sustained reintegration demands alignment between subjective readiness and workplace reinvention, particularly when chronic stressors have fractured role coherence or damaged self-efficacy.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn our case, this shift became evident when the participant moved from a stigmatized role to leading a complex project, regaining autonomy and competence. As he noted, “They gave me a chance to solve something on my own—and I realized I wasn’t broken, just misused.” This moment reflects more than functional recovery; it signals narrative repair—an element increasingly recognized in psychosocial rehabilitation. The CHIME framework (Connectedness, Hope, Identity, Meaning, and Empowerment) offers a compelling lens to interpret this transformation, particularly the restoration of agency and occupational purpose through supportive relationships (Green et al., 2025). Similarly, de Geus et al. (2022) emphasize that effective vocational rehabilitation depends not on isolated techniques but on personalized, multi-stage interventions. Lettinga et al. (2025) further underscore the importance of timing, task alignment, and coordination between stakeholders. These findings resonate with our case, in which successful reintegration only occurred when three conditions converged: (i) the appointment of an occupational health coordinator who bridged institutional actors; (ii) the participant’s assignment to a clearly defined, meaningful task that leveraged his competencies; and (iii) the provision of adequate infrastructure that allowed him to work with autonomy and psychological safety. These elements functioned as a turning point, revealing that resilience alone is insufficient without systemic scaffolding that enables role renegotiation, relational repair, and sustainable re-engagement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFrom Demands to Resources: Mapping Identity Reconstruction After Harm\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRecovery only became feasible when the participant entered environments that recognized both his suffering and potential. Supportive colleagues and empathic leadership catalyzed identity repair, while self- and relational affirmations fostered psychological grounding and reframed adversity within a coherent life narrative (Corrigan \u0026amp; Rao, 2012; Jessop et al., 2023). Organizational interventions—such as peer networks, psychological safety training, and the Reflected Best Self exercise (Jackson et al., 2025; Roberts \u0026amp; Caza, 2025)—highlight the institutional conditions necessary to scaffold resilience, shifting it from individual burden to collective responsibility. Absent systemic alignment, resilience rhetoric risks obscuring institutional failure and perpetuating harm (Zhang et al., 2024; Bonanno et al., 2023; Xintian \u0026amp; Peng, 2023).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe case findings converge with key principles of the Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) model (Demerouti et al., 2001; Bakker \u0026amp; Demerouti, 2017), which posits that chronic demands, if unmitigated by adequate resources, culminate in burnout, whereas the availability of supportive resources fosters motivation and growth. In this narrative, persistent exposure to institutional violence, symbolic discredit, and ambiguous roles—reflected in FCA clusters such as “occupational violence” and “psychological suffering”—eroded self-efficacy and cognitive resources. This deterioration is indexed by terms like “submission,” “disassembled,” and “disconnected,” mirroring the model’s health impairment pathway.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe case findings align with central tenets of the Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) model (Demerouti et al., 2001; Bakker \u0026amp; Demerouti, 2017), which posits that chronic job demands—when unbuffered by adequate resources—initiate a health impairment process culminating in burnout, while the presence of contextual resources activates a motivational pathway. In this narrative, prolonged exposure to institutional violence, symbolic discredit, and role ambiguity generated cumulative strain, depleting the participant’s psychological capital. These dynamics are vividly reflected in the factorial correspondence analysis (FCA): clusters such as “occupational violence,” “institutional violence,” and “transnational violence,” located in the upper-left quadrant, coalesce around terms like “submission,” “disassembled,” and “disconnected,” signaling a collapse of self-efficacy and identity continuity. The semantic proximity between “university hierarchy,” “academic,” and “silenced violence” highlights how epistemic invalidation and organizational opacity functioned as embedded psychosocial stressors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCrucially, the FCA reveals a structural counterpoint: in the lower-left quadrant, codes such as “resilience,” “identity empowerment,” and “institutional support” occupy a semantically distal position, indicating a shift toward repair. These elements did not arise spontaneously but were activated through access to relational and structural resources. The educational violence cluster—positioned at the intersection of symbolic, normative, and early-life violence—illustrates how institutional demands often echo unresolved developmental vulnerabilities, reinforcing the cumulative nature of psychosocial risk. This multilevel configuration, visually expressed through the FCA and conceptually framed by the JD-R model, underscores how environments of adversity can produce both chronic strain and limited pathways to resilience. In this case, the delayed transition from impairment to motivation highlights the necessity of recovery-enabling contexts, echoing insights by Bakker and de Vries (2021) and recent empirical validation of reciprocal causality between demands, resources, and well-being (Lesener et al., 2019).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe structural model proposed by Azimi et al. (2024), incorporated into this analysis, further substantiates this interpretation by demonstrating how depersonalization suppresses both resilience and professional accomplishment. These mechanisms were clearly reflected in the participant’s experience: during phases marked by symbolic invalidation and emotional detachment, his narratives conveyed numbness, defeat, and a disassembled sense of self. As organizational support and interpersonal recognition gradually re-emerged, his language shifted toward expressions of competence, coherence, and restored dignity. Such transitions were not dispositional in nature, but rather reflected a contextual responsiveness to shifting demands and available resources—corroborating Schaufeli and Taris’ (2013) proposition that the JD-R model is particularly attuned to the role of organizational structure and perceived justice in shaping adaptive trajectories.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn sum, this case underscores that resilience is not a static trait but an emergent capacity, co-produced by adversity and support. It is within adverse contexts that structural conditions and relational trust become salient, transforming potential pathology into trajectories of recovery. By aligning the JD-R framework with lived experience and semantic evidence, this study advances a contextualized understanding of resilience—as a relational, dynamic, and system-contingent phenomenon.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLimitations and future directions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study offers a rich temporal analysis of identity reconstruction in the aftermath of workplace violence, integrating narrative methods with factorial correspondence and sentiment mapping. While the mixed-methods approach enhanced interpretive depth—visually capturing transitions from distress to agency—it remains constrained by the limitations of a single-case design. The findings, though transferable in a conceptual sense, cannot be generalized to broader populations without empirical caution. Retrospective self-reporting may also introduce memory distortions or narrative bias, especially in emotionally charged contexts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTheoretical frameworks such as the Job Demands–Resources model (Demerouti et al., 2001; Bakker \u0026amp; Demerouti, 2017) and the structural model by Azimi et al. (2024) were employed to guide the interpretation of key dynamics, especially regarding the interplay between emotional exhaustion, resilience, and role reengagement. While not used as formal modeling tools, these frameworks offered valuable conceptual lenses that helped contextualize observed patterns and supported the synthesis of findings with existing literature.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFuture research should prioritize multi-case longitudinal designs across diverse occupational settings to identify which recovery and disengagement mechanisms are universal and which are context-specific. Experimental and intervention studies are particularly needed to test how organizational variables—such as recovery-supportive policies, leadership behavior, and task clarity—influence resilience development and reduce chronic occupational stress. Methodological triangulation, incorporating personal narratives, institutional records, peer accounts, and physiological data, could enhance validity and reveal overlooked dimensions of suffering and adaptation. In particular, interventions targeting structural conditions—such as restorative leadership and policies aimed at reducing institutional violence—should be evaluated for their potential to create environments conducive to identity reconstruction and sustained well-being (Arifin, 2024; Di Tecco et al., 2023; Khan et al., 2024).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study offers a situated understanding of how workplace violence infiltrates psychological life and identity through symbolic, institutional, and normative channels. The participant\u0026rsquo;s reintegration did not follow a linear path of recovery, but rather a dynamic reconfiguration of meaning\u0026mdash;enabled by the alignment between demands and available resources. Critical turning points included: (i) the appointment of an occupational health coordinator who bridged fragmented institutional actors; (ii) the assignment to a clearly defined, meaningful task that reactivated his dormant competencies; and (iii) the provision of adequate infrastructure that afforded both autonomy and psychological safety. Together, these elements allowed the participant to transition from passive endurance to narrative authorship and functional agency.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBeyond these micro-political shifts, the findings reveal deeper structures of exclusion. The participant\u0026rsquo;s earlier exposure to transnational academic violence illustrates how institutional neglect operates across borders, while the rigid posture of the local medical board reproduced similar dynamics\u0026mdash;delegitimizing psychological suffering through technocratic authority. These patterns are far from neutral: they are shaped by intersectional hierarchies of class, professional status, and normative mental health expectations that determine whose pain is recognized and whose is denied. Reintegration, in this light, is not merely a return to function, but a reclaiming of narrative agency within systems capable of transformation.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConflict of Interest\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eV. R. A. P., K. V., C. F. V., and M. A. S. A. ideated the study. V. R. A. P. and T. D. S. prepared the figures and tables. V. R. A. P. drafted the manuscript. C. F. V. contributed to data analysis. M. A. S. A., C. F. V. and K. V. revised the draft.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAlfes, K., Tham, T. L., Pariona‐Cabrera, P., Holland, P., \u0026amp; Bartram, T. (2025). The Buffering Role of Anti‐Violence Human Resource Management Practices in Shaping How Police Officers Cope With Workplace Violence. \u003cem\u003eHuman Resource Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e64\u003c/em\u003e(3), 713-730.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAlqarni, F., Sagheer, A., Alabbad, A., \u0026amp; Hamdoun, H. (2025). Emotion-Aware RoBERTa enhanced with emotion-specific attention and TF-IDF gating for fine-grained emotion recognition. \u003cem\u003eScientific Reports\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(1), 17617.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eArifin, Y. (2024). The Role of Leadership in Mitigating Toxic Workplace Culture: A Critical Examination of Effective Interventions. \u003cem\u003eThe Journal of Academic Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e(4), 389-397.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAzimi, R., Al Sulaie, S., Yazdanirad, S., Khoshakhlagh, A. H., Park, J. W., \u0026amp; Kazemian, F. (2024). The role of resilience as a key player in mitigating job burnout\u0026apos;s impact on workplace safety. \u003cem\u003eScientific Reports\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(1), 16925.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBakker, A. B., \u0026amp; de Vries, J. D. (2021). Job Demands\u0026ndash;Resources theory and self-regulation: New explanations and remedies for job burnout. \u003cem\u003eAnxiety, Stress, \u0026amp; Coping, 34\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;21.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBakker, A. B., \u0026amp; Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands\u0026ndash;resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22\u003c/em\u003e(3), 273\u0026ndash;285.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBellana, B., Mahabal, A., \u0026amp; Honey, C. J. (2022). Narrative thinking lingers in spontaneous thought.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eNature Communications, 13\u003c/em\u003e, 4585.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBingham, A. J. (2023). From data management to actionable findings: A five-phase process of qualitative data analysis\u003cem\u003e.\u0026nbsp;International Journal of Qualitative Methods,\u0026nbsp;22\u003c/em\u003e, 16094069231183620.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBonanno, G. A., Romero, S. A., \u0026amp; Klein, S. I. (2023). Regulatory flexibility and the paradox of resilience.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eNature Reviews Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, 2(4), 210\u0026ndash;224.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBowie, V., \u0026amp; Fisher, B. S. (Eds.). (2012). \u003cem\u003eWorkplace violence\u003c/em\u003e. New York, NY: Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBraun, V., \u0026amp; Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. \u003cem\u003eQualitative Research in Psychology, 3\u003c/em\u003e(2), 77\u0026ndash;101.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBrun, J. P., Tremblay, M., \u0026amp; Pelletier, D. (2025). Adaptive coping and resilience trajectories in healthcare professionals: A longitudinal field study.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eJournal of Occupational Health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e67\u003c/em\u003e(1), e12345.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eButa, F. R., Carvalho, L. F., \u0026amp; Mendon\u0026ccedil;a, H. R. (2024). Mental health literacy for public employees: A key factor in mitigating psychosocial risks and workplace violence. \u003cem\u003eRevista Brasileira de Sa\u0026uacute;de Ocupacional, 49\u003c/em\u003e(1), e20240117.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCarter, N. (2014). The use of triangulation in qualitative research. \u003cem\u003eNumber 5/September 2014,\u0026nbsp;41\u003c/em\u003e(5), 545-547.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCasey, J. R., Hanson, C. S., Winkelmayer, W. C., Craig, J. C., Palmer, S., Strippoli, G. F., \u0026amp; Tong, A. (2014). Patients\u0026rsquo; perspectives on hemodialysis vascular access: a systematic review of qualitative studies. \u003cem\u003eAmerican journal of kidney diseases\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e64\u003c/em\u003e(6), 937-953.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eChun, C. A., Moos, R. H., \u0026amp; Cronkite, R. C. (2006). \u003cem\u003eCulture: A fundamental context for the stress and coping paradigm\u003c/em\u003e. In\u0026nbsp;Handbook of multicultural perspectives on stress and coping\u0026nbsp;(pp. 29-53). Boston, MA: Springer US.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eComPsych. (2024). Mental health leaves of absence surge, increasing 33% over prior year. \u003cem\u003eComPsych Corporation\u003c/em\u003e. Retrieved from https://www.compsych.com/press-release/mental-health-leaves-of-absence-surge-increasing-33-over-prior-year/\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCorrigan, P. W., \u0026amp; Rao, D. (2012). On the self-stigma of mental illness: Stages, disclosure, and strategies for change. \u003cem\u003eThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e57\u003c/em\u003e(8), 464-469.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ede Geus, C. J., Huysmans, M. A., van Rijssen, H. J., de Maaker-Berkhof, M., Schoonmade, L. J., \u0026amp; Anema, J. R. (2024). Elements of return-to-work interventions for workers on long-term sick leave: a systematic literature review. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Occupational Rehabilitation\u003c/em\u003e, 1-22.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ede Groot, E., Hermans, A. M., de Jongh, M. A. C., Geuze, R. E., van Dongen, I. M., Hommes, S., ... \u0026amp; Joosen, M. C. W. (2025). What Works (or Doesn\u0026rsquo;t) in Return to Work after Physical Injury? A Qualitative Study on the Perspectives of Trauma Patients and Health Care Professionals on Barriers and Facilitators in Return to Work. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Occupational Rehabilitation\u003c/em\u003e, 1-18.\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. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Psychology, 86\u003c/em\u003e(3), 499\u0026ndash;512.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDemerouti, E., \u0026amp; Bakker, A. B. (2022). Job demands\u0026ndash;resources theory in times of crises: New propositions. \u003cem\u003eOrganizational Psychology Review, 12\u003c/em\u003e(2), 101\u0026ndash;124.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDevlin, J., Chang, M. W., Lee, K., \u0026amp; Toutanova, K. (2019). Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In\u0026nbsp;Proceedings of the 2019 conference of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics: human language technologies, volume 1 (long and short papers)\u0026nbsp;(pp. 4171-4186).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDi Tecco, C., Persechino, B., \u0026amp; Iavicoli, S. (2023). Psychosocial risks in the changing world of work: moving from the risk assessment culture to the management of opportunities. \u003cem\u003eLa Medicina del lavoro,\u0026nbsp;114\u003c/em\u003e(2), e2023013.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDunkel-Schetter, C., \u0026amp; Dolbier, C. L. (2021). The integrative process model of resilience in work settings.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAmerican Psychologist\u003c/em\u003e, 76(5), 761\u0026ndash;775.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eElo, S., \u0026amp; Kyng\u0026auml;s, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of \u003cem\u003eAdvanced Nursing, 62\u003c/em\u003e(1), 107\u0026ndash;115.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eErwe, L., \u0026amp; Wang, X. (2024). Comparison of VADER and Pre-Trained RoBERTa: A Sentiment Analysis Application.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFelblinger, D. M. (2008). Incivility and bullying in the workplace and nurses\u0026rsquo; shame responses. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Obstetric, Gynecologic \u0026amp; Neonatal Nursing,\u0026nbsp;37\u003c/em\u003e(2), 234-242.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFigueredo, J. M., Garc\u0026iacute;a-Ael, C., Gragnano, A., \u0026amp; Topa, G. (2020). Well-being at work after return to work (RTW): a systematic review.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eInternational journal of environmental research and public health,\u0026nbsp;17(\u003c/em\u003e20), 7490.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFletcher, D., \u0026amp; Sarkar, M. (2013). Psychological resilience: A review and critique of definitions, concepts, and theory.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eEuropean Psychologist\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e18\u003c/em\u003e(1), 12\u0026ndash;23.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFoga\u0026ccedil;a, N., Coelho Junior, F. A., Paschoal, T., Ferreira, M. C., \u0026amp; Torres, C. C. (2021). Relationship between job performance, well-being, justice, and organizational support: A multilevel perspective. RAM. \u003cem\u003eRevista de Administra\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o Mackenzie,\u0026nbsp;22,\u003c/em\u003e eRAMG210108.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGarc\u0026iacute;a‑Izquierdo, M., Mart\u0026iacute;n‑Rodr\u0026iacute;guez, M., \u0026amp; S\u0026aacute;nchez‑Moraleda, F. (2025). Resilience as a mediator between workplace violence and psychological outcomes among hospital nurses.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, 16, 1045678.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., \u0026amp; Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. \u003cem\u003eOrganizational Research Methods, 16\u003c/em\u003e(1), 15\u0026ndash;31.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGreen, F., Matthews, L. R., \u0026amp; Hancock, N. (2025). Return-to-work experiences of individuals with common mental disorders within disability-based insurance systems explored within a mental health recovery framework: a scoping review. \u003cem\u003eDisability and Rehabilitation\u003c/em\u003e, 1-15.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGriep, Y., Kraak, J. M., Knol, W. M., Dolislager, J., \u0026amp; Beekman, E. M. (2025). The ripple effect of abusive supervision: A longitudinal examination of psychological contract breach, turnover intentions, and resilience among third parties. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business Research,\u0026nbsp;189\u003c/em\u003e, 115141.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHendry, E., McCallister, B., Elman, D. J., Freeman, R., Borsook, D., \u0026amp; Elman, I. (2024). Validity of mental and physical stress models. \u003cem\u003eNeuroscience \u0026amp; Biobehavioral Reviews,\u0026nbsp;158\u003c/em\u003e, 105566.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHerschcovis, M. S., \u0026amp; Barling, J. (2010). Towards a better understanding of workplace aggression: A meta-analytic review of antecedents and consequences. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Psychology, 95\u003c/em\u003e(1), 73\u0026ndash;100.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHolm, K., Torkelson, E., \u0026amp; B\u0026auml;ckstr\u0026ouml;m, M. (2022). Workplace incivility as a risk factor for workplace bullying and psychological well-being: a longitudinal study of targets and bystanders in a sample of swedish engineers. \u003cem\u003eBMC psychology,\u0026nbsp;10\u003c/em\u003e(1), 299.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHuang, L. S., Molenberghs, P., \u0026amp; Mussap, A. J. (2023). Cognitive distortions mediate relationships between early maladaptive schemas and aggression in women and men. \u003cem\u003eAggressive behavior,\u0026nbsp;49\u003c/em\u003e(4), 418-430.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eIngr, M., Kov\u0026aacute;řov\u0026aacute;, M., \u0026amp; Chr\u0026aacute;ska, M. (2024). Resilience-based interventions in occupational health: A systematic review.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWork \u0026amp; Stress\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e38\u003c/em\u003e(1), 32\u0026ndash;50.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eInstituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estat\u0026iacute;stica (IBGE). (2025).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHealth and work in Brazil: Annual statistical report\u003c/em\u003e. Bras\u0026iacute;lia: IBGE Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eInternational Labour Organization (ILO). (2024). \u003cem\u003eGlobal prevalence of workplace violence and harassment: recent findings\u003c/em\u003e. ILO Publications.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJackson, D. I., Maa, T., Luna, J., Huang, Y., Fristad, M. A., \u0026amp; Sezgin, E. (2025). Challenges and opportunities in healthcare workplace violence training: A qualitative study of staff experiences. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Workplace Behavioral Health\u003c/em\u003e, 1-14.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJessop, D. C., Harris, P. R., \u0026amp; Gibbons, T. (2023). Individual differences in spontaneous self-affirmation predict well-being. \u003cem\u003eSelf and Identity\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e(2), 247-275.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKallio, J., Vildjiounaite, E., Tervonen, J., \u0026amp; Bordallo L\u0026oacute;pez, M. (2025). A Survey on Sensor-Based Techniques for Continuous Stress Monitoring in Knowledge Work Environments. \u003cem\u003eACM Transactions on Computing for Healthcare,\u0026nbsp;6\u003c/em\u003e(3), 1-31.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKelemen, T. K., Matthews, S. H., \u0026amp; Breevaart, K. (2020). Leading day-to-day: A review of the daily causes and consequences of leadership behaviors. \u003cem\u003eThe Leadership Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e31\u003c/em\u003e(1), 101344.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKhan, I. U., Siddique, M., \u0026amp; Mughal, Y. H. (2024). Impact of toxic leadership on employees\u0026rsquo; performance: To what extent employees\u0026rsquo; resilience matters. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Social Research Development,\u0026nbsp;5(\u003c/em\u003e2), 109.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKo, H., Kim, D., Cho, S. S., Lee, D. W., Choi, J., Kim, M., ... \u0026amp; Kang, M. Y. (2024). The association of emotional labor and workplace violence with health-related productivity loss. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Occupational Health,\u0026nbsp;66\u003c/em\u003e(1).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLansisalmi, H., Peiro, J. M., \u0026amp; Kivimaki IV, M. (2000). Collective stress and coping in the context of organizational culture. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,\u0026nbsp;9\u003c/em\u003e(4), 527-559.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLeedy, P. D., \u0026amp; Ormrod, J. E. (2015). \u003cem\u003ePractical research\u003c/em\u003e. Pearson Education UK.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLee, Y.-H., Wu, Y.-H., Chen, C.-Y., Chiao‑Tzu Lee, P., Lin, T.-H., \u0026amp; Lai, C.-Y. (2024). Relationship between workplace violence and mental and physical health of security guards during the COVID‑19 pandemic in Taiwan: A cross-sectional study. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Public Health, 12\u003c/em\u003e, Article 1333139.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLesener, T., Gusy, B., \u0026amp; Wolter, C. (2019). The job demands-resources model: A meta-analytic review of longitudinal studies. \u003cem\u003eWork \u0026amp; Stress, 33\u003c/em\u003e(1), 76\u0026ndash;103.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLettinga, H. A., van Oostrom, S. H., Zijlstra, H. P., Anema, J. R., \u0026amp; Proper, K. I. (2025). Facilitators and Barriers for a Stepped Care Approach to Promote Return to Work of Employees with Distress: A Multi-perspective Qualitative Study.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eJournal of Occupational Rehabilitation\u003c/em\u003e, 1-12.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLi, Y., Song, Y., Wang, M., Wu, Y., Zhu, X. S., \u0026amp; Alonso, A. (2025). Inclusion management practices as a pathway to enhance organizational resilience in response to a crisis: an empirical test in the context of the COVID‐19 pandemic. \u003cem\u003ePersonnel Psychology,\u0026nbsp;78\u003c/em\u003e(2), 177-203.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLim, M. C., Jeffree, M. S., Saupin, S. S., Giloi, N., \u0026amp; Lukman, K. A. (2022). Workplace violence in healthcare settings: The risk factors, implications and collaborative preventive measures. \u003cem\u003eAnnals of Medicine and Surgery,\u0026nbsp;78\u003c/em\u003e, 103727.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMaitlis, S. (2020). Posttraumatic growth at work. \u003cem\u003eAnnual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e, 395\u0026ndash;419.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMehmood, S., Rasool, M., Ahmed, M., Haddad, H., \u0026amp; Al-Ramahi, N. M. (2024). Role of workplace bullying and workplace incivility for employee performance: Mediated-moderated mechanism. \u003cem\u003ePlos one,\u0026nbsp;19\u003c/em\u003e(1), e0291877.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMendon\u0026ccedil;a, H. R., Silva, P. V., \u0026amp; Almeida, F. J. (2024). Sick leave due to occupational mental disorders in Brazil: An ecological analysis of trends and determinants.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eRevista Brasileira de Sa\u0026uacute;de Ocupacional\u003c/em\u003e, 49(1), e-20240112.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMinist\u0026eacute;rio da Previd\u0026ecirc;ncia Social. (2025). \u003cem\u003eRelat\u0026oacute;rio anual de afastamentos por transtornos mentais no Brasil: 2023\u0026ndash;2024\u003c/em\u003e. Bras\u0026iacute;lia: MPS.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMorgeson, F. P., Liu, D., Cannella Jr, A. A., Hillman, A. J., Seibert, S. E., \u0026amp; Tushman, M. L. (2025). This is an eventful era: Exploring event-oriented approaches to organizational research. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Management,\u0026nbsp;51\u003c/em\u003e(3), 953-966.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNeuman, J. H., \u0026amp; Baron, R. A. (1998). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence concerning specific forms, potential causes, and preferred targets. \u003cem\u003eJournal of management,\u0026nbsp;24\u003c/em\u003e(3), 391-419.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNielsen, M. B., \u0026amp; Einarsen, S. (2018). What we know, what we do not know, and what we should and could have known about workplace bullying: An overview of the literature and agenda for future research. \u003cem\u003eAggression and Violent Behavior, 42\u003c/em\u003e, 71-83.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNielsen, K., Yarker, J., Munir, F., \u0026amp; B\u0026uuml;ltmann, U. (2018). IGLOO: An integrated framework for sustainable return to work in workers with common mental disorders. \u003cem\u003eWork \u0026amp; Stress, 32\u003c/em\u003e(4), 400-417.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNotebaert, L., Crane, M., Carpini, J. A., Timming, A. R., \u0026amp; Eastham, J. (2025). Resilience to Workplace Incivility: How Different Recovery Experiences Influence Resilience Dimensions. \u003cem\u003eAdversity and Resilience Science\u003c/em\u003e, 1-15.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eO\u0026apos;Brien, C. J., van Zundert, A. A., \u0026amp; Barach, P. R. (2024). The growing burden of workplace violence against healthcare workers: trends in prevalence, risk factors, consequences, and prevention\u0026ndash;a narrative review. \u003cem\u003eEClinicalMedicine,\u0026nbsp;72\u003c/em\u003e, 102641.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOlsson, C., Jensen, I., Nybergh, L., Bj\u0026ouml;rk Br\u0026auml;mberg, E., \u0026amp; Tinnerholm Ljungberg, H. (2025). \u003cem\u003eThe return to work after sick leave due to common mental disorders among young employees: A qualitative interview study with young employees and managers.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBMC Public Health, 25(1)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 1383.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePetermann, F., \u0026amp; M\u0026uuml;ller, J. M. (2001). Psychotherapy: Case study. \u003cem\u003eIn N. J. Smelser \u0026amp; P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social \u0026amp; behavioral sciences\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 12473\u0026ndash;12475). Elsevier.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePfeifer, V. A., \u0026amp; Pexman, P. M. (2023). Mixed and ambiguous emotions can be studied with verbal irony. \u003cem\u003eCognitive Neuroscience\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(2), 65-67.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePilkington, P. D., Bishop, A., \u0026amp; Younan, R. (2021). Adverse childhood experiences and early maladaptive schemas in adulthood: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. \u003cem\u003eClinical psychology \u0026amp; psychotherapy,\u0026nbsp;28\u003c/em\u003e(3), 569-584.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePopa, A. E., Bejenaru, A., Mitrea, E. C., Mor\u0026acirc;ndău, F., \u0026amp; Pogan, L. (2023). Return to work after chronic disease: A theoretical framework for understanding the worker-employer dynamic.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChronic Illness\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e19\u003c/em\u003e(4), 704-718.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePortoghese, I., Galletta, M., Leiter, M. P., Cocco, P., D\u0026apos;Aloja, E., \u0026amp; Campagna, M. (2017). Fear of future violence at work and job burnout: A diary study on the role of psychological violence and job control. \u003cem\u003eBurnout Research, 7,\u003c/em\u003e 36\u0026ndash;46.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRamos-Vera, C., Basauri-Delgado, M., Calizaya-Milla, Y. E., \u0026amp; Saintila, J. (2025). Exploring the Mediation of Stress and Emotional Exhaustion on Academic Ineffectiveness and Cynicism Among University Students. \u003cem\u003ePsychiatry Investigation, 22\u003c/em\u003e(4), 365.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRasool, S. F., Wang, M., Tang, M., Saeed, A., \u0026amp; Iqbal, J. (2021). How toxic workplace environment effects the employee engagement: The mediating role of organizational support and employee wellbeing.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eInternational journal of environmental research and public health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e18\u003c/em\u003e(5), 2294.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRatinaud, P. (2009).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIRaMuTeQ: Interface de R pour les Analyses Multidimensionnelles de Textes et de Questionnaires\u003c/em\u003e. Toulouse: Universit\u0026eacute; de Toulouse II.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRees, C. S., Breen, L. J., Cusack, L., \u0026amp; Hegney, D. (2015). Understanding individual resilience in the workplace: the international collaboration of workforce resilience model. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in psychology,\u0026nbsp;6\u003c/em\u003e, 73.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRoberts, L. M., \u0026amp; Caza, B. B. (2025). Positive identity construction in diverse organizations. \u003cem\u003eAnnual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(2025), 423-451.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRobertson, I. T., Cooper, C. L., Sarkar, M., \u0026amp; Curran, T. (2023). Resilience training in the workplace from 2000 to 2023: A systematic review and future research agenda.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eJournal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, 96(2), 321\u0026ndash;345.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSaha, S., Showrov, M. I. H., Rahman, M. M., \u0026amp; Majumder, M. Z. H. (2022). Vader vs. bert: A comparative performance analysis for sentiment on coronavirus outbreak. In \u003cem\u003eInternational Conference on Machine Intelligence and Emerging Technologies\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 371-385). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSchaufeli, W. B., \u0026amp; Taris, T. W. (2013). \u003cem\u003eA critical review of the Job Demands\u0026ndash;Resources Model: Implications for improving work and health\u003c/em\u003e. In G. F. Bauer \u0026amp; O. H\u0026auml;mmig (Eds.), Bridging Occupational, Organizational and Public Health (pp. 43\u0026ndash;68). Springer.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSciepura, A., \u0026amp; Linos, E. (2024). When perceptions of public service erode: The impact of workplace violence on burnout and performance among U.S. government employees. \u003cem\u003ePublic Administration Review, 84\u003c/em\u003e(2), 301\u0026ndash;314.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSharma, T., \u0026amp; Johnson, L. (2024). Workplace violence and mental health outcomes: A meta-analysis. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Occupational Health Psychology, 29\u003c/em\u003e(1), 23\u0026ndash;38.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eShi, Y., Mao, F., \u0026amp; Zhang, X. (2025). Association between fear of future workplace violence and burnout among pediatricians in China with psychological resilience as a moderator. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Occupational Health,\u0026nbsp;67\u003c/em\u003e(1),\u0026nbsp;uiaf029.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSlopen, N., Meyer, C., \u0026amp; Williams, D. R. (2018). Cumulative stress and health. \u003cem\u003eThe Oxford handbook of integrative health science\u003c/em\u003e, 75-93.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eStanisławski, K. (2019). The coping circumplex model: An integrative model of the structure of coping with stress. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in psychology,\u0026nbsp;10\u003c/em\u003e, 694.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eStrand, P. J., \u0026amp; Cohen, C. E. (2022). Microaggressions and macro-injustices: How everyday interactions reinforce and perpetuate social systems of dominance and oppression. \u003cem\u003eUnderstanding and Dismantling Privilege,\u0026nbsp;12\u003c/em\u003e(2), 1-30.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSteele, C. M., Spencer, S. J., \u0026amp; Aronson, J. (2019).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eStereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology, 10\u003c/em\u003e, 1879.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTabakakis, C., Bradshaw, J., McAllister, M., \u0026amp; Sahay, A. (2025). Exploring Registered Nurses\u0026apos; Experiences of Workplace Adversity: A Descriptive Qualitative Study. \u003cem\u003eNursing Open,\u0026nbsp;12\u003c/em\u003e(4), e70233.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTaris, T. W., Kessler, S. R., \u0026amp; Kelloway, E. K. (2021). Strategies addressing the limitations of cross-sectional designs in occupational health psychology: What they are good for (and what not). \u003cem\u003eWork \u0026amp; Stress,\u0026nbsp;35\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1-5.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTaris, T. W., \u0026amp; Kompier, M. (2003). Challenges in longitudinal designs in occupational health psychology. \u003cem\u003eScandinavian journal of work, environment \u0026amp; health\u003c/em\u003e, 1-4.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eThompson, A., Perez, M., \u0026amp; Cheng, E. (2025). Sleep disturbances among healthcare workers: The role of occupational stress and violence. \u003cem\u003eSleep Health, 11\u003c/em\u003e(2), 101\u0026ndash;108.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTr\u0026eacute;panier, S. G., Peterson, C., M\u0026eacute;nard, J., \u0026amp; Notelaers, G. (2023). When does exposure to daily negative acts frustrate employees\u0026rsquo; psychological needs? A within-person approach. \u003cem\u003eJournal of occupational health psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e28\u003c/em\u003e(2), 65.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWang, H., Li, X., \u0026amp; Chen, Y. (2023). Resilience as a moderator of workplace aggression and perceived job insecurity in healthcare workers.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBMC Public Health\u003c/em\u003e, 23(1), 1122.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWorld Health Organization. (2019). Burn-out an \u0026ldquo;occupational phenomenon\u0026rdquo;. WHO Classification.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWorld Medical Association. (2013). World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. \u003cem\u003eJama,\u0026nbsp;310\u003c/em\u003e(20), 2191-2194.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eXintian, L., \u0026amp; Peng, P. (2023). Does inclusive leadership foster employee psychological resilience? The role of perceived insider status and supportive organizational climate. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology,\u0026nbsp;14\u003c/em\u003e, 1127780.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eYoon, A. S., Lee, H. J. D., \u0026amp; Moon, I. (2023). \u003cem\u003eSocial determinants of mental health\u003c/em\u003e. (3rd ed., Vol. 3). Elsevier. Zhang , L., Sun, J., \u0026amp; Chen, Y. (2024). The dark side of resilience: Overcommitment, burnout, and organizational toxicity. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Occupational Health Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e29\u003c/em\u003e(1), 15\u0026ndash;28.\u0026nbsp;\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":"human-arenas","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"huar","sideBox":"Learn more about [Human Arenas](http://link.springer.com/journal/42087)","snPcode":"42087","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/42087/3","title":"Human Arenas","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"workplace violence, public sector employee, worker well-being, psychosocial illness, reintegration, occupational stress","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7558875/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7558875/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eWorkplace violence is a pervasive and multifaceted phenomenon, encompassing physical aggression, symbolic humiliation, institutional neglect, and transnational forms of harm. These dynamics produce cumulative psychosocial effects, including anxiety, depression, emotional exhaustion, and occupational dysfunction. Early-life traumas, such as emotional neglect and coercive parenting, resurfaced under workplace pressures in this case, amplifying vulnerability and maladaptive coping in adulthood. This study examines how intersecting forms of workplace violence and coping mechanisms shaped the psychological illness and reintegration trajectory of a Brazilian public servant. Using a narrative-informed, longitudinal case study design, self-reported accounts over 24 months were analyzed through thematic content analysis, factorial correspondence, and sentiment analysis. Network visualizations highlighted \u0026ldquo;occupational stress\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;psychological suffering\u0026rdquo; as central in early stages, with \u0026ldquo;self-strengthening\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;autonomy\u0026rdquo; emerging during recovery. The findings reveal workplace violence as a multi-layered ecosystem of harm that progressively eroded well-being. Resilience initially manifested as survival-oriented compliance but evolved into empowerment and identity reconstruction after relocation to a supportive department. This transformation underscores how organizational climates and leadership practices condition resilience, moving it beyond an individual trait to a relational and context-dependent process. This trajectory illustrates a paradox: while the workplace initially perpetuated harm, it later became the setting for growth when systemic barriers were lifted. Supportive relationships with supervisors, colleagues, and mental health professionals facilitated positive identity reconstruction. These insights challenge organizations to address both structural determinants of violence and the inner narratives through which workers interpret harm. Interventions fostering psychological safety and inclusive leadership are essential to disrupt cycles of suffering and promote sustainable recovery.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"“You are not what they did to you”: A longitudinal single-case study of workplace violences and identity recovery in Brazil","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-09-23 03:05:06","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7558875/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2026-01-23T09:25:43+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-01-23T05:00:45+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"163458902147802192241988163931313193474","date":"2026-01-23T04:33:47+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-11-22T05:15:53+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"39305901729812006359278958977793936666","date":"2025-11-17T01:58:19+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"3183847947294994899594596407943823391","date":"2025-09-16T13:14:14+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-09-13T07:44:26+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-09-09T08:00:23+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-09-08T07:01:08+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Human Arenas","date":"2025-09-08T00:43:30+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"human-arenas","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"huar","sideBox":"Learn more about [Human Arenas](http://link.springer.com/journal/42087)","snPcode":"42087","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/42087/3","title":"Human Arenas","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"6238e9d1-c665-43f9-a396-a0289705a35a","owner":[],"postedDate":"September 23rd, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-02-18T11:24:15+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-09-23 03:05:06","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7558875","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7558875","identity":"rs-7558875","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}