Search results

Interest in psychological resilience has grown rapidly in the last couple of decades (Britt, Sinclair, & McFadden, 2016; King & Rothstein, 2010; Youssef & Luthans, 2007). Psychological resilience occurs when a person can “recover, re-bound, bounce-back, adjust or even thrive” in the face of adversity (Garcia-Dia, DiNapoli, Garcia-Ona, Jakubowski, & O’flaherty, 2013, p. 264). As such, resilience can be conceptualized as a state-like and malleable construct that can be enhanced in response to stressful events (Kossek & Perrigino, 2016). It incorporates a dynamic process by which individuals use protective factors (internal and external) to positively adapt to stress over time (Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker, 2000; Rutter, 1987). Building on the dual-pathway model of resilience, we integrate adaptive and proactive coping to the resilience development process and add a heretofore unexamined perspective to the ways in which resilience changes over time. We propose that resilience development trajectories differ depending on the type of adversity or stress experienced in combination with the use of adaptive and proactive coping. We outline the need for future longitudinal studies to examine these relationships and the implications for developing resilience interventions in the workplace.

Resilience is critical for organizations in today's volatile business environment, yet some will survive (and even thrive) despite adversity, while others will perish. Why do some organizations handle adversity better than others? The past literature confirms the importance of specific resources, capabilities and structures in dealing with adversity. However, empirical research on organizational resilience remains highly diverse, and the available results have not yet been presented succinctly.

A literature review of empirical research on organizational resilience was conducted to summarize the diverse findings of 69 studies, focusing on the factors that lead to resilience.

Several building blocks affect how organizations successfully anticipate, cope with and adapt to adversity. Anticipation entails environmental scanning, resilience plans, specific leadership behavior and resources. Coping necessitates particular leadership qualities, a certain organizational culture and innovation. Adaptation requires an organization to learn from adversity and initiate change processes, which influences its ability to anticipate adversity in the long run.

By exclusively analyzing empirical research on organizational resilience, this study summarizes and assembles the results into building blocks for organizational resilience. The findings elaborate on the composition of a concept that is known for its complexity.

Building on the recent capability-based conceptualisation of resilience, this paper aims to explore whether the experience of a previous crisis and entrepreneur resilience are associated with Small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs') adoption of different anticipation strategies for adversities.

Using original survey data on 959 Italian and German SMEs, the research uses a multinomial logistic regression model in order to test the influence of the prior experience of a crisis and the entrepreneur resilience on the likelihood of adopting different anticipation strategies.

The paper shows that the previous experience of a crisis increases the likelihood of regularly adopting proactive but non-formalised anticipation actions while decreasing the likelihood of adopting a pure reactive strategy to adversities; in addition, entrepreneur resilience is nonlinearly associated with anticipation strategies.

The main originalities rely on eschewing a pure binary view in relation to the organisational choice of adopting a reactive or a proactive approach towards adversities and on considering the entrepreneur resilience as a factor with both “bright” and “dark” side effects in relation to the anticipation of adversities.

Negotiators are offered limited advice on how to overcome adverse events. Drawing on resilience and coping literatures, this study aims to test the impact of three cognitive processing strategies on negotiators’ subjective and economic value following adversity.

Participants completed two negotiations with the same partner. The difficulty of the first negotiation was manipulated and tested how cognitive processing of this experience influenced subjective and economic outcomes in the second negotiation.

Subjective and economic outcomes were predicted by negotiators’ affect, their cognitive processing strategy and negotiation difficulty. In difficult negotiations, as positive affect increased, proactive processing decreased self-satisfaction. As negative affect increased, affective processing increased satisfaction with relationship and process.

Cognitive processing of adversity is most effective when emotions are not running high and better able to protect relationship- and process-oriented satisfaction than outcome-oriented satisfaction. The findings apply to one specific type of adversity and to circumstances that do not generate strong emotions.

This research tests which of three cognitive processing strategies is best able to prevent the aftermath of a difficult negotiation from spilling over into subsequent negotiations. Two forms of proactive processing are more effective than immersive processing in mitigating the consequences.

Shane and Venkataraman (2000) and Venkataraman (1997) suggest that the field of entrepreneurship seeks to understand how opportunities are discovered, created, and exploited, by whom, and with what consequences (italic added). Surprisingly and despite the fact that the person – the entrepreneur – is central to the creation of new ventures, entrepreneurship scholars are reluctant to explicitly include individual differences in formal models of new venture formation. For example, notwithstanding the important role that entrepreneurs play in forging new wealth and creating new jobs, research to identify cognitive processes, attitudes, behaviors, traits, or other characteristics that distinguish entrepreneurs from others who opt to work as employees remains somewhat marginal. Indeed, only very few studies on individual differences have been published in leading management journals. One possible explanation for this reluctance is that in the past researchers might have classified most individual differences as traits research and thus criticism spilled over to include all individual difference research, regardless of whether the focus was trait, cognitions, emotions, attitudes, behaviors, or other characteristics.

The purpose of this paper is to arrive at a conceptual understanding of perseverance processes in the context of enterprising behavior and to outline readily employable perseverance strategies for situations characterized by obstacles, challenges and setbacks.

This paper presents a process model of perseverance, drawing on elements of control theory and appraisal theory.

From this model, a variety of perseverance strategies within four broad categories is derived: strategies that affect adversity itself; strategies that change the way adversity is perceived; strategies that reframe the aim that adversity has made difficult to attain; and strategies that help to increase self‐regulatory strength. James Dyson's biography provides examples for the strategies.

The paper discusses a broad variety of strategies to help individuals persevere in reaching their enterprising goals.

Although it is a widely held perception that perseverance is needed to successfully start and run a venture, the perseverance process and perseverance strategies have received little research attention.

This paper aims to present the how resilience can mitigate workplace adversity and human resource practices (HRPs) to build capacity for resilience in employees.

A review of the literature was conducted for employee resilience.

Resilience can mitigate the negative effects of occupational and workplace adversity on employees. HRPs through job design, training and development and social support were found to foster capacity for resilience in employees and support organizational performance.

Organizations can use the findings to build organizational and human resource (HR) strategies to develop employee resilience.

The value of the paper is in presenting how employee resilience can lessen negative effects from workplace adversity and provide HR strategies to build resilience.

The purpose of this paper is to examine what helps people come through difficult events and circumstances.

A search was carried out for recent papers on adversity and thriving.

One paper reviewed 27 studies of coping and wellbeing after adversities. Maybe some kinds of adversity can help us get stronger, but people’s social contexts were not considered and the studies measured different things that may not be as easily compared as first appears. A second paper examined wellbeing at work, and reported that a certain type of supervisor is important for preventing burnout. The final paper reported on 55 people who survived depression. Many (though not all) participants felt their life was better than before. Surviving was assisted by practical and social support rather than pills.

The review of research on adversity highlights that patterns of data may look similar but may not tell us as much as we hoped. The study of workplace thriving highlighted how supervisors might support people to do their best work while preventing burnout. The study on surviving depression suggested that social resources were key to a good outcome and a better life. Social inclusion is likely to be important.

Adverse childhood experiences that are consistently experienced over a sustained period of time throughout childhood result in an accumulation of childhood adversity, which is often referred to in the literature as cumulative harm. This paper aims to closely examine statutory child protection practice, which favours an episodic and incident-focused approach to assessing risk and harm, failing to account for the evaluation of the accumulation of adversity and harm, commonly experienced by children exposed to maltreatment. The paper defines an existing gap in practice frameworks to adequately identify and respond to the accumulation of adversity.

Drawing on practice experiences in Queensland Australia, the paper examines service delivery responses to cumulative harm in the context of the Intensive Family Support model of service delivery.

Within current frameworks for child protection service delivery, there is no method of assessing the diverse and cumulative effects of ongoing chronic child maltreatment and adversity, despite research confirming that cumulative harm very often co-occurs with other child protection concerns. To effectively and collaboratively intervene in matters of chronic and cumulative abuse and neglect, practitioners and stakeholders must be guided by frameworks and assessments that accurately recognise and acknowledge the impact of ongoing exposure to adverse experiences and maltreatment.

The need for a valid and reliable assessment method that draws together all elements contributing to the chronic maltreatment experience for a child and family: multiplicity, diversity and severity.

Practice solutions tailored to each child’s specific cumulative experiences of adversity and maltreatment will promote better social, emotional and health outcomes across the lifespan.

This paper highlights a significant gap in assessment and practice frameworks and advances the impetus for cumulative harm to be proactively integrated into social care and service delivery.

This paper's aim is to explore factors underlying resilience to health adversity, where resilience is defined as better perceived health after adjusting for the presence of doctor diagnosed heart disease, stroke or diabetes (vascular disease).

A population sample of 667 men and women aged 50+ years from South Wales was recruited to participate in an epidemiologic study and were consented and assessed online. Participation included health status, psychological and cognitive assessment. Structural equation modelling was used to model causal pathways. The analysis presents baseline data for this sample.

After adjustment for vascular disease, self‐esteem was associated with higher perceived health (β=0.279, p<0.001) whilst depression was associated with lower perceived health (β=−0.368, p<0.001). Self‐efficacy and anxiety were not associated with perceived health. Further analysis found self‐esteem to buffer an effect of vascular disease on depression, reducing the impact of depression on perceived health.

Cognitive and affective factors are involved in resilience, in relation to health these are specific to self‐esteem and depression. Although more complex associations may be found with other adversities, in relation to health, interventions to improve self‐esteem and ameliorate depression are likely to increase resilience.

Resilience has been modelled as a process involving cognitive and affective response to adversity. In the context of health, the adverse effect of depression on health perception was mediated by self‐esteem. These associations add to the understanding of the processes underlying resilience and suggest opportunities for interventions designed to increase resilience to health adversities.