Globalization and overseas initiatives have made today's workplace borderless where no one works in isolation (Friedman, 2005). Indeed, today's work environment is characterized as volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous due to changes in economic policies, 24/7 working hours, intensifying competition and changing customer needs (Bennett and Lemoine, 2014). In addition to this, unhindered access to information and never-ending technological progress have made organizations vulnerable to duplication of products and services (Avey, 2007; Luthans, 2006). To sustain and survive in such an environment, organizations must respond and react proactively to these changes. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Until a few decades ago, organizations managed environmental challenges through a problem-focused or deficit-based strategy (Barney, 2001; Drucker, 1995). The deficit-based strategy targets specific problems such as coping mechanisms to manage workplace demands (Folkman, 2011, 2013; Lazurus & Folkman, 1984). However, the deficit approach has been criticized for its short-term orientation (Bennett & Lemoine, 2014; Youssef & Luthans, 2012). They are specific problems, not generic and not applicable to other problems. In a dynamic environment where problems are unexpected and unknown, organizations cannot afford to have a short-term orientation towards them. A more generic and long-term orientation is needed. The strength-based approach is one such strategy that has a long-term orientation towards the problem (Bennett & Lemoine, 2014). According to the strength-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 approach the focus is shifted to “what is right with us” from “what is wrong with us” (Donaldson & Ko, 2010; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). In the strength-based approach, more emphasis is given to strengths and positive resources that make employees agile and capable even in adverse situations. Furthermore, the expanded theory of positive emotions postulates that strengths and positive feelings culminate in a storehouse 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 efficient in their work than others (Sorenson, 2014). The survey also states that employees are 7.8% more productive when they use their strengths and that teams that value strengths witness 12.5% ​​higher productivity every day (Sorenson, 2014) . The survey concludes that developing and focusing on employee strengths is a far more effective approach to improving performance than improving or correcting weaknesses. However, despite this belief, the strength-based approach has gained little attention, and scholars have only begun to recognize it in the last decade with the emergence of the positive psychology movement (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000, 2014). Positive psychology scholars have argued that positive resources have received little attention compared to problems and pathologiesof employees (Avey, 2007; Wright, 2003). The reason for increased attention to problems and pathologies may be that problems attract more attention as they are more threatening in nature and have negative direct effects on employees and the organization (Avey, 2007; Fredrickson, 2009; Wright, 2003) . Another reason why less attention is paid to strengths and positive resources could be that the influence of strengths and positive resources is considered to be a more common-sense approach and there is a lack of empirical studies on strengths and positive resources. strength and positive resources (Avey et al., 2011; Luthans et al., 2007). Focusing on employees' underdetermined and less studied strengths and resources will be more beneficial to the workplace as it will not only lead to improved job performance but will also improve employees' overall well-being (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000, 2014; Luthans, Avolio, Avey, & Norman, 2007). PsyCap is one of the constructs used as a strength-based approach to workplace problems (Bennett & Lemoine, 2014; Luthans, et al., 2007; Story et al., 2013). A workforce with high psychological capital (PsyCap) is considered positive, confident, optimistic, hopeful, and resilient to workplace challenges (Avey, Avolio, Crossley, & Luthans, 2009; Sweetman & Luthans, 2010). PsyCap was conceptualized to understand the internal source of energy during adversity (Seligman, M.E., & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). PsyCap is a higher order construct developed after combining four strengths and positive psychological resources of individuals, namely self-efficacy, hope, optimism and resilience. Previous studies have reported that promoting and managing employees' PsyCap level leads to numerous workplace benefits such as employee engagement, organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and positive emotions (Gupta, Shaheen, & 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 nascent and has yet to mature. Recognizing and making the workplace beneficial through employees' positive strengths and resources suggested that empirical research explaining the positive influence of PsyCap on workplace outcomes will be of great contribution to the field of organizational behavior. Subsequently, job performance is found to be the most sought after outcome of PsyCap across different cultures and contexts (Avey et al., 2011). It could be because job performance is one of the desired deliverables of every organization, regardless of its size and the industry in which it operates. An organization can only sustain 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 human resource development. Although it is the most researched outcome, there is little literature available that has explored the underlying pathway or mechanism through which PsyCap has a positive influence on job performance. Furthermore, job performance is mostly considered a unidimensional construct and is measured objectively or through supervisor ratings. in PsyCap literature. Whereas, previous empirical studies have confirmed job performance as a multidimensional construct composed 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; Employees generally complete their work through=)