Unraveling the meaning and measurement of organizational resilience

Over the previous three decades, organizational resilience capability has become increasingly important for enterprises in today's continuously changing environment (Erol, Sauser, & Mansouri, 2010; Vogus & Sutcliffe, 2007). Technological breakthroughs and interconnected globalization has made enterprises vulnerable to unexpected and even minimal changes that precipitate or nudge profound outcomes (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2011).

Resilience capability is regarded as a unique property crucial for business survival and prosperity, particularly during turbulent times and in high velocity environments (Lengnick-Hall & Beck, 2009; Pettit, Fiksel, & Croxton, 2010; Sheffi, 2005a). Resilience capability enables enterprises to anticipate and understand current conditions, to allocate its people and resources flexibly (Erol et al., 2010), to change and adapt in an efficient and timely manner (Hamel & Valikangas, 2003; Sullivan-Taylor & Branicki, 2011), and to self-renew over time (Reinmoeller & Van Baardwijk, 2005). However, despite the theoretical and empirical progress made to date, scholarship has been constrained by a lack of theoretical foundation, construct clarity, and operational inconsistency. The present thesis aims to address these major shortcomings by integrating three paradigms: The 3-component resilience capacity framework (Lengnick-Hall & Beck, 2005), the dynamic capabilities framework (Teece, 2007), and new thinking on micro foundations. This integration enables the formulation of a proposed model that combines the cognitive, behavioral, and micro-foundational components underlying organizational resilience.

This thesis adopts a systematic and novel approach to evaluating what scholars have written via a comprehensive and technical examination of the literature (articles published between 1988 and 2016 across ten computerized databases). Major articles were systematically reviewed using a machine-based text analysis, Leximancer, revealing which themes pervade the field of scholarship based on what is written. In utilizing this approach, the current thesis focuses on concepts and themes that emerge from the text without allowing reading of articles to influence what was derived conceptually (thus reducing bias), as might be the case in narrative reviews. This approach is one that permits the text to reveal itself via the relationships found among the words themselves.
The present thesis is structured as follows. First, Chapter 2 reviews and integrates scholarly papers categorized along methodological lines (quantitative versus qualitative) in order to gain a comprehensive appreciation of the construct of organizational resilience in the business and management area. Chapter 3 introduces and discusses theories that underpin this thesis: The 3-component resilience capacity framework, the dynamic capabilities theory, and the major conceptual frameworks involving the levels (especially micro-foundational), mechanisms, antecedents, and outcomes of organizational resilience.

Chapter 4 involves a series of content analyses of definitions of organizational resilience obtained from a systematic search during the period 1988-2016. The aim of this investigation is to unravel the theoretical meaning of organizational resilience, and more specifically, to discern the stability and reliability of essential components of this construct. This Chapter consists of three interrelated studies. Study 1.1 is an in-depth content analysis of all definitions of organizational resilience, deconstructing definitions to identify prominent components. Study 1.2 examines the conceptual evolution of organizational resilience clustered across three periods: 1988-2007, 2008-2012, and 2013-2016 to determine whether the prominence of those components from Study 1.1 vary in tandem with the change of periods. Study 1.3 explores whether the prominence of components from Study 1.1 change according to theoretical and methodological orientation, be it, conceptual, quantitative, and qualitative.

Briefly, Study 1 reveals that organizational resilience involves three principal cognitive capabilities: anticipating, sensing, and situation awareness, and four behavioral capabilities: adaptability, flexibility, agility, and innovation. The cognitive component provides a foundation for organizational behavior. The behavioral component enables a firm to respond effectively and successfully to unexpected events. The prominence of these components varies in tandem with the period of time and with the different types of orientation, be it: conceptual, qualitative, and quantitative.

Chapters 5 (Study 2) concerns a series of content analyses of the measures of organizational resilience obtained from a systematic search during the period 1988-2016. The aim is to explore the operational meaning of organizational resilience and to determine the reliability of essential components of this construct. This Chapter contains two interrelated studies. Study 2.1 textually analyzes all measures of organizational resilience during the period 1988-2016, decomposing measures to pinpoint dominant components. Study 2.2 examines the operational evolution of organizational resilience clustered across three periods: 1988-2007, 2008-2012, and 2013-2016 to ascertain whether the prominence of those components from Study 2.1 vary in tandem with the change of periods. Overall, findings reveal that organizational resilience comprises micro-foundational capabilities including entrepreneurial leadership, decision-making, and social capital with access to information and knowledge. The prominence of these capabilities does not vary in tandem with the time period.

Chapter 6 (Study 3) took findings of the textual analyses of organizational resilience (Studies 1 & 2) to entrepreneurs of SMEs. Study 3 conducted an exploratory investigation on the importance and time sensitivity of the capabilities of organizational resilience. Findings indicate that the three cognitive (e.g., situation awareness, sensing, anticipating), four behavioral (e.g., adaptability, flexibility, agility, innovation), and four micro-foundational (e.g., leadership, decision-making, social capital, information and knowledge) capabilities are regarded as important by entrepreneurs, irrespective of adversity phases. Moreover, the most memorable crises are related to micro-foundational factors: stakeholders, clients, key staff, and firm partners. However, the during-adversity phase, compared to the pre- and post- adversity phases, is considered critical by  entrepreneurs.

This thesis concludes with a unifying definition that can bring coherence and clarity for future research. By linking the theoretical understanding, operational meaning, and contextual contingencies (extreme negative environmental conditions, time), organizational resilience is defined as a time-sensitive and second-order construct that incorporates a pattern of higher-order organizational dynamic capabilities and micro-foundations, which altogether enable firms to anticipate and sense current conditions, to allocate people and resources flexibly, and to change and adapt in an innovative and timely manner, in order to address extreme negative events.

Within the context of this definition, this thesis elaborates upon and dissects the texture of organizational resilience into its components, capabilities, and levels. Organizational resilience embodies three components (i.e., cognitive, behavioral, and micro-foundational). The cognitive and behavioral components incorporate higher-order dynamic capabilities at the organization-level, whereas the micro-foundations emphasize the individual-level. Capabilities are expressed differently at different time phases (e.g., before, during, & post an event) of extreme negative conditions.

The corollary of formulating of an integrative definition of organizational resilience will promote theoretical discourse and empirical investigations concerning the nature, constituents, enablers, and outcomes of organizational resilience, helping to bridge the current disconnect between theoretical development and operationalization of this construct, and ultimately contribute to our understanding of organizational survival and sustainable competitive advantage.