Measuring future resilience: a multilevel index

• Pages: 252-267
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-01-2020-0044
• Published date: 22 October 2020
• Date: 22 October 2020
• Subject Matter: Corporate governance,Strategy
• Author: Wayne Visser

Measuring future resilience: a

multilevel index

Wayne Visser

Abstract

Purpose –For the purpose of applied research,we are interested in deriving and measuringmulti-level

future resilience,from a human capital perspective. This paper aimsto set the theoretical foundations for

a futureresilience index to be launched in 2020.

Design/methodology/approach –Based on a review of the literature on individual,organisational and

socio-ecological resilience, the researcher has distilled 10 elements of future resilience. These were

elaboratedinto a 20-question index, which has beenpiloted with an anonymous organisation.

Findings –The 10 elements of future resilience, which the index will seek to measure include:

emergency preparedness; creative adaptability; technological empowerment; dynamic employability;

diversity cultivation;participative governance; systemicresponsiveness; resource efficiency; purposeful

motivation; andwell-being orientation. Illustrative findingsfrom the pilot show that organisational support

for resilience acrossall 10 categories is seen as weaker than individuals’ perceptionof their own level of

resilience.

Practical implications –The areas of strong versus weak performance revealed by the index, either

individuallyor in terms of organisational support,give organisations a clear set of prioritiesfor follow-up.

Social implications –This paper has demonstratedthat future resilience is a highly relevant and useful

conceptfor society, organisations and individualsin these rapidly changing times.

Originality/value –Through the future resilience index, being developed by Antwerp Management

School in collaboration with Randstad, this paper wants to encourage behaviours and capacities

amongst employees that will increase resilience at the individual, organisational and socio-ecological

levels. This is the first multi-level resilience measurement instrument aimed at human capital

measurement.

Keywords Human capital, Sustainable development, Sustainability, Resilience, Integrated value,

Human resource development

Paper type Conceptual paper

This paper has been prepared as part of the bilateralresearch project between Antwerp

Management School (AMS) and RandstadBelgium, as part of the Chair in Sustainable

Transformation that RandstadBelgium supports. It sets the theoretical foundations for the

Randstad future resilienceindex to be launched in 2020. The paper was presented at the

ABIS Colloquium in Berlin in October 2019.

1. Future resilience as a conceptual foundation

Resilience can be defined as “the capability and ability of an element to return to a stable

state after a disruption”(Bhamraa et al.,2011).

Resilience is a function of complex systems (Comfort et al., 2001;Fiksel, 2006)andcan

be applied at multiple levels, such as ecosystems (Bodin and Wiman, 2004;Brand,

2009), society (Allenby and Fink, 2005), communities (Norris, 2008), organisations

(Barnett and Pratt, 2000;Starr et al., 2003) and individuals (Luthans et al., 2006;

Powley, 2009).

Wayne Visser is based at

Antwerp Management

School, Antwerp, Belgium.

Received 31 January 2020

Revised 5 May 2020

12 June 2020

22 June 2020

30 June 2020

Accepted 17 September 2020

This research was conducted

with the support of Randstad

Belgium.

PAGE 252 jCORPORATE GOVERNANCE jVOL. 21 NO. 2 2021, pp. 252-267, ©Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1472-0701 DOI 10.1108/CG-01-2020-0044

As there is no existing definition yet about future resilience in relation to human capital and

the way to measure it, we will explore related concepts to create our own index of human

capital future resilience. In this paper, we will, thus, take into account socio-ecological

resilience, organisational resilience and individual resilience, from a human capital

perspective.

1.1 Socio-ecological resilience

Fiksel (2003) identifies four major systemcharacteristics that contribute to resilience. These

include diversity –the existence of multiple formsand behaviours; efficiency –performance

with modest resource consumption; adaptability –flexibility to change in response to new

pressures; and cohesion –the existence of unifying relationships and linkages between

system variables and elements.

According to the Stockholm Resilience Centre (Biggs et al.,2015), there are seven

principles for building resiliencein a socio-ecological system:

1. Maintain diversity and redundancy. Diversity gives more chance for creative adaptation

while redundancy (duplication, slack, failsafe measures) provide spare capacity for

when a crisis puts extra demands on a system.

2. Manage connectivity. The ability to maintain corridors of movement and lines of

communication allows a system to continue to function, as well as to spread or share

solutions to the crisis.

3. Manage slow variables and feedbacks. This means actively responding to issues

where there is a delay between cause and effect, such as between carbon emissions

and climate change or increased inequality and knock-on social problems.

4. Foster complex adaptive systems thinking. There are no simple solutions to complex

problems, so we need to look for linkages and leverage points, while constantly

adapting and testing multiple actions.

5. Encourage learning. Not repeating the mistakes of the past –and learning from the hard

lessons of others –leads to better resilience, such as Japan’s increasingly

sophisticated earthquake response systems.

6. Broaden participation. Responding to crises requires collective efforts and cross-

sector collaboration, so the more that people or organisations that are already set up for

participation and engagement, the better.

7. Promote polycentric governance. Bottom-up systems of governance generally result in

better resilience than rigid top-down hierarchical structures, as they allow for locally

adapted responses and the emergence of creative solutions.

1.2 Organisational resilience

Vogus and Sutcliffe (2008) define resilience as the maintenance of positive adjustment

under challenging conditions such that the organisation emerges from those conditions

strengthened and more resourceful. By “challenging conditions” they include discrete

errors, scandals, crises and shocks and disruptions of routines, as well as ongoing risks

(e.g. competition), stresses andstrain.

In other words, enduring ongoing strain and recovering from discrete jolts implies the

presence of latent resources that can be activated, combined and recombined in new

situations as challenges arise. The ability to adapt in one period increases the probability of

being able to do so in the next. Hence, resilience relies upon past learning and fosters

future learning, drawing on a broadstore of capabilities.

VOL. 21 NO. 2 2021 jCORPORATE GOVERNANCE jPAGE 253