Honorary Guest Editors and Peer Reviewers : <//>

Prof. S Roy et. el. 

Prof. V Kumar et. el.

Prof. M. Venkateshwalu et. el.

Prof. Kumud Ranjan et. el

For any queries or to share inputs, you may contact:

RPI – Prof. Santosh Kumar | Phone: 9827968422, +91-7324906666

RIT - Prof. Ajay Kumar Dangi | +91- 8210012196

RPI - Mentor Dean - Prof. Shailendra | +91-9955890404

Honorary Guest Editor

CIPET – Prof. Sitesh Anand |

Phone: 9910499737

Central Institute of Petrochemicals Engineering & Technology (CIPET), Lucknow

Let’s work together to foster a strong research environment in our institution.

By Order

Director & Chief Research Advisor

RGC Research Committee

In times of ongoing global change, following a period of economic recession, and the current trend of work intensification, employees are likely to face high pressures at work. Adverse events may be inevitable within most organizational contexts. These can range from small-impact events, such as project setbacks, or high-impact incidents, including financial crises, accidents, or emergencies, to more chronic stressors, such as high job demands. Adverse events not only have the potential to impair employee performance but to contribute to serious mental or physical strain for employees. Workplace resilience (i.e., employees’ ability to manage and positively overcome adverse events at work; Fletcher & Sarkar, 2013) has been proposed as a potential key asset to maintain performance and well-being in the face of adversity. Most researchers agree that resilience can only be demonstrated in the presence of adversity and, subsequently, result in positive adaptation (Alliger et al., 2015; Fletcher & Sarkar, 2013). The notion of adversity management resonates with the work stress literature, which examines how people develop and respond to strain in the workplace. For instance, resilience has been shown to have a negative effect on psychological stress (Y. Chen et al., 2017; Shatte et al., 2017) as well as positive effects on well-being (Pangallo et al., 2016), task performance (Ceschi et al., 2017), and work engagement (Malik & Garg, 2017). 

Enable vs. Allow. If your effort produced a result, you actively enabled it. If you simply removed an obstacle, you merely allowed it.

Example: “Innovations in customer service enabled (not “allowed”) the store to sell more customized products.”

Prevent vs. Avoid. If your action stopped something disastrous from happening, you prevented it, but if you just moved something out of peril’s way or put off that peril, you merely avoided it.

Example: “We must prevent (not “avoid”) a housing crisis for people and families.”

Act vs. Address. If you took deliberate measures to affect an issue, you acted on it, but if you simply considered the situation, you merely addressed it.

Example: “We acted on (not “addressed”) the severe impact of poverty on these communities.”

Respond vs. React. If a situation spurred you to action, you responded, but if the issue only triggered an emotion, you merely reacted.

Example: “We responded (not “reacted”) immediately to the power outage.”

Overcome vs. Face. If you successfully conquered an obstacle, you overcame it, but if you only encountered the obstacle or just stood your ground, you merely faced it.

Example: “We overcame (not “faced”) the systemic challenges.”

Accomplish vs. Meet (a Goal). If you accomplish a goal, you imply that you achieved that status as a direct result of your effort, but if you merely meet a goal, you’re only indicating that you technically hit the milestone — possibly by accident, circumstance, or gravity.

Example: “I’m thrilled we accomplished (not “met”) our most ambitious goals for the year.”