Organizational Resilience: A Valuable Construct for Management Research?
| Date | 01 January 2021 |
| Author | Edeltraud Guenther,Julia Hillmann |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12239 |
| Published date | 01 January 2021 |
International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 23, 7–44 (2021)
DOI: 10.1111/ijmr.12239
Organizational Resilience: A Valuable
Construct for Management Research?
Julia Hillmann1and Edeltraud Guenther 2,3
1Faculty of Business and Economics, Technische Universität Dresden, Muenchner Platz 1/3, Dresden, 01062,
Germany, 2Integrated Management of Material Fluxes and Resources (UNU-FLORES), United Nations University,
Ammonstrasse 74, Dresden, 01067, Germany, and 3Technische Universität Dresden
Corresponding author email: ema@mailbox.tu-dresden.de
Recently, the concept of resilience has gained new momentum in organization studies.
It is held to be a very promising concept to explain how organizations can survive and
thrive amidst adversity or turbulence. However, findings from an earlier review about
resilience in the organizational and business context show that, although empirical re-
search on the concept has increased, there is still a need for more clarity in terms of
its measurement. The aim of this paper is to present a systematic review of the orga-
nizational resilience construct that covers both conceptual and operational issues. We
discuss why researcherscriticize resilience for being fuzzy and move on to identify and
analyse existing literature under the lens of construct development and taxonomies.
With this study, we aim to point out conceptual problems for future researchers to
address conceptual clarity and to develop a clearer, more parsimonious concept. We
conclude with a suggestion about future measurement.
Introduction
‘Make your organization more resilient’ seems to
be the buzz phrase in management practice recently.
Practitioner journals or daily newspapers (e.g. Har-
vard Business Review,Strategy and Business or New
Yor k Ti me s) propose how to make organizationsmore
resilient. The concept has recently gained new mo-
mentum in high-quality management journals (e.g.
Clement and Rivera 2017; DesJardine et al. 2017;
Limnios et al. 2014; Linnenluecke 2017; Williams
et al. 2017). Although the concept is considered
promising, it has been criticized for being vague
and lacking a consistent definition, thus reducing
the significance of the concept for practice and re-
search (e.g. Amann and Jaussaud 2012; Burnard and
Bhamra 2011; Linnenluecke 2017). A clearly de-
fined and measurable concept, however, is needed for
scientific relevance (Bacharach 1989; Edwards and
[Correction added on January 7, 2021, after first online
publication affiliation Technische Universität Dresden was
added for Edeltraud Martha Guenther].
Bagozzi 2000; Podsakoff et al. 2016). Empirical re-
search on organizational resilience – although it has
increased – is still sparse in terms of a valid measure-
ment scale of organizational resilience (e.g. Aleksi´
c
et al. 2013; Mallak 1998a; Pal et al. 2014; Richtnér
and Löfsten 2014).
Over the last years, the body of research on re-
silience in business and management has increased
strongly (Linnenluecke 2017). There are existing lit-
erature reviews on resilience already with different
aims or objectives (Table 1).
Taken together, these reviews have been very use-
ful in advancing our understanding of the nature of
organizational resilience. Following a recent review
by Linnenluecke (2017), measuring organizational
resilience is one remaining avenue for future research
– to which some challenges are attached.
Challenges in the conceptualization
of organizational resilience
Researchers criticize the concept for being fuzzy
and, therefore, lacking a consistent definition, which
This is an open access article under the terms of the CreativeCommonsAttribution License, which permits use, distribution
and reproduction in any medium, provided the original workis properly cited.
© 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Management Reviews published by British Academyof Management and John
Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street,
Malden, MA 02148, USA
8J. Hillmann and E. Guenther
Table1. Outline of reviews on resiliencein the business and management context
Review Key focus
Williams et al. (2017) Integrates two research streams and develops a frameworkrelated to the key themes of crisis and
resilience research; defines capabilities for durability, organizingand adjusting, responding to
major disturbances, and a feedback loop from these experiences.
Linnenluecke (2017) Focuses on historical development of resilience in business and management literature; identifies
five streams of literature based on a Histcite-analysis.
Limnios et al. (2014) Develops a typology for organizational resilience; authors show that resilience can have desirable
and undesirable aspects.
Bhamra et al. (2011) Reviews the literature on resilience in the context of organizations and identifies the ecological
perspective as most prominently reflected in the literature; based on that they define resilience
for organizations.
Erol et al. (2010) Reviews the literature and conceptualizes resilience with the focus on concepts of ecology and
systems; authors aim to provide a holistic definition of resilience.
reduces the significance of the concept for practice
and research (e.g. Amann and Jaussaud 2012; Brand
and Jax 2007; Burnard and Bhamra 2011; Linnen-
luecke 2017).
First, organizational resilience is defined in many
ways, for example as a capability, capacity, char-
acteristic, outcome, process, behaviour, strategy or
approach, type of performance or a mix of these.
Lengnick-Hall et al. (2011) criticize resilience re-
search for being descriptive and outcome focused,
thus investigating only antecedents or sources that
lead to a resilient outcome. However, other studies
follow the idea that organizational resilience is the
substance for development and a priori measurabil-
ity (e.g. Akgün and Keskin 2014; Stephenson 2010;
Sutcliffe and Vogus 2003). Some researchers have
conceptualized resilience as a process that ultimately
leads to a resilient outcome (Sutcliffe and Vogus
2003). Here, resilience is a process of how organi-
zations deal with adversity to achieve a resilient out-
come (Sutcliffe and Vogus 2003), or a process that
links together ‘a set of adaptive capacities to a posi-
tive trajectory of entrepreneurial functioning after a
crisis, disturbance, or challenge’ (Sun et al. 2011,
p. 185). Following Carmeli and Markman (2011),
it is an ongoing process of capture and governance
strategies. Conceptualizing resilience as a process is
problematic for two reasons: first, it makes it hard
to recognize resilience as the process is somehow a
‘black box’; second, it renders measuring it difficult
as it can only be assessed ex-post – in case the pro-
cess was successful (Boin and van Eeten 2013).
Other researchers understand resilience as a capa-
bility or capacity, and thus apply a capability-based
understanding of the concept (e.g. Duchek 2014;
Williams et al. 2017). Richtnér and Löfsten (2014)
critically raise the idea that a capacity is to be distin-
guished from a capability. The resilience literature,
however, is unclear about what it means to have a
resilience capacity and a resilience capability. The
words seem to be used interchangeably. Lengnick-
Hall et al. (2011) specify that having a resilience ca-
pacity is not equal to having a resilience capability.
Richtnér and Löfsten (2014, p. 138) elaborate and
point out that ‘having a capability means having both
ability and capacity, and it is only when a capac-
ity for resilience is transformed into action in an or-
ganization that resilience becomes an organizational
capability’.
Second, resilience is studied in relation to sev-
eral events (see Linnenluecke 2017 for a review of
conceptual development based on historical events).
Therefore, the change phenomenon does play a cru-
cial role in conceptualizing resilience, which, fol-
lowing Koslowski et al. (2013), is another reason
for fuzziness of the concept. As Martin-Breen and
Anderies (2011) address, researchers need to answer
the question ‘resilience to what?’ to study resilience.
Hereby,it is assumed that resilience differs according
to the nature of change and can only be assessed or
described for a specific phenomenon. In that sense,
a clear resilience definition should include common
aspects of resilience as well as context-specific as-
pects in order to better understand the kind of re-
silience the researcher is investigating. Resilience has
been related to a multitude of change phenomena
such as surprises (e.g. ecological surprises) or unex-
pected events, disruptive events (e.g. terrorism, ex-
treme weather events, data loss, fire) or more general
types of change (e.g. climate change, environmental
change). Besides that, resilience has also been re-
lated to the characteristics of the environment (e.g.
dynamic, complex, uncertain and turbulent).
Third, another confusion about the concept evolves
around whether resilience is a single or multi-level
concept (Linnenluecke 2017). The literature has
© 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Management Reviews published by British Academy of Management and
John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Organizational Resilience 9
constructed resilience at different levels or empha-
sized that organizational resilience is achieved at
collective levels, that is through employees and
teams. One section of the literature has constructed
resilience at the organizational level. Here, organi-
zational resilience is ‘derived from a set of specific
organizational capabilities, routines, practices, and
processes by which a firm conceptually orients
itself, acts to move forward and creates a setting of
diversity and adjustable integration’ (Lengnick-Hall
et al. 2011, p. 246). Another section of the litera-
ture focuses on resilience at the individual level to
understand organizational resilience. This infers that
the organization can only be as resilient as its indi-
viduals (Coutu 2002; Horne 1997; Horne and Orr
1998; Mallak 1998a; Shin et al. 2012). McCoy and
Elwood (2009) refer to the ‘psychological contract’
(the way employees feel treated), which influences
organizational resilience. Thus, individual resilience
and organizational resilience are linked and recipro-
cally influence each other (Riolli and Savicki 2003).
Understanding individual resilience is only a starting
point to understand organizational resilience, which
is an additive composite of individual capabilities
and actions (Lengnick-Hall et al. 2011). However,
Horne and Orr (1998) also point out that just having
resilient individuals is not the key to organizational
resilience – as too many strong resilient individuals
can even be a barrier to the development of the shared
vision that is needed for resilience. It is the collective
level of actions that make up the resilient response.
Therefore, a further section of the literature fo-
cuses on a more collective level, such as groups or
organizational units (e.g. Gittell et al. 2006; Pow-
ley 2013; Salanova et al. 2012; Sutcliffe and Vogus
2003). This is important, as actions and decisions are
enacted at a more collective level (Antunes 2011;
Chewning et al. 2013; Horne and Orr 1998). Git-
tell et al. (2006) point out that social relationships
influence organizational outcomes such as resilience
as they are shaped by how people work together to
achieve those outcomes.
Fourth, with regard to capability-based under-
standings, the question arises whether there are com-
mon pathways to resilience, whether resilience is
equifinal to the organization or if resilience exhibits
both aspects. This raises the issues of idiosyncrasy,
equifinality and commonalities of capabilities that
are discussed in research on dynamic capabilities and
the resource-based view. There are diverging views
regarding the assumption about the degree of het-
erogeneity of each organization’s resilience. The as-
sumption that resilience differs for every company
or industry is obvious, since resilience is inherent
to an organization and is dependent on its resources
and capabilities, which differ between companies
and also differ between industries. Horne (1997)
points out that every organization has its own way
to achieve resilience, thus there is no ‘magic ten-
step formula’. This idea is not new to organizational
resilience research. It is already well discussed in
contingency approaches in management research. An
organization’s resilience is therefore path-dependent
and idiosyncratic (Ortiz-de-Mandojana and Bansal
2016). Authors have discussed the equifinality of
resilience-related capabilities and showed that small
and medium-sized companies have different ways
of achieving it than large companies (Aleksi´
cet al.
2013; Burnard and Bhamra 2011; Chan 2011; De-
wald and Bowen 2010; Gunasekaran et al. 2011; Is-
mail et al. 2011; Pal et al. 2014; Sullivan-Taylor and
Branicki 2011). Other researchers have discussed dif-
ferences of resilience between family and non-family
firms (e.g. Acquaah et al. 2011; Amann and Jaussaud
2012; Danes et al. 2009). Others have tried to com-
pare resilience across organizations and industries,
and aimed to identify commonalities across organi-
zations (e.g. McCann et al. 2009; Seville et al. 2007;
Stephenson 2010).
Finally, it is discussed whether resilience is a
strategic or an operational-level aspect. The supply
chain resilience literature clearly sets its focus on the
operational level and is about maintaining function-
ality and service delivery (e.g. Jüttner and Maklan
2011; Pettit et al. 2010; Ponomarov and Holcomb
2009; Sheffi and Rice 2005; Zsidisin and Wagner
2010). Other researchers focus on the strategic role
of resilience (e.g. Carmeli and Markman 2011; de
Oliveira Teixeira and Werther 2013; Hamel and
Välikangas2003). Some authors argue that resilience
is only achieved through the alignment of both
levels. For example, Acquaah et al. (2011) state
that resilience is the ability to align manufacturing
strategies with competitive strategies. Carmeli and
Markman (2011) state that organizational resilience
means that a company is able to balance expan-
sion strategies with governance issues. Ismail et al.
(2011) provide a similar view and state that a re-
silient company is able to grow and capitalize upon
trends in the market, but at the same time is able
to meet the current market demands. Consequently,
true organizational resilience seems to be a sum of
partial resiliencies that are strategic and operational
(Ismail et al. 2011; Välikangas and Romme 2012).
© 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Management Reviews published by British Academyof Management and John
Wiley & Sons Ltd.
To continue reading
Request your trial