Rethinking job demands–resources-based interventions for evolving work environments: a problematizing review

Purpose The Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) theory is widely used for workplace interventions targeting well-being, satisfaction and burnout reduction. However, shifting work contexts raise questions about the adaptability of its core constructs. This paper aims to critically examine how JD-R theory has been applied in intervention design, with particular attention to the assumptions that may limit responsiveness across diverse organizational and cultural settings. Design/methodology/approach Adopting a problematization review approach, we analyze 109 studies that employ the JD-R theory in the design of workplace interventions. Our review identifies underlying assumptions, conceptual tensions and the ways in which demands and resources have been interpreted across different contexts, roles and cultures. Findings The review reveals that JD-R constructs are often treated as stable and universally applicable, thereby constraining adaptability. We highlight overlooked assumptions and tensions, proposing a taxonomy of interventions that emphasizes contextual sensitivity, design flexibility and cross-level integration. Practical implications The proposed taxonomy offers organizations a framework for developing workplace interventions that better align with diverse employee needs and evolving work environments. Social implications By promoting more sustainable and responsive workplace interventions, this study supports healthier and more equitable organizational practices, with potential benefits for employee well-being across diverse cultural and occupational contexts. Originality/value This paper applies problematization review to JD-R interventions, offering a novel critique that highlights contextual variation and adaptability, while providing a practical taxonomy for future applications.