Globalization and overseas projects have made today's workplace borderless, where no one works in any way isolated (Friedman, 2005). In fact, today's work environment is characterized as volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous due to changes in economic policies, 24/7 working hours, increased competition and changing customer needs (Bennett and Lemoine, 2014). Additionally, unfettered access to information and endless technological advancements have made organizations vulnerable to duplication of products and services (Avey, 2007; Luthans, 2006). To persist and survive in such an environment, organizations must respond proactively to these changes. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay A few decades ago, organizations managed environmental challenges through a problem-focused or deficit-based strategy (Barney, 2001; Drucker, 1995). Deficit-based strategy targets specific issues such as coping mechanisms to manage workplace demands (Folkman, 2011, 2013; Lazurus and Folkman, 1984). But the deficit-based approach has been criticized for its short-term orientation (Bennett & Lemoine, 2014; Youssef & Luthans, 2012). They are problem specific, not generic, and do not apply to other problems. In a dynamic environment where problems are unexpected and unknown, organizations cannot afford to take short-term direction. A more generic and long-term orientation is needed. The strengths-based approach is one such strategy that is long-term oriented toward the problem (Bennett and Lemoine, 2014). According to the strengths-based approach, each individual or organization has untapped resources and strengths that can be used to resolve obstacles and complex situations. (Green and Haines, 2008). In the strengths-based approach, the focus is shifted to “what is wrong with us” rather than “what is wrong with us” (Donaldson and Ko, 2010; Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). In a strengths-based approach, more emphasis is placed on positive strengths and resources that make employees agile and capable even in adverse situations. Furthermore, the expanded theory of positive emotions posits that positive strengths and feelings culminate in a repository of personal resources, which become the source of energy for various positive actions and behaviors of individuals (Fredrickson, 2009; Hobfoll, 2002). Gallup Inc., in a survey on the influence of employee strengths on performance and productivity, found that employees who use their strengths every day are six times more productive and effective in their jobs than those who do not (Sorenson, 2014 ). The survey also indicates that employees are 7.8% more productive when they play to their strengths and that teams that prioritize strengths on a daily basis report 12.5% ​​higher productivity (Sorenson , 2014). more effective approach to improving performance than improving or correcting weaknesses. However, despite this belief, the strengths-based approach has received little attention and researchers have only begun to recognize it in the last decade, with the emergence of the positive psychology movement (Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi, 2000, 2014). Specialists in positive psychology have estimated that positive resources have received little attention in relation to the problems and pathologies of employees (Avey, 2007; Wright, 2003).The reason for paying more attention to problems and pathologies could be that problems attract more attention because they are more threatening in nature and have direct negative effects on employees and the organization (Avey, 2007; Fredrickson, 2009; Another reason why there is less attention paid to positive strengths and resources could be that the influence of positive strengths and resources is considered a more sensible approach and there is a lack of consideration in studies. empirical studies on positive strengths and resources (Avey et al., 2011; Luthans et al., 2007). Focusing on employees' underdetermined and less researched strengths and resources will be more beneficial to the workplace because it will not only lead to improved job performance but will also improve employees' overall well-being (Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi, 2000, 2014; Luthans, Avolio, Avey and Norman, 2007). PsyCap is one of the concepts deployed as a strengths-based approach to solving workplace problems (Bennett and Lemoine, 2014; Luthans et al., 2007; Story et al. , 2013). A workforce that possesses high psychological capital (PsyCap) is considered positive, confident, optimistic, hopeful, and resilient in the face of workplace challenges (Avey, Avolio, Crossley, & Luthans, 2009; Sweetman & Luthans, 2010). PsyCap was conceptualized to understand the internal source of energy during adversities (Seligman, ME and Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). PsyCap is a higher-order concept developed after combining four positive psychological strengths and resources of individuals, namely self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience. Previous studies have shown that promoting and managing employees' PsyCap level leads to several workplace benefits, such as employee engagement, organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and positive emotions (Gupta, Shaheen and Reddy, 2017; Shaheen, Zeba, & Mohanty, 2017. ).In an integrative review of the literature on PsyCap, Newman, Ucbasaran, Zhu, and Hirst (2014) suggested that research on PsyCap is still in its infancy and n has not yet matured. Recognizing and benefiting the workplace through employees' positive strengths and resources suggests that empirical research explaining the positive influence of PsyCap on workplace outcomes will be of great contribution to the field of organizational behavior. Next, job performance has been shown to be the most studied outcome of PsyCap across different cultures and contexts (Avey et al., 2011). This could be because job performance is one of the desired outcomes of any organization, regardless of its size and the industry in which it operates. An organization can only endure and survive when its employees are involved in activities that lead to a higher level of job performance. For the same reason, job performance is considered the underlying component of HRD. Although it is the most studied outcome, few publications are available exploring the underlying pathway or mechanism by which PsyCap has a positive influence on job performance. Additionally, job performance is generally considered a unidimensional construct and is measured either objectively or through supervisor evaluation. in the PsyCap literature. While previous empirical studies have confirmed job performance as a multidimensional construct consisting of two types of work behaviors: in-role behavior and extra-role behavior (Hsu, Shih, Li, 2017; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Ahearne , 1998; Shaheen, Gupta and Kumar, 2016;=)