How can an organization thrive in uncertain conditions?

The visible and unconscious factors that can build a system’s resilience

“Resilience is not a one-time event, but rather the new way of surviving in our fast-paced world. What is new is building deep systemic systems of resilience that balance the need to resist and adapt.” (Anarelli and Nonino, 2016)

“Grant me the grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference” (Reinhold Niebuhr, 1951)

Thesis for an Executive Master in Consulting and Coaching for Change

Heidi Askin

Oct 2019

2

Table of Contents

Abstract .............................................................................................................................. 3

Keywords..............................................................................................................................3

Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 3

Research aims and objectives ............................................................................................. 7

Literature review .............................................................................................................. 8

Definitions of Resilience ..................................................................................................... 8

Individual Resilience ........................................................................................................ 10

Community Resilience ...................................................................................................... 12

Employee & Organizational Resilience ............................................................................ 14

The Resilience Architecture Framework .......................................................................... 17

Methodology .................................................................................................................... 19

Research Setting ................................................................................................................ 20

Data Gathering and Reporting ...................................................................................... 21

Findings and discussion .................................................................................................. 32

Resulting Definition and Framework ................................................................................ 32

Eight Axes and 36 Factors of resilience ........................................................................... 38

Limitations ...................................................................................................................... 43

Future Research .............................................................................................................. 44

Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 45

Bibliography .................................................................................................................... 47

Annexes ............................................................................................................................ 49

3

Abstract

As a result of technological advances and an increasingly competitive global economy,

organizations are facing an unprecedented rate of change. To survive and thrive, organizations

need to increase their ability to adapt to changing conditions. This thesis leverages existing and

custom research to define organizational resilience and the factors to build systemic resilience.

Key Words

Organizational resilience, resistance, adaptability, factors, assessment, psychological capital

(psycap), organizational culture, organizational complexity model

Introduction

Stories about resilience are as old as time, from human survival across millennia to facing the

forces of climate change today. Our social narratives celebrate leaders like Winston Churchill

and George Washington, who courageously overcame adversity, and we revere the

perseverance of pacifists like Gandhi and Mandela. There is a universal collective fantasy about

resilience—how people experience difficulties and emerge triumphant. Given its prominence

in our cultural narrative, people often link resilience to individuals’ overcoming adversity.

Yet building resilience is not just relevant and valuable at the individual level. Organizations

are facing an increased rate of change due to more volatile external conditions, more intense

competition, increased global connectivity of consumers, and greater technological disruption.

The unrelenting pace of change increases pressure on organizations to continually adapt in this

ever-evolving context. This dynamic creates greater uncertainty around how organizations can

deliver consistent performance while anticipating emerging trends. Increased external pressure

means that companies need to remain alert and agile; a less harmonious, unstable state that can

cause anxiety and fatigue at both the individual and organizational level. Organizations today

need to develop the capacity to identify both short and longer-term threats, actively monitoring

the evolution of their external context, while proactively adapting the internal context to best

compete. Such vigilance is demanding and likely requires a significant amount of resilience to

be sustained. I hypothesize that in order to thrive today, organizations will need to continuously

boost their resilience. However, I see little evidence that organizations proactively build their

systemic resilience; perhaps they are unsure how.

4

Corporations are often biased towards more data-driven, rational solutions that can be

monitored and measured. Despite an increased focus on employee engagement, companies still

focus more on concrete, structural, or process-orientated solutions when trying to bolster

performance. Most companies seem aware of their increased vulnerability in this fast-changing

context, yet few seem focused on how to build the requisite resilience to face it. Even fewer

consider the human and cultural aspects that can reveal important underlying organizational

dynamics (Long, 2013). These cultural factors can have an outsized impact on organizations’

ability to recognize or act on emerging risks. Humans prefer a safe, stable state: the mere

recognition of vulnerabilities can raise collective anxieties and social defenses. Improving

organizational resilience requires a combination of sound strategic and operational actions and

deference to the significant impact of the “irrational or unconscious aspects of individual, group

and social processes” (Long, 2013). Using a socio-analytical approach, I seek to develop a

deeper understanding of organizational resilience and the robust set of factors that can reinforce

it, inclusive of the cultural and human factors that may be less evident.

Despite significant research on the meaning and factors of individual, ecological, or community

resilience (e.g., Toor & Ofori, 2009, Tugade, Devlin, & Fredrickson, 2014, Hollings, 1996,

Schipper & Langston, 2015), the insights generated have not often been applied to the

organizational context. How scholars define resilience depends on the specific context being

studied, yet each analog offers relevant insight on how organizations can build systems to

identify and monitor risks as well as to improve their responses to negative events. Across the

many definitions of resilience, a surprising yet consistent definition emerges resilience is,

paradoxically, the ability to resist change by absorbing short-term impacts and the ability to

proactively change direction. There is also a common foundational belief that resilience is a

capacity that can be built upon and improved. This is excellent news for organizations that

intuitively understand the value of resilience but rarely work proactively to nurture it.

I leveraged inspiration from resilience research across various contexts to develop a more

comprehensive definition of organizational resilience, a new framework to better understand it,

and a list of factors with which to assess it. In this thesis, I outline how organizational resilience

is a contextually driven outcome that emerges when two seemingly opposing capacities are

developed: the capacity for resistance and adaptability. This ostensible paradox suggests

that organizations need to find a balance when developing these two valuable capabilities

(Annarelli & Nonino, 2016). Such a definition can seem difficult for organizations to execute,

5

as possessing a strength in one of the capacities is likely to inhibit the ability to do the other.

Not only must organizations develop these opposing capacities but also the wisdom to know

which response the current situation demands. Building systemic organizational resilience

therefore requires developing dual modes of operating, ensuring a diverse team with distinct

profiles, and executing complementary ongoing resilience-building routines and activities.

An existing framework for organizational resilience defines it as the ability of a system to

absorb disturbances and consecutively return to equilibrium (Limnios, Mazzarole, Ghadouani

and Schilizzi, 2014). The framework has two axes—the level of resilience and the desirability

of the system—from which four organizational archetypes emerge: Rigidity, Transience,

Adaptability and Vulnerability (Limnios et al., 2014). However, I found that this framework

does not reflect the duality or ambivalent nature of resilience, and the factors identified are

broad, making it more difficult for organizations to translate them into concrete actions or

initiatives.

This thesis contributes to resilience literature by proposing a more holistic framework for

organizational resilience, inclusive of the need for resistance and adaptability, and resulting in

eight axes on which organizations can proactively develop it: a compelling strategy, dynamic

planning, strong fundamentals, risk management, positive coping skills, growth mindset,

internal agility, and network power. To improve the utility of these findings, the eight axes

are comprised of 36 concrete factors, inclusive of strategic, operational, human, and cultural

aspects that can be used to diagnose what resilience-building initiatives are needed.

Surprisingly, this list is quite balanced between the more evident strategic and operational

factors and the often-overlooked human and cultural factors. In addition to the cultural

conditions and systemic components that boost resilience, leaders need to develop awareness

of these dual approaches to decide when an organization should stay the course or undertake

deep transformation. I assert that it is possible to develop strength in both capacities, but to do

so an organization will need to conscientiously operate from a posture of resistance or

adaptability, as well as build a balanced system that can deploy the teams, tools, or tactics best

equipped for the situation at hand.

Most people and organizations have a default response when faced with adversity, regardless

of whether they are aware of it. To explore organizational resilience more extensively, I

conducted a qualitative analysis of a consumer goods company (hereafter “Company X”),

6

interviewing 17 senior organizational members. The interviews confirmed the relevance of my

2x2 resilience framework—based on their level of resistance and adaptability—and additional

factors to boost organizational resilience. This also study demonstrated how individuals and

teams tend to have an inherent bias towards resistance or adaptability. Despite the broad range

of biases that exist throughout the organization, I found great consistency in the overall system

in Company X, which has a high capacity for resistance and a low capacity for adaptability.

The study revealed that many hidden and cultural dynamics can boost or harm an organization’s

resilience. Using the psychodynamic lens of night vision (Long, 2013), I discovered that the

artifacts, espoused values, and deeper beliefs embedded in the culture seemed to have a

meaningful impact on the company’s bias towards resistance. For example, even when the

company accurately identified pertinent long-term threats, deep cultural habits or assumptions

prevented timely action. This suggests that in addition to leveraging the list of factors identified,

an organization should pair a resilience assessment with an exploration of deep-seated beliefs

that can override rational reactions to emerging risks and threats.

In sum, I propose a new framework that reflects the ambivalent and emergent nature of

organizational resilience, and a holistic set of factors that can be activated proactively or during

a crisis. Organizations can and should build these opposing capacities simultaneously to boost

their resilience to uncertain and changing conditions. Increasing your leaders’ awareness of this

resilience framework can lead to better outcomes thanks to more consciously selecting when to

absorb disturbances and when to deeply transform. Furthermore, building action plans to

address the eight axes of resilience can establish the environmental conditions and

organizational routines to more systematically trigger these dual organizational capacities.

Implementing system-wide resilient initiatives can also better equip organizations to combat

the collective fears and anxieties that reduce a team’s ability to respond to a crisis, declining

performance, or pending threats. Companies who more actively develop the capacity to both

resist change and deeply transform will be more likely to thrive in this ever-changing context.

Research Aims and Objectives

With a significant body of research available on the concept of resilience, I take a grounded

theory approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), wherein I begin with qualitative responses and work

from there to build new theory. I use as my foundation existing insights and frameworks within

an organizational context. My primary objective is to generate a new resilience framework that

is more inclusive of cultural and psychodynamic factors in addition to strategic and operational

7

ones. I use the IPA (Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis) approach (Pietkiewicz & Smith,

2014) to derive findings that first reflect the “sense-making” of the subjects paired with my own

interpretation. I use the socio-analytical lens of night vision (Long, 2013) to surmise what might

be going on beyond their conscious experience. Using the organizational complexity model

(Carlock, 2018), I examined the cultural artifacts, values and beliefs to suggest the

psychodynamic phenomena that may remain unseen but can have tremendous impact on how

the organization functions.

Research on community resilience offers defined lists of resilient factors (e.g. Schipper &

Langston, 2015, Arup 2015), yet often the terms used are less applicable to an organizational

context (e.g. Despite the increased importance companies place on employee engagement,

development, and wellbeing, businesses tend to focus primarily on the hard aspects of the

organization: structure, processes, and data. This bias inherently prevents a more holistic view

where cultural or psychodynamic factors are equally considered. It is for these reasons that my

second objective is to develop a more comprehensive list of factors that contribute to an

organization’s resilience that considers these multiple dimensions. My analyses test the

practical application and perceived utility of my framework and factors in order to foster a more

resilient system.

In addition to a new framework, a third objective is to utilize my findings to help firms improve

their own resilience. The outcome of this research lays the groundwork for the creation of a

survey tool that can assess a firm’s level of resilience and the pervasiveness of an its strengths

and weaknesses on the contributing factors. The results of such a survey can lead to a greater

understanding of the system and to concrete recommendations for resilience-building

initiatives.

Literature Review

Despite a common understanding of what resilience means, there are distinct definitions

depending on the context (see Appendix A and B). The concept of resilience originated from

physical sciences in relation to how species adapt to ecological changes (e.g. Hollings, 1996,

Quinlan & Berbes-Blázquez, 2016). From this vantage, resilience is a means of explaining how

a person, organism, or organization interacts with—and reacts to—the environment in which it

exists. Increasingly, scholars are applying the concept of resilience in the field of human and

social sciences, where the potential interaction with the environment is much more complex.

8

Humans change their behavior, make decisions, and have a more expansive impact on their

environmental context which suggests that a more comprehensive framework is needed to

understand individual, community, or organizational resilience. Furthermore, some scholars

reject that resilience is a single construct or measure, but rather an “emergent property that

applies in different ways in the different domains that make up your system. (Quinlan, Berbés,

Blázquez, Haider, Peterson, 2016).” Simply put, the context and the system matter, and both

impact how resilience is built.

Regardless of context, there is broad consensus that resilience is not an inherent trait, but rather

a ubiquitous and valuable capability that can be developed and improved. “Resilience won’t

make your problems go away – but resilience can give you the ability to see past them, find

enjoyment in life and better handle stress. If you aren’t as resilient as you’d like to be, you can

develop skills to become more resilient.” (Mayo Clinic 2017). There is an abundance of

information online on how to develop your individual resilience, while how to build

organizational resilience remains unclear. Despite greater interest and awareness of the need

for organizational resilience, there remains a gap in understanding how to create and implement

resilience-building initiatives, as well as to maintain them (Annarelli & Nonino, 2016).

Before discussing how organizations can boost their resilience, a better definition of

organizational resilience is needed. Drawing from the various literature that address resilience

helps to situate a definition applicable for organizations. I pull from existing work on individual,

community, employee, and organizational resilience to highlight what is already known, where

gaps exist, and how a new, more holistic definition can be put to use.

Research on individual resilience highlights the duality of needing to withstand shocks as well

as adapt to them (Tugade, Devlin, & Fredrickson, 2014). Considered alongside ecological,

engineering, and community resilience, individual resilience is the only one in which there is

emphasis on the impact of event perception. That is to say, at the individual level, we more

readily acknowledge the role of the psychodynamic “inner theatre” that directly impacts one’s

interpretation or attitude towards a difficult event. Yet the influence of event perception is

certainly relevant for organizations as well.

Also unique about the research on individual resilience is the prominent role of vulnerability.

There is recognition of how critical it is to process difficult emotions and to reach out for

9

additional support. Such recognition offers relevant insights about resilience that can be applied

to an organizational context:

“When adversity strikes, you still experience anger, grief and pain, but [with resilience] you’re able to go on with daily tasks, remain generally optimistic and go on with your life. Being resilient also doesn’t mean being stoic or going it alone. In fact, being able to reach out to others for support is a key component of being resilient” (Mayo Clinic, 2017).

Organizational resilience requires an acceptance that continuous adaptation is needed, hence

the need for robust yet flexible systems to withstand it. Contrary to the definitions of personal

resilience, the language used to describe organizational resilience is quite rational and evokes

only the “hard” side of organizations—resources, systems, and infrastructure. There is little

acknowledgement of the human and cultural components that are equally important but are

often overlooked.

Employee resilience bridges these two worlds by acknowledging the organization’s role to

enable employees to effectively leverage and adapt the system and the need to invest in

employee well-being and development (Kuntz, Malinen & Näswall, 2017). The articles on

organizational resilience often missed the need to build the resilience of individual employees

(e.g. Annarelli & Nonino, 2016, Limnios et al., 2014), whereas, the articles focusing on

employee and individual resilience were quick to acknowledge the importance of the

environment and system (e.g. Toor & Ofori, 2009, Kuntz, Malinen & Näswall, 2017). It is likely

a blind spot for many organizations to incorporate both individual and organizational aspects

when building a resilient system. In addition to developing a dynamic strategy and risk

management approach, resilient organizations need to make ongoing investments in employee

resilience (e.g., Kuntz, Näswall, & Malinen, 2016; Van der Vegt, Essens, Wahlstrom, &

George, 2015).

Individual Resilience

Therefore, it is valuable to see what organizations can learn from personal resilience to boost

the resilience of the system overall. Toor and Ofori (2009) demonstrate a strong link between

developing employees’ psychological capacity and positive outcomes in financial performance,

as well as the culture of the system itself. They define psychological capacity (PsyCap) as a

composite measurement made up of four qualities: self-efficacy, optimism, hope and resiliency.

Each is explained in the table below and are likely key factors in building resilience.

10

Table 1. The PsyCap Measurement Model (Toor & Ofori, 2009)

The work on PsyCap reveals the outsized influence of a more positive mental state on

employees’ ability to ignite their creative and cognitive processes, in addition to the

constructive belief that their goal can be achieved (Toor & Ofori, 2009). The implication for

organizations, and specifically organizational resilience, is the need to more actively cultivate

positive emotions in order to develop better leaders and achieve better financial outcomes.

Furthermore, higher PsyCap scores also have a significant correlation with transformational

leadership (Toor & Ofori, 2009). Transformational leaders are even more valuable when facing

more rapid external change and will be necessary for stronger resilience. While many

organizations invest heavily in the recruitment and training of their leaders, implementing

PsyCap-building initiatives at a systems-level—for example, an employee recognition program

or frequent communication on recent successes—can raise the psychological capacity of the

broader organization, creating a virtuous loop of positive input into the system.

The work of Tugade, Devlin and Fredrickson (2014) further supports the value of developing

PsyCap actively while demonstrating additional benefits of building psychological resilience

and individual wellbeing through factors such as positive emotions, purposeful narratives, and

constructive coping mechanisms. Although some people are predisposed to have a more

positive outlook, anyone has the capacity to employ tactics to experience positive emotions and

even develop these habits more unconsciously. Finding meaning in a negative experience can

elicit positive emotions, boost psychological resources needed to cope with the experience

itself, and lead to long-lasting positive benefits. The findings apply on a physical level as well,

as positive emotions were shown to help cardiovascular systems recover after a negative event

(Tugade, Devlin, & Fredrickson, 2014).

This kind of meaning-seeking and meaning-making helps individuals develop resilience.

Communicating a positive narrative to employees to understand the silver lining of adverse

headwinds can have a powerful effect: leaders can actually improve their team’s ability to cope

11

with difficulty by making sense of what they are experiencing and positioning it as an

opportunity for growth. This research also highlights how critical it is to share optimism and

hope when negative events occur. Despite that the messages seem contradictory; this research

affirms that this positive and uplifting message better enable an organization to accept a

situation’s gravity while equipping its members with an increased ability to react to it.

Fredrickson (2001) follows a similar line of reasoning with his broad-and-build theory that

explains that positive emotions actually expand thinking, improve attention, unleash creativity,

and increase the flexibility of decision-making. The power of communicating a positive

narrative and positive emotions—particularly in difficult situations—are valuable resilient

factors for organizations to put in practice.

People who experience positive emotions during a crisis are also more likely to recover faster

and more resilient people can even experience an increase in psychological resources during a

crisis (Tugade, Devlin, & Fredrickson, 2014). According to this work, resilience is positively

correlated with extroversion, openness to experiences, life satisfaction, optimism, tranquility,

and the ability to find meaning in times of stress. Organizations, it would appear, would be wise

to invest time, effort, and resources to actively trigger positive emotions to improve coping,

creativity, and outcomes for both employees and the organization more broadly.

From a psychodynamic perspective, research has demonstrated how employees behave

differently to positive and negative emotions based on the fundamental signals they represent

(Tugade, Devlin, & Fredrickson, 2014). Unlike negative emotions which put is in a heightened,

active, but unpleasant state, positive emotions like joy, contentment, and interest quiet the

sympathetic system’s arousal to help us feel more balanced, replenish our resources, and offer

a psychological break from a stressful situation (Tugade, Devlin, & Fredrickson, 2014). The

work of Michele Tugade and her colleagues underscores the fact that a consistent habit of facing

adversity with a positive outlook can lead to a more systematic reaction to free up mental

resources for greater creative problem-solving. It follows that cultivating positive emotions,

experiences, and communication in a systematic way can create an intentional and strategic

lever to build more habitual organizational resilience.

Distinct from individual resilience, research on community resilience highlights the importance

of the environment and infrastructure in boosting a system’s resilience. Research on community

resilience reinforces the need to understand the nature and severity of an adverse event. In 2017,

12

the United Nations general assembly classified hazards, shocks, and disasters as unpredictable

and damaging events, which they contrast with stressors that are as more long-term trends and

tend to be more predictable (see Appendix C). This distinction is relevant for organizations as

well: a different scale of surveillance and response would be appropriate depending on the level

of exposure and the nature of the event. Organizations need robust risk evaluation that leads

to an operational response that is adapted to an unexpected crisis versus a slow-building

threat. Building a resilient organization requires a proactive surveillance system to identify,

monitor and classify the nature of risks they are facing and an adaptative response to both.

Community Resilience

Owing to the relative complexity of community resilience, it presents an interesting analog to

for organizational resilience. The seven factors of resilient cities released by the Rockefeller

Foundation take into consideration the phase of an incident and the capacities a city should

develop (A. R. U. P., 2015). These capacities such as redundant, flexible and robust systems

are very relevant to the business world; however, they are so broadly defined that it is less

obvious how to cultivate them. They also miss the psychodynamic factors mentioned

previously.

Table 2. The City Resilience Index (Rockefeller, A. R. U. P. 2015).

The factors of community resilience across several non-profit organizational models confirm

the value of structural assets and processes to weather adverse conditions. For instance,

Oxfam’s framework of community resilience emphasizes the value of surveillance, analyzing

the context at both a local and global level, and the need to engage many stakeholders in the

surveillance process (Jeans, Thomas, & Castillo, 2016). All five of the dimensions OxFam

13

proposes below are relevant factors to the organizational context: financial assets and

structuring processes, capacity to innovate, flexible resource allocation, support services,

surveillance system to identify and size risks and training and coaching programs to improve

psychological safety.

Table 3. OxFam Dimensions of Resilience (Jeans, Thomas & Castillo, 2016)

An article from COSA (Committee on Sustainable Assessment) identified resilience factors for

communities facing the effects of climate change. Similar to the intent of this thesis for

organizations, COSA aimed to create a list of factors for community resilience and an

assessment tool at a more concrete and operational level that could more easily be translated

into resilience building interventions or policies. The COSA model (see Appendix D)

characterizes the assets across five types (human, physical, socio-political, financial and

environmental) and suggests many additional factors organizations should employ compared to

those already mentioned above. Their work demonstrates a more holistic model for community

resilience, integrating human and cultural factors such as the level of inclusiveness,

transparent communication, participative and fair empowered decision-making structures,

and measures of people’s general wellbeing (Schipper & Langston, 2015). Their list confirms

the value of the organization’s access to tools and information, and a learning culture in

addition to the operational importance of a diverse portfolio and financial assets (Schipper &

Langston, 2015). Looking at factors of resilience in distinct contexts can lead to a more

comprehensive list of organizational factors that better reflect the complex nature of

organizational systems inclusive of the environment, the internal structure and processes, as

well as the employees themselves.

14

Employee & Organizational Resilience

Building employee resilience is one way to boost the systemic resilience overall (e.g., Kuntz,

Malinen & Näswall, 2017). Kuntz, Malinen and Näswall (2017) investigate the factors that

better integrate the seamless and mutual influence of the system on the individual, and vice

versa. In addition to developing employees’ PsyCap, their work argues that three main

behaviors lead to employee resilience: network leveraging, learning, and adaptability.

Table 5. Employee Resilient Behaviors (Kuntz, Malinen, Näswell, 2017)

These behaviors affirm the need to offer employees both short-term support and long-term

development. The authors suggest that organizations have an active role in developing their

employees’ network and creating an environment of psychological safety where employees can

feel comfortable to seek support (e.g., Kuntz, Malinen & Näswall, 2017). Organizations need

to develop constructive, collective habits such as stopping to reflect on lessons learned or

inspiring a culture of spontaneous feedback to enable ongoing employee development. The

same duality of resilience appears with the need to help employees absorb short-term shocks

while, in parallel, actively nurturing their ability to transform (Kuntz, Malinen & Näswall,

2017). A key factor of resilience is employee development, providing them, “with resources

that allow them to grow and feel engaged, including decision-making discretion and social

support” (Niessen, Sonnentag, & Sach, 2012).

Importantly, employee resilience is not fixed and can be enhanced by resilience-building

interventions such as empowering leadership, increased collaboration, flexibility to adapt their

role, decision-making discretion, training and opportunities, maintaining and acquiring

resources, and providing additional support in periods of high workload (Kuntz, Malinen &

Näswall, 2017). This research also demonstrates some additional environmental factors of

15

resilience —strong organizational values, a clear strategic vision, open communication

systems, efficient technology to enable sharing, and formal and informal network-building

behaviors —can build trust and boost employee resilience.

Organizations will need to strike a balance between their desire for sufficient control to ensure

stability and system resistance and their need to offer sufficient autonomy, freedom, and

empowerment. Beyond offering formal opportunities to expand their professional network, the

configuration of the office environment itself can foster or hinder more spontaneous. Informal

interactions can be powerful tools to build in daily doses of positive emotions and a sense of

belonging. Organizations can leverage meetings or tools to further enhance employee’s inter-

connectivity. For example, do not underestimate the influence of the coffee corner!

Embedding triggers for networking, learning, and development opportunities in both formal

and informal ways can enable the organization’s resilience. Kuntz, Malinen & Näswall (2017)

offer several concrete examples of how organizational interventions can encourage more

supportive cultural conditions for employee recognition, wellbeing, and workplace civility

(Appendix E). Assessing employee satisfaction of the existing level of support, networking, and

development opportunities can easily be assessed and activated upon in order to boost the

system’s resilience. Organizations should be motivated to implement these ideas as

“environments characterized by enabling leadership, collaborative coworker relationships, and

fair systems and procedures have been associated with increased individual resilience, job

satisfaction, and performance over time” (Meneghel et al., 2016).

While some of these factors can easily be assessed or acted on, a resilient factor such as

psychological safety will require a deeper investigation of the visible and underlying cultural

factors. One implicit way to signal trust and transparency is to have visible role models of the

desired behaviors to signal its value and cultural acceptance (Kuntz, Malinen & Näswall, 2017).

Senior leaders have an outsized influence on the implicit messages sent throughout the

organization around which behaviors are not only permissible, but also rewarded. How

employees are evaluated and recognized can wield outsized influence in defining the desired

cultural habits and beliefs. For instance, an employee recognition program that celebrates the

targeted behaviors around resilience can infuse positive emotions while having a proactive and

constructive influence on shared cultural beliefs. Organizations should seek interventions that

16

acknowledge the mutually enhancing and reinforcing nature of employees’ beliefs and

behaviors and the overall system itself.

The assessment proposed by Walker & Salt (2012) in Table 6 integrates many factors of

employee resilience mentioned previously while adding relevant organizational factors of: self-

organizing teams, accepting reality, affinity for the organization or employee engagement,

a dynamic strategy, operational response, and competitive advantage, and a culture of

continuous improvement.

Table 6. Factors to Practice Resilience (Walker & Salt, 2012)

Each of these analogs provide insight on the factors of resilience that can be relevant for

organizations. In the findings, I will synthesize the list of potential factors to create a more

robust assessment tool; however, a more holistic framework is needed to help leaders

intuitively understand the complexity and duality of organizational resilience.

Resilience Architecture Framework

The research mentioned thus far brings me to Limnios and colleagues’ (2014) Resilience

Architecture Framework, which presents a compelling model to understand organizational

resilience, but one that is not necessarily practical to identify resilience-building actions or

initiatives to boost it. Their framework is grounded in the belief that an organization is an open

system with significant interaction and impact of its external environment. They affirm the

17

value of developing a systemic capability of surveillance to improve the organization’s

situational awareness (Limnios et al., 2014). The authors propose a need to develop two modes

of management (stable versus crisis conditions), and the need for input on the human factors

such as assessing the team’s level of engagement, energy, or anxieties (Limnios et al., 2014).

The author’s model challenges the assumption that building stronger resilience is inherently

positive, using the analog of a dictatorship that is highly resilient but not desirable (Limnios et

al., 2014). The model also suggests that an organization can be highly resilient due to its

capacity to adapt but also its capacity to resist. The authors conclude that whether increased

resilience is desirable depends on if you are trying to maintain the current state or transform it

(Limnios et al., 2014). Their work resulted in the resilience framework (Table 7), which reveals

four archetypal organizations: the vulnerable, transient, rigid and adaptable.

Table 7. The Resilience Architecture Framework (Limnios et al., 2014)

The Resilience Architecture Framework suggests that the most desirable state is one where

companies can develop a system that is highly adaptive, with a strong external orientation,

dynamic capabilities and an organization that collaborates more fluidly (Limnios et al., 2014).

It asserts that organizations possess the ability to shift their current reality through resilience-

building measures. For example, a rigid organization can become more adaptable by creating

through time, even if it has a tendency to adapt towardsmomentum (Miller & Friesen, 1980) by re-enforcing its strat-egies rather than adapting them to its environment. Theinterchange between adaptability and pervasive momentumhas been widely studied in the literatures of organizationaladaptation and learning and it relates to the adoption ofexploitation (i.e., improving efficiency of existing skills) orexploration (i.e., looking for new possibilities) processesof organizational learning (March, 1991; March & Weil,2005). Organizations that balance exploration and exploita-tion are able to continuously scan their environment andidentify the need and opportunity to change when it pre-sents itself, while maintaining and evolving the key organi-zational capabilities. Such organizations are resilientthrough a balanced combination of strategic offense and de-fense, operating in a highly desirable system state. How-ever, incremental successes achieved through exploitationtend to discourage exploration, and have thus been provento result in cycles of exploitation reinforcement (March,1991). This can take place both at the organizational andthe individual employee level, leading to the formation ofrigid monocultures. Such systems maintain a narrow strate-gic focus and employ minimal adaptation which is incremen-tal in nature. The benefits of this tactic decrease with time,and have been advocated to ultimately trigger corporatefailure (March, 1991; Miller, 1990; Miller, 1993). In suchcases resilience is exhibited due to the system!s ability toresist change and persist and becomes an undesirable sys-tem characteristic, as it prevents the system from enteringa phase of change, and retains its current, suboptimal state.

It is worth noting that in complex socio-ecological sys-tems literature, the manifestation of resilience as resis-tance to change is treated as an exception to the normand is not therefore integrated in the generic approach,which views a resilient system as creative and adaptive.Such systems are termed maladaptive and are consideredto display ‘‘a kind of perverse resilience’’ (Holling, 2001).

Their state is termed a ‘‘rigidity trap’’, which is contrastedto a ‘‘poverty trap’’, the latter being the case of a systemwith low potential (system wealth) and low connectivity,still exhibiting high resilience and thus maintaining its mal-adaptive state. Polluted ecosystems, natural systems thathave lost their diversity, and social systems traumatizedby social disruption or conflict and have lost their culturalcohesion and adaptive abilities are examples of systemsoperating in the poverty trap. This condition is less applica-ble to organizational systems, which being man-made sys-tems will not be highly resilient in such circumstances oflow connectivity and internal capital. They are more likelyto enter a reorganization phase or fail to survive.

Resilience dimensions

It becomes evident that resilience cannot be a target in it-self, which is how the concept has been primarily ap-proached in organizational research. The strategic use ofthe concept will depend on whether at the time of examina-tion resilience is a more or less desirable system character-istic. For example, underperforming or vulnerableorganizations and their stakeholders benefit by entering aphase of change, a new regime, rather than maintainingtheir current functional state. We therefore advocate thanwhen assessing organizational resilience one should con-sider two critical dimensions: the ‘‘magnitude dimension’’,which refers to the level of the system!s resilience (higheror lower levels of disturbance the system can tolerate andstill persist); and the ‘‘desirability dimension’’, which re-fers to the level of desirability of the system state (moreor less desirable system state at its current functionallevel).

We note that the magnitude of resilience will depend pri-marily on the characteristics of the organizational systemand its ability to interact with its environment in an either‘‘offensive’’ (adaptive) or ‘‘defensive’’ (reactive) way andstill persist. The development of organizational resiliencecriteria and rating scales would be necessary to result in aconsistent way of evaluating the level or magnitude of resil-ience as further discussed in Section "Future research: test-ing and validating RAF! of this paper.

The desirability dimension effectively introduces a stake-holder perspective when assessing organizational resilience.The organization can be approached as an open system thatinteracts with its socio-ecological environment. It is there-fore a nested system within a wider network of organiza-tional stakeholders, which can include individuals,institutions, social networks and natural systems (the latteralso referred to as silent stakeholders). System desirabilityis therefore dependent upon the perspectives of internal ac-tors (such as employees, management and shareholders), aswell as external actors that operate in the market, the tech-nical–economic and the scientific sub-environments (Law-rence & Lorsch, 1967). The network of externalorganizational stakeholders could therefore include custom-ers, suppliers, competitors, financiers, government andcommunity agents, all of which directly or indirectly influ-ence the organization. Consideration of organizational resil-ience thus requires a clear definition of the boundaries ofthe organizational system, as networks of interrelated

Rigidity Quadrant

System mode:DenialCharacteristics:Exploitation, High internal connectedness, Low self-organizing abilityRelevant concepts: Architecture of simplicity, routine rigidity, dysfunctional momentum

Adaptability Quadrant

System mode:AdaptiveCharacteristics:Balancing exploration and exploitation, High self-organizing abilityRelevant concepts:Dynamic capabilities, organizational ambidexterity, functional momentum

Vulnerability Quadrant

System mode:Situational DependenceCharacteristics:Exploitation, High external connectedness, Low self-organizing abilityRelevant concepts: Resource rigidity

Transience Quadrant

System mode:UncertaintyCharacteristics:Exploration, Low external connectedness, High self-organizing abilityRelevant concepts:Early phase in organizational development, radical change

Low

Resil

ience

High

Low Desirability of system state High

Figure 1 The Resilience Architecture Framework (RAF).

The Resilience Architecture Framework: Four organizational archetypes 109

18

systematic ways to increase the awareness of external changes, to encourage self-organization

and the use of agile teams, to communicate broadly shifts in the strategy, and to develop more

flexible tools and processes for resource allocation.

The work by Limnios and her colleagues (2014) also affirms the value of highly resistant

leaders who can be constructive to optimize a transformation given their tendency to protect

the long-term vision. Their framework is relevant but appears to oversimplify the reality of the

task at hand: with only one composite measure of overall resilience, the framework does not

recognize the paradoxical and interactive factors of internal resistance and adaptability. Their

findings also lack a more concrete and exhaustive list of the strategic, operational, cultural, and

human factors that can be deployed to build an organization’s resilience. To supplement the

literature review, I conducted qualitative interviews to further explore organizational resilience,

and specifically the duality of resistance and adaptability.

Methodology

For this study I conducted 17 qualitative interviews in one organization using the Interpretative

Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) method in which to assess the results. A qualitative approach

better enabled me to explore the phenomenon of organizational resilience with a more

psychodynamic lens to assess more human, cultural, emotional or cultural factors that could

emerge. Qualitative interviews also enabled me to listen to the leaders’ narratives or perceptions

of an adverse event while looking for deeper beliefs, assumptions, and artifacts as reflected by

Schein’s model of organizational culture (Schein, 1985) that can impact the system’s resilience.

The IPA approach acknowledges the value of both the subjects’ and the facilitator’s

interpretation of the conversation to build a tapestry of common themes and insights

(Pietkiewicz & Smith, 2014). This duality is even more relevant in my case as I am an employee

of the organization that I am studying. This creates a bias but also enhances my ability to capture

subtle cultural elements that may not be openly expressed. To actively work against my own

biases, I sat int the role of the observer, trying to understand the unique experience of each

leader and observe how their personal lens informs their perceptions of the same organizational

context. By leveraging direct quotes and clustering the data afterwards, I compared the resulting

observations expressed by participants before layering in my own interpretation.

19

All interviews were done in person or by phone, they lasted approximately one hour each, and

I used a semi-structured interview guide that was informed by the literature review. I selected

a diverse set of leaders whom I could count on for their transparency, depth of experience in

the organization, and ability to express their feelings, hypotheses, and anxieties.

Table 8. Characteristics of Interview Participants (custom study 2019)

I started the interviews with a free word association with resilience and then asked for concrete

examples of organizational resilience from within or outside the company. Then we explored

the factors or underlying cultural forces behind their perception the resilience the example they

offered. Each subject was then asked to gauge whether this particular organization had a high

or low the level of resistance and level of adaptability compared to other organizations in the

industry. Although the main measure is the perceived strength or weakness on these two

capacities, the participants often vocalized their belief that there was a link between the

perceived level of resilience and employee behaviors or financial outcomes. I probed further on

their reasons why they gave a high or low rating, their points of proof (visible artifacts or

espoused values) and on the influence of the company culture (deeper assumptions or beliefs).

This enabled me to get a sense of how the company “performed” on these two capacities and

why, while exploring if other factors of resilience emerged. Looking at the data collected across

interviews, I was able to identify consistencies that suggest deeper shared cultural beliefs.

The findings are exclusively based on qualitative findings but eventually, I will build a

quantitative survey that could serve as an assessment tool for a specific organization’s level of

resilience and relative performance on the final list of factors.

Research Setting

I conducted the research in a privately held, family-owned and run, 150-year old, mid-sized

consumer products organization, which I will call Company X to protect its identity. It is a

Characteristics DiversityofParticipantsGender 6womenand11menAge Range 35 - 54 Nationality 8differentcountriesinEurope,Americas,&AfricaLocal & Corporate 6 from local Bus and 11 from Corporate

Role 3 Executive Committee members 9 Executive leaders, including 4 General Managers 3 Senior leaders

Functions Finance, Legal, Risk Management, Marketing, Sales, Operations, and HR

20

French organization with a proud history as a leading manufacturer in their category. Its success

has come primarily from their “savoir-faire” or technical innovation and the ability to export

their brands and products around the world. A humane organization rooted in its values;

Company X has been run since 2009 by a family CEO. The board is comprised of both family

members and seasoned external executives. The board has strong influence on the executive

committee but remains relatively unseen by the organization. This is in contrast to the CEO, a

present and symbolic ‘father figure’ for the organization. Historically, the organization has had

limited portfolio diversity, focusing mainly on one category and a limited set of global brands.

Recent acquisitions have brought in incremental growth and helped diversify the portfolio.

Crucially, Company X has faced increasing global uncertainty and competition. Category

growth is coming primarily from smaller niche and local players who are taking market share

from the mid-size companies and legacy giants like Company X. The pace of innovation in the

consumer goods industry is accelerating while barriers to entry have been lowered through

increasing digitalization of consumer-centric tools, an explosion of alternate shopping channels

beyond traditional grocery stores, and increased investment from the financial sector in

promising startups.

Company X is currently undergoing a significant transformation that includes a new executive

committee, a revamped strategy grounded in external market trends, and the intent to deliver

both responsible and profitable growth that can have a positive impact on people and the planet.

To enable better organizational efficiency and strategic execution, a new organizational

structure was recently put in place. It includes new tools, processes and ways of working. The

new executive team is more visible, are modeling new behaviors, and are driving transformation

in their respective functions. Although the organizational restructuring is complete, the team is

only now experiencing the implications of these changes. Recent communications have

expressed optimism about the company’s bright future, yet the tangible results of these efforts

have not yet materialized.

Data Gathering and Reporting

I started each interview with a brief introduction to the project and to confirm the confidential

nature of our conversation. Although I plan to share the outcome with the Executive Committee

before the end of the year, I affirmed that names, brands, and even markets would be hidden to

protect their anonymity to ensure that they could speak freely. As I have previously established

21

a good rapport with each of them, there was the benefit of mutual trust, respect, and

professionalism. I first asked for their free association with the topic of resilience in general

before focusing their attention on the context organizational resilience. The interviews remained

focused on organizational resilience and the particular context of this company. Participants

moved fluidly between talking about the influence of individuals, teams, functions, and the

organization itself on the system’s resilience, confirming the interconnectedness of these four

levels. Before asking subjects to assess Company X’s level of resistance and adaptability, I

would share my working definition to create consistency in how this question was asked.

Organizational resilience = to simultaneously develop the organization’s ability to

resist short-term shocks as well as to adapt proactively to changing conditions and long-

term threats.

To avoid confirmation bias, I did not expose subjects to my working resilience framework or

list of proposed factors. Instead, I leveraged the qualitative data afterwards to compare with my

initial list and then supplement and refine it. With over eight years spent in Company X in

various roles and in two different countries, I also had to be wary of my own beliefs and biases.

I conscientiously shifted into the role of observer, applying active listening, and taking diligent

notes, paying particular attention to anything surprising. Frequently, I would press subjects for

more or ask for hypotheses around their impressions in order to suspend my own interpretation

and access deeper beliefs or assumptions. It rarely came up unprompted, but when I probed on

the perceived impact of the company culture on either its capacity for resistance or adaptability,

subjects were often able to articulate a clear link to cultural factors such as the company’s

history, previous leadership, values, behaviors or beliefs. This suggests the long shadow and

significant influence of the collective unconscious, (Jung, 1936) or the implicit collective

images, archetypes and instincts which impacts how individuals and the organization function.

22

What do they associate with the concept of resilience?

Subjects’ felt a natural connection to resilience

at an individual level, making the relevance of

resilience for organizations obvious to them.

Resilience relates to humans’ most primal need

for survival: to face adversity, adapt and thrive.

Unprompted, a mix of positive and negative

words emerged relating to their fundamental

understanding of resilience. Many

acknowledged that resilience is often triggered

by a crisis or a shock but can result in a desired

state of feeling of being happy, safe, and free.

People intuitively recognize resilience as a

capacity that can be built and deployed given the active language they used (fight, advance,

accept, handle and change). Many intuitively recognized that resilience is a valuable but

difficult capacity to acquire (adversity, uncertainty, difficult, sustain). A clear association

emerged with adaptability and change, even more than resistance. Such a finding could be

influenced by the more positive perception of both resilience and adaptability (versus

resistance) in the broader social context. It could also be indicative of the heightened

prominence of change and transformation in the corporate world, and particularly within

Company X. This association may demonstrate a bias: organizations might assume that

adaptation is necessary in the face of an external change when, at times, it could be

advantageous to absorb the disturbance and stay the course.

Subjects easily translated resilience into the business world, despite many admissions that

they had never made the link before. Their spontaneous definitions of organizational

resilience aligned well with scholars’ definitions.

23

How they define organizational resilience?

Table 9. Subjects’ Definition of Organizational Resilience

Across subjects’ definitions, the complex nature of organizational resilience emerges requiring

a combination of structural and psychological factors. Several subjects mentioned that

resilience is triggered by external uncertainty or an adverse event. However, the majority of

subjects understood organizational resilience as a compilation of internal factors like shared

cultural beliefs, infrastructure, and how a company responds to threats or crises. These

responses suggest that people tend to focus more on what they can control. They may also

reflect the stronger internal focus of Company X, a factor that many subjects mentioned

explicitly. Half of the leaders intuitively included psychological factors such as the role of

24

emotions, a positive narrative, or perceived individual fortitude in their definitions. The other

half focused more on structural or operational elements such as the company’s strategy,

processes, and adaptive capabilities.

Examples of Organizational Resilience

When I asked subjects for an example of a resilient organization, I shared that it could be from

their experience at this company or another (Appendices H and I). Each example revealed

biases about what builds resilience and, for many, their perceived level of resilience for

Company X. Several shared proverbs or well-known examples of companies that either

transformed completely or died because they failed to do so. Stories of resilience often have a

compelling life-or-death narrative that can stir up deep emotions and fears. Organizations need

to anticipate strong emotional reactions from negative pressure that can trigger a fight or flight

response. To aid their team to better accept the reality of the situation and cope with it,

organizations need to communicate the level of risk and type of external pressure faced.

25

Table 10. Subjects’ Analogs of Resilience – External Examples

Organizational Resilience of Company X

Similar to the finding in community resilience research that you need to differentiate the nature

and severity of the impact, subjects in the study made a clear distinction between the appropriate

speed and reaction to a crisis versus a threat. I began using a projective association to ask

participants: which image or animal personifies how Company X responds when facing a crisis

versus a long-term threat. The results confirmed a positive or negative judgment of the

company’s reactivity, as well as their assumptions about how these two types of events should

Example of organizational

resilience

Rationale

External example: Blockbuster

Lack of resilience - Blockbuster who

failed to adapt from their brick-and-

mortar model

Need the courage to trash your existing or core business.

They held on too long to their existing model due to fears

of the financial implications ignoring the biggest risk of

becoming irrelevant resulting in bankruptcy – not

changing directions is a choice with consequences

External example: Amazon

Amazon’s shift from a distribution

model of selling books to

developing an e-commerce

service/content model with the

Kindle

Clear vision on shifting consumer needs and its impact

on their current business. Made a courageous choice to

develop a new model that in fact destroyed their current

core business based on an early signal reflecting the

wisdom of the leadership and their appetite for risk.

External example: Oil & Gas company

An oil and gas company under

pressure due to price fluctuations

were accustomed to managing ups

and downs, they expected to have

major crisis and instability

Expecting adverse winds makes you able to prepare for

it, however biased by historical shocks as a predicator of

what to come vs external signals. Once in crisis mode,

reacted swiftly and creatively with clear decisions and

significant actions taken

External example:

A bad acquisition that forced

significant job cuts to save the

financial wellbeing of the company

Transparent leaders who faced reality, set a clear vision

and action plan and embarked the team on the mission to

save the company demonstrating a capacity to take quick

and clear decisions and managed risks actively vs risk

avoidance

External example:

From a volatile market faced with

devaluation and an import ban

Team quickly accepted their changed reality, understood

the gravity of the external situation and quickly changed

their priorities and plans to adapt everything they could

control internally to better compete in these new

conditions, proving they could adapt and thrive

External example:

Man survived better than dinosaurs

Strength is not everything, it is those with ingenuity and

flexibility that adapt and survive.

External example: A determined leadership team with a clear vision and

plan with clear and compelling communication

26

be treated differently. This insight suggests that organizations will need to develop dual

approaches to generate a more adapted response to a crisis vs. a threat.

Table 11. Association with how Company X Reacts to a Crisis vs. Threat

Although some subjects challenged Company X’ speed of response in general, most of the

resulting imagery demonstrated that they feel the company is appropriately reactive to a crisis;

threats, however, are not treated with an adequate level of urgency. To do so, an organization

must first be able to identify the threat, then align on its relative importance and the need to act

before shifting priorities and resources accordingly.

Several examples were mentioned that illustrate the gaps in Company X’ systemic response to

emerging threats or opportunities. Even when a relevant (positive or negative) macro trend was

identified, subjects highlighted an inability or resistance to act on it in a decisive and meaningful

way. Most subjects confirmed that an inadequate or late response to emerging threats is a big

risk for the company. Today, there is not a coordinated surveillance system to highlight the

greatest risks, no clear governance on who is accountable for this activity, nor on who is

responsible to gain alignment from senior management in order to drive swift and defiant

actions. For example, the team tasked with watching trends is not responsible for assessing the

relative potential impact the trends can have on the business, which hampers the organization’s

ability to mobilize a response to an emerging threat.

In contrast, Company X does have a more comprehensive system in place when a crisis occurs.

Senior leaders have been trained on how to respond, and there are tools, templates, and internal

experts available to support any leader in need. Although there is room for improvement, a

system is activated when responding to a crisis which offers an analog of what could be

developed to assess long-term threats.

27

Table 12. Perceptions on Company X’s Reactions to Crises and Threats

Across the internal examples share, the perceived level of resilience varies significantly by

situation, leader, team, and function. Several subjects asserted that local business units are much

more adaptable thanks to being closer to the external changes in their market, with smaller,

more collaborative and agile teams that are more capable of generating a timely response.

However, the internal examples also demonstrate the extent to which local teams respond to

external pressure differently given the local market context, culture, and leadership differences.

Subjects frequently cited corporate functions as slow to act on emerging trends or opportunities,

with several noting that certain functions (e.g., finance or industrial) tend to be even more

resistant than others. Again, the external and context have a heavy influence on the team’s

default capacity, and there is a significant range in how different teams react to adversity within

the same organization.

The role a function plays in the organization can inherently influence the team’s capacity to

resist or adapt. The team in charge of product quality might be appropriately rigid about

maintaining existing processes while the marketing or sales teams—each typically more

exposed to shifts in market trends—are more apt to sense the urgency to innovate or adapt. A

leader’s profile can also implicitly influence the level of resistance or adaptability of her team,

often in spite of the market context, given her risk tolerance, previous experience handling a

crisis or threat, or personal bias towards for example, accepting reality or embracing change.

28

Table 13. Subjects’ Analogs of Resilience – Internal Examples

Throughout the interviews, I sensed a range of hesitation and doubts when subjects assessed

Company X’ overall resilience. Many demonstrated a positive outlook in general and remain

optimistic around the company’s future. However, most admitted that despite their confidence

in the strategic direction, they did not feel the organization’s resilience is currently a strength.

Many expressed feeling vulnerable to the fast-paced, more volatile, and uncertain external

context. Some found solace in Company X’s longevity, the equity of the core brands, and even

the fact that the company operates in several volatile markets around the world. The proud

history of the company’s survival and historical growth is undeniable, but subjects were more

challenging when they compared Company X to others in the industry. The internal examples

reinforced how, within a single organization, different systems and biases around resistance can

exist. The seamless and ongoing exchange between individuals, teams, and the system is

evident, which requires organizations to have a more sophisticated understanding of the varying

levels of resilience and specific biases of particular individuals, teams, or functions. Companies

Exampleoforganizationalresilience Rationale

Internalexample:Thebehaviorandpostureofthenewexecutivecommittee

Acceptsreality,transparentwithnegativeperformance,optimisticaboutthefuture,andshowsprideinthecompany’sassetsandteam

Internalexample:Brandsthathavesurvivedthetestoftime

Longevity,staystruetowhotheyarewhileadaptingtoexternalchanges

Internalexample:Distinctperformanceoftwobrandsinthesame,volatilemarket

Facingthesameexternalconditions,themoreresilientbrandhadstrongerassets,aclearerpositioning,whoseactionsweremorefocusedwhichresultedinamoredifferentiatedadvantagetocompetition

Internalexample:Adelayedreactiontodigital,CSRandplant-based,privatelabelisfaster!

Alwaysbehindthemarkettrends,playingcatch-up,toointernally-focused,conservativeleadershipthathadfocusedtoomuchonshorttermorinvestedtoolittleinexploration,wasnotseenasapriority

Internalexample:Localteamsaremoreresilient

Localteamsfindaway,canmakedecisionsfaster,moveandchangemoreeasily,andareclosertomarketandcanbemoreproactive.Thankstotheproximitytothemarketandeachother,collaboratemoreeasilyandoften,morepragmaticandcreativesolutions,actfasterandfewerbarrierstoadapt

Internalexample:Resilientturnaroundofateamindisarray–lowmotivationandoverwhelmed

Lackedaclearambition,hadtheteamdoadiagnosticofneedsandpriorities,anddidaninclusiveandcollaboratingco-buildingoftherevisedscope&RACI,whileactivelynurturingteamspiritandwellbeing

Internalexample:Aproductqualityconsumercrisiswithaslow,imperfectresponsethatexposedweakfundamentalsandcausedsignificantlosses

Achangeinleadershipmeantlessexternalandmoreshort-termfocus;theyfailedtoanticipatetheimpactofanemergingcompetitor,exposinglackofadistinctadvantageandbrandloyalty.Lackofsharedvisionandslowresponsetothecrisisimpactedfinancialperformance,thelocalinternalcultureandteammoraledeclined

Internalexample:NotconsistentinhowdifferentlocalBusinessunitsrespondtodifficulties

InChina,theypridethemselvesonadaptingeasilyyetthatresultedinfatigueandalackofstabilityinthestrategicvision.IntheUS,theyarenotwillingtogiveupsomethingthatworksforsomethingthatmightbebetter.InFR,theyarehighlyresistant,wherethingshaveworkedwellthiswayforsolongitisdifficulttochange

Internalexample:Applyingthesamemodelineverygeography

Highlyresistantstrategyandapproachtobuildingthebusinessandbrands.Despitesignificantlocaldifferences,startfromthesameplaybook,oftenledbyinternalemployeeswhoexpatriatetonewmarketsversushiringlocalleaders,leveragingourinternalexpertiseandapproachesvs.startingfromunlockinglocalinsightstofindtherightmodel

29

need to acknowledge how each can be leveraged and contribute to the behaviors and mindset

of the organization as a whole.

We can apply Schein’s (1985) model for organizational culture to classify the proof points that

subjects provided as either visible artifacts or symbols, espoused values, and underlying beliefs

or assumptions.

Table 14. Three Levels of Culture (Schein, 1985)

Company X’s Level of Resistance

Despite the range of resilience found across the internal examples shared above, there was

nearly complete alignment on participants’ perception that overall, Company X has a high

capacity to resist. As evidenced by the illustrations below in Table 15, subjects acknowledged

that this orientation towards resistance has its virtues but also likely inhibits the organization’s

adaptability. The bias towards resistance likely contributed to the slow and steady growth that

built the solid foundations of this fourth-generation company. Their more resistant approach

meant they were able to scale the same winning brands and products to more places, achieving

strong brand equity, product excellence and greater efficiencies. The persistence of the

company’s family ownership and France identity builds the company’s fundamentals and

creates a stable environment for their employees with consistent values, board leadership, and

cultural influences on the ways of working. However, this orientation resistance has its

shadows, such as not adapting their products or approach enough to reflect distinct local market

realities or an inability or starting innovation from our internal capabilities versus external

trends. A bias towards resistance can also preclude people from accepting reality or declaring

a breakdown that might require deeper transformation.

30

Table 15. Artifacts, Values and Beliefs Around Resistance

Company X’s Level of Adaptability

Subjects appreciated that Company X is grounded in its proud history and shared values, but

the deference to history and internal capabilities was also identified as something that may

prevent the company from embracing changes in the external environment and adapting to them

as quickly as is needed. Given that, the majority of subjects assessed that Company X today has

a low level of adaptability. The interviews revealed a system is in place to monitor long-term

trends but there is a weakness in assessing their relative risk and organizing an operational

response to them. The conversations also suggest that despite an espoused intention to dare or

innovate, that the organizational system is not as flexible or fluid as is needed paired with a risk

avoidant and hierarchical culture that protects harmony and seeks consensus instead of an

empowering and entrepreneurial environment of self-managing teams.

Many participants acknowledged that recent evolutions over the last year are improving the

company’s agility: the new strategic vision, new Executive Committee members, a new

organizational design, and increased transparency in communication. This feedback suggests

that despite their low perceived adaptability, the recent transformation initiatives are actively

moving the organization to improve on this capacity. This shift confirms that organizational

31

initiatives and actions, can actively and relatively quickly move internal perception which, in

turn, can improve employees’ ability to cope with the transformation itself and boost the

organization’s systemic resilience.

Table 16. Artifacts, Values and Beliefs Around Adaptability

The subjects’ observations around adaptability reveal several puzzling dichotomies. How can

an organization effectively identify an emerging threat but then not act on it? How do companies

that want to adapt quickly to the external world retain such centralized decision-making? Why

do people choose to preserve perceived harmony in the face of facts that suggest the business

could be at risk? These paradoxes can be addressed by Peter Drucker’s (2013) famous quip:

32

“culture eats strategy for breakfast.” Even the most intelligent leaders, armed with good

information, may not act rationally to do what is best for their survival. The underlying beliefs

and assumptions that inform the company culture affects how leaders perceive risks, threats,

and reactive capacity.

My subjects’ responses strongly support the value of revealing the underlying assumptions,

which, in addition to strategic, operational, and psychodynamic factors, can help or hamper

organizational resilience. Organizational leaders need to be aware of the long-lasting impact of

the past and how it might help explain their team’s eagerness or resistance to accept the desired

future. It is worthwhile to explore the less visible cultural phenomena, as these underlying

factors have the power to override corporate processes and the best intentions. Using the

Organizational Complexity model (Carlock, 2018), we can see how the phenomena revealed

by these artifacts and beliefs can be linked to deeper assumptions below the surface that can

influence employee’s behavior, and consequently, how the organization operates.

Table 17. Organizational Complexity Model of Company X

Findings

Through the literature review and qualitative study, I found that organizational resilience

(summarized in Figure 1) depends on developing the capacity to resist short-term impacts and

adapt to long-term threats, as well as having the awareness and wisdom to choose which

33

response is most appropriate in a given situation. My definition affirms the paradoxical duality

of organizational resilience, recognizing the value of both capacities that should be developed

simultaneously across the organization. First, an organization must proactively prepare to

employ both modes of management—resistance and adaptation. Then, it will need to recruit or

develop leaders with high situational awareness to clarify the nature and severity of external

pressure. Finally, employees should be trained to have the awareness and adaptive capacity to

deploy either mode of leadership as needed.

Figure 1. Definition of Organizational Resilience

My definition challenges the Resilience Architecture Framework shared in Table 7 (Limnios et

al., 2014), a model built on the assertion that resilience is not always desirable and depends on

whether the objective is to maintain or change the status quo. I agree that it is essential to have

alignment on the overall strategic vision as well as continuous situational awareness to consider

the external risks the organization is facing. They propose that the ideal quadrant is an adaptive

system that is ambidextrous in how it functions and with a healthy balance of exploitations and

exploration (Limnios et al., 2014). I believe that their optimal profile aligns with my assertion

that organizational resilience is an emergent result of having these dual systems or modes of

management (resistance and adaptability) in place. Their model fails to recognize that a strength

in one of these capacities may impact the other and still lacks more concrete, actionable, and

comprehensive factors of resilience that help ensure organizations consider the human and

cultural factors in addition to the strategic and operational ones.

In my interviews and analyses, I confirmed the mutually reinforcing interaction of

environmental, structural, individual, and cultural aspects in developing biases towards reacting

in a mode of resistance or adaptability. The awareness of such biases suggests that organizations

can address the duality of organizational resilience first by leveraging a diverse set of leaders

and teams to respond to risks or threats in a distinct and intentional manner. Then organizations

can leverage the list of resilient factors to review their core processes and routines to ensure a

34

balance of efforts is in place to absorb short-term impacts while developing others that

institutionalize exploring new frontiers. Intuitively, most companies have complementary

teams, roles, and leaders in place to address these two needs. However, some organizations may

lack the awareness to conscientiously decide which approach to employ and even fewer will

have proactively embedded these dual approaches at the systemic level.

Given the complex, paradoxical, and yet integrated nature of these two systemic capacities, I

propose the following framework to develop systemic organizational resilience (see Figure 2).

A highly resistant organization will be secure and savvy enough to absorb short-term losses;

however, this strength will likely limit their ability for deeper transformation. Conversely, an

externally focused and agile organization that is quick to shift its focus, priorities, and resources

has a high level of adaptability but may not have the strength to fully absorb shocks that will

inevitably come. My framework suggests that neither high resistance nor high adaptability is

desirable in isolation, but rather that companies need to develop the capacity to do both

depending on what the situation demands. An organization without either capacity is in the

undesirable position of extreme vulnerability to both acute crises and slower emerging threats.

Figure 2. Resilience Framework

Boosting the resilience of an organization requires that leaders recognize the inherent value and

potential shadows of resistance and adaptability.

35

Table 18. Virtues and Shadows of Resistance and Adaptability

It is complex but feasible to build both capacities simultaneously, requiring a robust and

complementary set of activities to prepare a company to work in two distinct modes. Raising

leaders’ awareness on the value of both modes can help them better distinguish a short-term

crisis versus a long-term threat, as well as prepare them for the myriad types of external

pressures they could face. To better equip an organization with the wisdom to know which

response a situation demands, leaders should reflect on their personal biases towards resistance

or adaptability in addition to those of their teams and the overall organization. Such awareness

can enhance leaders’ ability to more consciously choose which response is needed and ideally,

also develop the alternate capacity to their default management mode. Leaders can also tap

peers or team members with an opposing capacity to challenge or optimize their proposed

solution to gain the benefit of both approaches.

Based on my qualitative analyses, I find support for the relevance of my framework given the

consistent perception of Company X as having high resistance and low adaptability (see Figure

3). Despite the profound impact of the company’s history and legacy culture, subjects

acknowledged that the recent strategic and organizational changes suggest an improvement in

the organization’s capacity for adaptability. Some subjects were optimistic but acknowledged

they have yet to see the full impact of these changes while others felt these efforts were valid

but still insufficient given the competition and external changes the company is facing.

Regardless, it was clear that the organization’s transformation was already having an effect to

reduce the level of perceived resistance in favor of more adaptability. My findings suggest that

organizational resilience emerges from these two capacities and can be proactively built and

developed through intentional, strategic, and system-wide transformational efforts.

36

Figure 3. Subject Assessment of Company X’s Resilience

My interviews also confirmed that despite nearly unilateral agreement on the mapping of

Company X’s overall resilience, significant differences exist across the organization. Several

subjects noted a higher level of resistance in functions like industrial and finance compared to

marketing and sales. This is not in itself an issue as it is in the organization’s best interest to

have a diverse pool of leaders and teams that can adapt to both their particular external context

and their internal role in the organization. Furthermore, it would likely make sense to have

certain teams who intentionally operate in a resistant mode to protect the company from risks

such as legal or finance, and likewise for teams like R&D to work more often in an adaptable

mode. However, having this heightened awareness, a team or function’s default mode can help

organizations better match a particular leader’s profile to the mission at hand. It can also help

them anticipate the reaction distinct teams might have when faced with a request to absorb a

shock or make a profound change.

To illustrate the impact of the external and internal context on an organization’s default mode,

I will contrast the perceived resilience of two local business units within Company X. Each

business unit has its own history, culture, context, and leadership profile that impacts how the

team reacts to changing conditions. The French business unit—the heart of the company and

the location where the brands were built—operates in a mature, relatively stable market. It has

always had French leadership and a nearly 100% French team. Despite significant resources

and their dedication to following consumer trends, the French business unit has historically

Company X Resilience Assessment

Adaptability

Res

ista

nce

Rationale:

Current position – Highly Resistant, Low Adaptability:• Resistant identity, history and values• Longevity of the business, brands and products• Historic results of slow and steady growth• Weak capability to turn trend surveillance into action• Inability to respond to external changes quickly• Tendency to leverage the same model everywhere

Evolving position – Improving on adaptability:• Clear strategic vision rooted in external reality• New executive committee modeling trust, optimism and courage• Improving empowerment via central committees and org structure• Increasing transparency and frequency of communication• Adapting ways of working to increase accountability and agility• Hiring external leaders who bring new ideas and energy

Low High

Low

High

37

been slow to react, such as when consumer’s consumption habits changed, or consumers started

shopping in alternative channels.

In contrast, the team challenged with cracking the Chinese market has experienced an

unparalleled and extraordinary amount of external change in the ten years since Company X

entered the market. The team has expatriated French or international leadership but with an

increasingly Chinese local team. Whereas in France, the team has the benefit and burden of its

long history, the team in China has to build the business from scratch in an environment that

bears no resemblance to the market where the brands and products originated. The French

business unit was referred to as the embodiment of the company’s resistance in both its virtues

and challenges, whereas interview subjects recognized the Chinese team as being adaptable but

vulnerable. The French business unit struggled to adapt quickly enough under increased

competitive pressure while the Chinese team aims to settle its strategy and start building more

robust fundamentals like brand equity, their route-to-market, and a more long-term vision. This

comparison suggests that my framework and a more focused assessment is relevant at the team

or individual level, helping to reveal distinct strengths and to improve the opposing capacity

(see Figure 4).

Figure 4. A Resilience Comparison of the French and Chinese Local Teams

In addition to a better understanding organizational resilience, I also set out to isolate the

strategic, operational, cultural, and human factors that organizations could more directly

activate in order to improve their resilience. To help organizations boost their capacity to resist

or adapt, it is necessary to better define the factors that contribute to either side of the resilience

Local BU Resilience Assessment

Adaptability

Res

ista

nce

Illustration:

French BU – high resistance, low adaptability:• Historical root of the company and brands• Strong brand awareness and loyalty• Struggles to innovate the business model or core platforms• Not as reactive to external trends (new channels, etc.)• Large, complex portfolio with heavy processes and reporting

China BU – highly adaptable, low resistance:• Adapted the model after initial failures • Developed a new model, distinct from other markets• Changed product, pack, channels and marketing to adapt to local needs• Lacks a long-term strategic vision and strong fundamentals• Smaller team who is used to changing priorities• Vulnerable business given few big clients limited portfolio

Low High

Low

High

38

equation. To do that, I developed a comprehensive list of factors inclusive of the human and

cultural factors that organizations too often ignore. I also defined them at a more detailed and

concrete level that can be more easily translated into resilience-building actions or initiatives.

The resulting list of factors provides the base for an assessment of both the current level of

organizational resilience and how it can be improved. Below I share the expanded list of

potential factors, generated from both the literature review and custom research, that might

strongly contribute to boosting an organization’s resistance or adaptability. Quantitative

analysis will be required to confirm the correlation of these factors with perceived resistance

and adaptability and to discriminate which factors are the most influential.

I identified a total of 36 concrete factors that can build organizational resilience via increased

resistance or adaptability. Most of the factors come from existing research on resilience, which

I have adapted for the organizational context, and an additional nine factors that come directly

from my qualitative research (Appendix F). The resulting list is evenly balanced between

strategic and operational, and nearly half of the factors are cultural and human. A quantitative

step is needed to confirm which factors are best correlated with resistance and adaptability,

especially as many of them may contribute to both sides of the resilience equation. Looking

across the list of 36 potential factors, eight main themes emerged. These axes can help leaders

better understand the complementary systems and capabilities they need to develop internally.

Each axis is broken down into the relevant factors to boost each aspect of the system’s resilience

and is comprised of either strategic, operational, human and cultural factors. This

comprehensive list of concrete factors can more easily be translated into an organizational

assessment and into resilience-building actions or initiatives.

Table 19. Emerging Axes from the List of Resilient Factors

Axes to boost resilience Factor Type

Compelling strategy Strategic

Dynamic Planning Strategic & Operational

Strong Fundamentals Operational

Risk Management Strategic & Operational

Positive Coping Human

Growth Mindset Human & Cultural

Internal Agility Human, Cultural & Operational

Network Power Cultural & Operational

39

Table 20. The List of Resilient Factors

This list can serve as a checklist to ensure that an organization is proactively developing its

system’s resilience while demonstrating the comprehensive and complementary activities that

are needed to build resilience. The list of factors recognizes the pivotal importance of human

and cultural factors that can create the conditions for superior performance: for instance, the

Theme Factor of Resilience Description

Compelling Strategy

Competitive Advantage Competitive advantage is clear and sufficient Organizational values An organization that lives its values

Strategic Vision A compelling and clearly communicated vision

Dynamic planning

Resource Allocation Dynamic resource allocation process

Dynamic Strategy Strategy and priorities are adapted as needed Transparent communication Sufficient sharing of results, challenges and priorities

Strong Fundamentals

Diverse Portfolio Robust and diverse portfolio to better absorb shocks Strong assets Strategic or financial assets to absorb negative impacts

Structuring processes Enable early warnings & adaptive decisions

Risk Mgmt

Ongoing Surveillance Satisfactory surveillance of external environment

Accept Reality Capable of declaring breakdowns Operational response Takes appropriate action to identified risks and threats

Speed of Recovery Company rebounds quickly from negative impacts Risk Evaluation Comprehensive review of crises and long-term threats

Positive Coping

Optimism & Hope Believe their future is bright Anticipate Risks Expect headwinds to increase team's reactivity

Available Support Support is available and employees feel safe to do so Humor and Fun Humor and fun is encouraged

Positive Emotions A positive attitude is valued Positive Narrative Find meaning and growth in adversity

Psychological Safety Feel safe to share ideas and warnings freely

Growth mindset

Employee development Employee satisfaction of development opportunities

Learning Culture Cultural habit of reflection and exploration Role Models Leaders demonstrate desired mindset and behavior

Recognition Acknowledge desired results, efforts and mindset Capacity for innovation A creative envt with a high risk tolerance

Internal agility

Employee Engagement Feel an affinity to this organization Tools & Information Have the tools and information they need

Continuous Improvement Perpetually seeks ways to improve Empowerment All levels demonstrate leadership and make decisions

Local Leaders Employ local leaders with local market knowledge Self-managing teams Self-organizing, teams who take initiative

Network power

Formal networking Offer satisfactory opportunities to network Inclusive culture Organization welcomes diverse people and ideas

Organizational environment Environment fosters informal interaction Unconditional Collaboration Working together towards a common mission

40

importance of humor and fun in enabling employees to recharge, or the value of psychological

safety so organizational members feel capable of raising concerns or seeking support. The

themes that emerged demonstrate how organizations can strike a balance between building

strong fundamentals while embedding flexibility in how they deploy resources and adapt the

team’s priorities. Some of these factors may appear to be more relevant to individuals, but they

can be activated in a systemic way. For example, companies can leverage corporate

communication events to generate optimism about the future, sharing the vision and concrete

actions how to deliver it. The list of potential factors is admittedly long at this stage, so the

potential actions and initiatives can be numerous. The assessment tool will be valuable in

pinpointing the most salient gaps in the organization’s capacities and focus on the specific

factors where additional actions, resources or initiatives are needed.

Looking at the factors more closely, an organization must first have a clear and compelling

vision that provides direction and engages the team behind a common mission. To boost the

organization’s resilience, the strategy must clarify the competitive advantage while being

grounded in shared values or purpose. However, the strategy must remain dynamic, evolving

as the external situation or internal needs change. A relevant strategy only drives results when

it leads to a shift in operational priorities, actions, and resource allocation. One interview subject

shared her mantra with me: the roadmap is not the reality. Surprises and short-term impacts will

inevitably come, so it is important that leaders expect it and take the necessary operational

considerations to absorb them. In order to execute with more systematic agility, organizations

should have a system in place to quickly communicate a change in priorities or direction and

ensure that they are capable of shifting resources as needed. Companies should review their

ongoing processes such as business planning to enable sufficient visibility for senior leadership

creating a platform for leaders to flag early warnings or to adapt their approach to changing

conditions. An organization is better equipped to withstand adverse conditions if they have a

diverse portfolio and a robust safety net of assets to be able to absorb shocks.

Risk management is a key theme to build an organization’s capacity for resistance through

ongoing surveillance, appropriate evaluation of risks, and demonstrating the ability to act on

them. Despite being a traditional business topic, risk management also includes the factor of

being able to accept reality and admit when results are below expectations. This factor is linked

to underlying aspects of the culture such as transparency and psychological safety which can

trigger or inhibit an organization’s ability to react when a crisis or negative impact arrives. This

41

insight relates to the next theme which suggests you can boost organizational resilience by

enhancing employees’ positive coping capabilities. Helping employees anticipate headwinds, a

positive narrative sharing the silver lining of an adverse situation can bolster their psychological

capacity and expansive problem-solving to cope with difficulties. Demonstrating optimism that

we have what it takes to face this challenge and creating moments where employees can

experience positive emotions will have a virtuous impact on individuals and the system overall.

To further build systemic resilience and their coping capabilities, organizations should promote

a positive environment where fun is encouraged and people feel safe to share their concerns,

ideas and ask for help. Organizations who create these positive conditions are likely to benefit

from improved employee wellbeing and increased resilience when needed from their team.

A growth mindset is extremely valuable to building an organization’s adaptability via a strong

focus on employee development through formal training, visible role models, recognition

programs and a learning culture where people invest time and effort to reflect and share lessons

learned. These elements trigger the conditions for innovation and exploration, which can in turn

support increased creativity and improve risk tolerance. A growth mindset is inherently linked

to the next theme of internal agility. Organizations can improve adaptability by building

employee engagement, providing relevant tools and information and empowerment. By

empowering employees at all levels to make decisions and encouraging the use of more

autonomous self-managing teams, an organization can gain flexibility to adapt to ever-evolving

conditions or changes in priorities. An organization that embraces continuous improvement is

even more likely to adapt when needed and to maintain a competitive edge. Ensuring local

versus expatriated leadership can be another strategy to ensure the company adapts enough to

local market needs while improving their situational awareness and understanding of local

market dynamics.

In addition to laying the foundation to better respond to external changes, resilient organizations

understand the value of an employees’ internal network power. Creating an inclusive culture

with high employee connectivity has the virtuous benefits of improving creativity and

collaboration, and it increases the likelihood employees will seek support when needed. The

more connected people feel to each other also improves their overall affinity for the

organization and their effectiveness and ability to problem solve (Kuntz, Malinen & Näswall,

2017). To nurture the power of employees’ networks, organizations need to be strategic in the

rhythm of formal meetings or sharing platforms while being intentional in how the office

42

environment itself leads to increased informal interactions. These efforts in building social

connections can overtly improve collaboration while simultaneously sparking positive

emotions and overall employee wellbeing.

These factors can also be used to identify how to boost support during a crisis or a profound

transformation. One general manager in Company X shared an example of how she reinforced

the support of her team as they navigated a massive business model transformation while

executing daily business demands. First, she helped them accept reality by communicating

clearly the difficulty of what they were facing. Then, she hired an external change management

consultant to set up project management tools and a platform for ongoing communication. She

then hired a coach to work with the individuals whose roles were most impacted. She also rented

a massage chair to symbolically and explicitly encourage all employees to take care of

themselves and recharge as needed during this challenging time. This leader intuitively

understood the fundamental importance of increasing support of her team, bringing in

additional resources and remaining vigilant on the wellbeing of her team. The tactics she

employed likely boosted the team’s engagement, Psycap and positive coping skills, which

expanded her team’s capacity to collaborate, problem-solve, and sustain their energy. Not only

did this team succeed in their business model transformation but they also delivered impressive

business results during this intense period. This example demonstrated how being thoughtful

and strategic about boosting the resilience of a team in a difficult moment can yield better

outcomes for all.

Companies can also leverage the diversity within the employee population in order to more

immediately tap into the mode of resistance or adaptability. In an era defined by change

management, organizations tend to celebrate change agents who drive either product or

corporate innovation. These leaders tend to have strong vision, drive, energy, and appetite to

try new things. This profile is undoubtedly valuable, especially when seeking to improve

adaptability. However, I found that it is equally important to have another type of leader that I

will call cultural anchors (see Figure 5). These leaders often have a role or personal bias or role

towards a posture of challenge or resist. Cultural anchors ensure that the company does not

make overly hasty decisions that might negatively impact the fundamentals. They often

highlight the potential risks or broader implications of proposed changes. These leaders may be

perceived as difficult or negative; however, cultural anchors play a constructive role in short-

term risk management and help ensure coherence with the values and vision that helps maintain

43

the longer-term strategic course. Senior leaders should intentionally staff projects and teams

with a balance of these profiles to spark a good level of discourse and to prepare the team’s

overall capability to adapt the response to the situation at hand versus individual biases.

Figure 5. Change Agents versus Cultural Anchors

The Organizational Role Analysis from Susan Long (2018) demonstrates the interaction of an

individual, their role, and the system itself. My research completed suggests that the same is

true for the personal, role, or organizational

bias towards either a capacity for resistance

or adaptability. Raising awareness of the

biases of individuals, teams, or the

organization itself can help leaders make

more conscious versus unconscious

choices about how they respond to

adversity. Increasing a team’s sensitivity to

the psychodynamic implications of how team members respond to risks, threats, and anxieties

can encourage them to better leverage their network or expand the range of resilience-building

tactics they employ. Celebrating the value of change agents and cultural anchors can lead to a

more inclusive environment while creating a healthy level of diversity of profiles throughout

the organization.

Organizational resilience can be built proactively and can be boosted in times of crisis. The

framework and resulting list of factors proposed make it easier for organizations to assess where

they need to focus and how they can take action to boost their systemic resilience

Limitations

As with all academic research, this study has a number of limitations. First, it is based

exclusively on a literature review and a qualitative study of one organization. The qualitative

44

approach allowed for deep exploration of the concept of resilience to discover potential

associations and factors that could emerge. However, the framework proposed has not yet been

quantitatively validated, meaning the resulting list of factors may not be exhaustive nor

statistically correlated with resistance or adaptability. The qualitative assessment of the

company’s level of resistance and adaptability was simplified into either a “low” or “high”

rating versus other companies in the industry. The resulting mapping illustrates their relative

position but is not a quantified measure.

A third limitation is the bias of my own experience and interpretation. As part of Company X,

my interpretations are informed by my personal experience of the company’s culture and its

leaders. The fact that I have a positive association with the company, senior leaders, and the

transformation the company is undertaking surely has an impact on my interpretation of the

data collected. I am also influenced by my biases given my personality and career path. I tend

to fall in love with ideas, like building things from scratch, and typically embrace change. I

have spent my career in marketing or strategy roles, which also affects the lens through which

I view the world and likely how I filter what is relevant to the organizational context.

I am conscious that even for myself, it can be difficult to give the same weight to the human

and cultural factors as the strategic and operational ones. Participating in the EMCCC program

illuminated for me how profoundly these psychological principles affect individuals as well as

the collective unconscious of the organization. I hope that this work on resilience and the more

comprehensive list of factors presented here will raise the awareness of business leaders to the

heavy impact of human and cultural dynamics on their desired performance and outcomes.

Future Research

I will continue to work with Company X to develop and administer a quantitative survey on a

broader scale to confirm the perception of resistance and adaptability noted here. I will also use

it to assess the company’s relative performance on the factors of resilience to sharpen

recommended actions on how to boost their systemic resilience. A quantitative study will enable

me to validate which factors have the strongest correlation with a perception of high resistance

or high adaptability. A quantitative factor analysis can confirm which factors are more essential

and which may be redundant. If the sample is large enough, I can also assess differences in the

perceived level of resistance and adaptability across a set of employee characteristics such as

45

seniority, gender, local versus corporate employees, function, country of origin, and business

unit. The objective is to build an assessment tool that can be used in any organization or industry

as a diagnostic of the current level of resilience, as well as providing concrete actions or

resilience-building initiatives that can be put in place. I would like to conduct additional

quantitative assessments to ensure the model remains relevant across a distinct range of

organizational contexts and industries. Additional work will be needed to explore more deeply

the impact of the cultural barriers to resilience and potentially if the dynamics of the family

who owns the company may have an influence on the organization as well.

Conclusion

Stories of resilience are pervasive: we all face adversity and want the strength and fortitude not

just to survive it, but to thrive in its wake. Looking at individual, employee, and community

resilience reveals that organizational resilience can be built by developing two seemingly

opposing capabilities: the ability to resist and the ability to adapt. I have revealed how relevant

it will be for organizations to proactively build a resilient system in anticipation of adverse

events. This thesis has shown that organizations have many factors under their control to

proactively employ resilience-building initiatives or better respond to crises. Organizations

should raise leaders’ awareness that these two paradoxical capacities of resistance and

adaptability can be developed simultaneously. The eight axes emerging from the 36 factors of

resilience offer a holistic view of the strategic, operational, human, and cultural aspects leaders

should consider when developing resilience-building routines and initiatives.

The fast pace of the global economy has intensified the frequency with which organizations

will need to deploy both resistant and adaptive measures. Leaders with a more comprehensive

understanding of organizational resilience will be better equipped to assess the demands of each

situation to determine the best response. These findings affirm the value of cultural anchors and

change agents eliciting more adaptive solutions to the various challenges that arise. Using this

robust list of factors as a diagnostic can enable organizations to develop targeted initiatives to

close internal gaps or institute new rituals that can enhance resilience in a systemic way. This

work can enable numerous organizations to better navigate an increasingly uncertain

environment, leading to improved outcomes without losing sight of the wellbeing of the team.

46

Bibliography

Annarelli, A., & Nonino, F. (2016). Strategic and operational management of organizational

resilience: Current state of research and future directions. Omega, 62, 1-18.

Carlock, R. (2018). Handout on oganizational complexity. Slides from EMCCC July 2018.

Drucker, P. (2013). Culture eats strategy for breakfast.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for

Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine.

Figueiredo, L., Honiden, T., & Schumann, A. (2018). Indicators for Resilient Cities.

Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-

and-build theory of positive emotions. American psychologist, 56(3), 218.

Hacker, S. K., & Washington, M. (2017). Spiritual intelligence: Going beyond IQ and EQ to

develop resilient leaders. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 36(3), 21-

28.

Holling, C. S. (1996). Engineering resilience versus ecological resilience. Engineering within

ecological constraints, 31(1996), 32.

Jeans, H., Thomas, S., & Castillo, G. (2016). The Future is a Choice: The Oxfam Framework

and Guidance for Resilient Development.

Jung, C. G. (1936). The concept of the collective unconscious. Collected works, 9(1), 42.

Kuntz, J. R., Malinen, S., & Näswall, K. (2017). Employee resilience: Directions for

resilience development. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 69(3),

223.

Kuntz, J. R., Näswall, K., & Malinen, S. (2016). Resilient employees in resilient

organizations: Flourishing beyond adversity. Industrial and Organizational

Psychology, 9(2), 456-462.

Kwasinski, A., Trainor, J., Wolshon, B., & Lavelle, F. M. (2016). A conceptual framework

for assessing resilience at the community scale. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute

of Standards and Technology, 16-001.

Limnios, E. A. M., Mazzarol, T., Ghadouani, A., & Schilizzi, S. G. (2014). The resilience

architecture framework: four organizational archetypes. European Management

Journal, 32(1), 104-116.

47

Long, S. (Ed.). (2013). Socioanalytic methods: discovering the hidden in organizations and

social systems. Karnac Books

Long, S., Newton, J., & Sievers, B. (Eds.). (2018). Coaching in depth: The organizational role

analysis approach. Routledge

Mayo Clinic staff. (2017). Resilience: Build skills to endure hardship.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/resilience-training/in-

depth/resilience/art-20046311

Niebuhr, R. (1944). A Book of Prayers and Services for the Armed Forces.

Pietkiewicz, I., & Smith, J. A. (2014). A practical guide to using interpretative

phenomenological analysis in qualitative research psychology. Psychological journal,

20(1), 7-14.

Quinlan, A. E., Berbés‐Blázquez, M., Haider, L. J., & Peterson, G. D. (2016). Measuring and

assessing resilience: broadening understanding through multiple disciplinary

perspectives. Journal of Applied Ecology, 53(3), 677-687.

Rockefeller, A. R. U. P. (2015). City Resilience Index.Schipper, E. L. F., & Langston, L.

(2015). A comparative overview of resilience measurement frameworks. Analyzing

indicators and approaches. Overseas Development Institute.

Toor, S. U. R., & Ofori, G. (2009). Positive psychological capital as a source of sustainable

competitive advantage for organizations. Journal of Construction Engineering and

Management, 136(3), 341-352.

Tugade, M. M., Devlin, H. C., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2014). Infusing positive emotions into

life: the broaden-and-build theory and a dual-process model of resilience. Handbook

of positive emotions, 28-43.

Van Der Vegt, G. S., Essens, P., Wahlström, M., & George, G. (2015). Managing risk and

resilience.

Wagnild, G. (2009). A review of the Resilience Scale. Journal of nursing measurement, 17(2),

105-113.

Walker, B., & Salt, D. (2012). Resilience practice: building capacity to absorb disturbance

and maintain function. Island Press.

48

Annex

Appendix A – Definitions of Resilience (Quinlan & Berbes-Blázquez, 2016).

Appendix A (continued)

49

Appendix B – Compiled definitions of resilience from Literature Review

50

51

Appendix C – Types of risks concerning community resilience (Figueiredo, L., Honiden, T.,

& Schumann, A. 2018)

52

Appendix D - Committee on Sustainable Assessment (COSA) resilience factors for communities facing the effects of climate change (Schipper, E. L. F., & Langston, L. 2015)

53

Appendix D (continued)

54

Appendix E – Resilience-building Initiatives (Kuntz, J. R., Näswall, K., & Malinen, S. 2016)

commitment to the organization (Ballard, 2014; Baumeister & Alghamdi, 2015; Chen et al., 2015;

Sommer et al., 2016). The initiatives described should be viewed as “culture shapers” that stimulatewell-being, engagement, and prosocial behaviors.

Recognition. Organizations typically use formal and informal approaches to recognize perfor-mance excellence, the attainment of outstanding results along established criteria (e.g., Ballard,2014). Although this outcome-focused approach to employee recognition is important, we posit thata process approach whereby employees are also acknowledged for their contributions to everydayorganizational functioning is equally significant, as it reinforces desirable work behaviors. Hence,employees should be acknowledged and rewarded for getting involved in change-related activities(e.g., as change champions), for prosocial behaviors (e.g., peer support, organizational advocacy),and for proactive behaviors (e.g., rethinking processes to increase efficiencies; see Table 2).

Table 2Resilience-Building Initiatives—Valuing Employees

Area Initiatives

Recognition Offer verbal recognition for the following behaviors:• Achieving or exceeding performance targets• Involvement in change-related activities (e.g., championing change;

supporting change processes, including communications)• Prosocial behaviors (e.g., helping team members beyond role requirements)• Proactive behaviors (e.g., offering innovative solutions to existing problems,

improving current practices, anticipating challenges/issues, expandinginternal and external networks, and utilizing mistakes as learning tools)

This can be done either one-on-one (e.g., through formal performance-relateddiscussions or informally) or in a team/collective environment (e.g., awards,team meetings)

Well-being focus Implement or support the implementation of health and well-being initiatives• Drive organization-led health and well-being interventions to address

employee needs and build resilience capability (e.g., personal resilienceworkshops, mindfulness training)

• Acknowledge employee workload and contributions in light of their off-work obligations

• Provide work–life balance options suitable to a range of personalcircumstances (e.g., allow flexible work hours when feasible)

• Support employee-led strategies to develop well-being (e.g., facilitateconnections with external entities that may bring in knowledge aroundwell-being at work, or agree to sponsor employee-led approaches towell-being development)

Create a sense of belongingness and identification with the organization• Use performance-appraisal process and informal exchanges to identify

individual and collective needs, values, and goals, in order to effectivelycommunicate a sense of alignment and belongingness

• Clarify the value and impact of individual contributions to the organization(e.g., team- or unit-specific discussions of milestone achievements in theorganization)

Workplace civility Implement policies and procedures that support team building and workplacecivility

• Specify organizational norms around civility (e.g., induction process, formaltraining)

• Use organizational exemplars (e.g., case studies) to highlight the positiveoutcomes of civility (e.g., increased social support and performance), andthe organizational and personal costs associated with incivility (e.g., illhealth, turnover)

• Leaders to role-model civil behaviors• Increase opportunities for informal/social interactions among coworkers

Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.

229DEVELOPMENT OF EMPLOYEE RESILIENCE

55

Appendix F – Source of Factors of Resilience

Source Theme Factor of Resilience Type of Resilience Lit review Compelling Strategy Competitive Advantage Organizational Lit review Compelling Strategy Organizational values Organizational Lit review Compelling Strategy Strategic Vision Organizational Lit review Dynamic planning Dynamic Strategy Organizational Lit review Dynamic planning Resource Allocation Organizational Lit review Growth mindset Employee development Employee Lit review Growth mindset Learning Culture Organizational Lit review Internal agility Access to tools & Information Community Lit review Internal agility Continuous Improvement Organizational Lit review Internal agility Employee Engagement Individual Lit review Internal agility Empowerment Organizational Lit review Internal agility Self-managing teams Employee Lit review Network power Formal networking Employee Lit review Network power Inclusive culture Organizational Lit review Network power Organizational environment Employee Lit review Network power Unconditional Collaboration Employee Lit review Positive Coping Available Support Community Lit review Positive Coping Humor and Fun Individual Lit review Positive Coping Optimism & Hope Individual Lit review Positive Coping Positive Emotions Individual Lit review Positive Coping Positive Narrative Individual Lit review Positive Coping Psychological Safety Individual Lit review Risk Mgmt Accept Reality Organizational Lit review Risk Mgmt Ongoing Surveillance Organizational Lit review Risk Mgmt Operational response Organizational Lit review Strong Fundamentals Strong assets Community Lit review Strong Fundamentals Structuring processes Organizational Interviews Dynamic planning Transparent communication Organizational Interviews Growth mindset Capacity for innovation Community Interviews Growth mindset Recognition Organizational Interviews Growth mindset Role Models Individual Interviews Internal agility Local Leaders Organizational Interviews Positive Coping Anticipate Risks Individual Interviews Risk Mgmt Risk Evaluation Organizational Interviews Risk Mgmt Speed of Recovery Community Interviews Strong Fundamentals Diverse Portfolio Organizational