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.

In this chapter, the authors present a conceptual perspective on resilience that is grounded in self-regulation theory, to help address theoretical, empirical, and practical concerns in this domain. Despite the growing popularity of resilience research (see Linnenluecke, 2017), scholars have noted ongoing concerns about conceptual confusion and resulting, paradoxical, stigmatization associated with the label “resilience” (e.g., Adler, 2013; Britt, Shen, Sinclair, Grossman, & Klieger, 2016; Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker, 2000). The authors seek to advance this domain via presenting a clarified, theoretically grounded conceptualization that can facilitate unified theoretical advancements, aligned operationalization, research model development, and intervention improvements. Resilience is defined here as continued, self-regulated goal striving (e.g., behavioral and/or psychological) despite adversity (i.e., after goal frustration). This self-regulatory conceptualization of resilience offers theoretically based definitions for the necessary conditions (i.e., adversity and overcoming) and outlines specific characteristics (i.e., unit-centered and dynamic) of resilience, distinguishes resilience from other persistence-related concepts (e.g., grit and hardiness), and provides a framework for understanding the connections (and distinctions) between resilience, performance, and well-being. After presenting this self-regulatory resilience perspective, the authors outline additional paths forward for the domain.

Against the theoretical backdrop of the embeddedness and the resilience literatures, this paper investigates if and how SMEs' planning for adversity affects firms' performance.

The paper develops hypotheses that investigate the link between the risk management of immigrant-led and native-led SMEs and their performance and draw on novel data from a survey on 900 immigrant- and 2,416 native-led SMEs in 5 European cities to test them.

Immigrant-led SMEs are less likely to implement an adversity plan, especially when they are in an enclave sector. However, adversity planning is important to enhance the growth of immigrant-led businesses, even outside a crisis period, and it reduces the performance gap vis-à-vis native-led businesses. Inversely, the positive association between adversity planning and growth in the sample of native entrepreneurs is mainly driven by entrepreneurs who have experienced a severe crisis in the past.

This paper empirically uses planning for adversity as an anticipation stage of organizational resilience and tests it in the context of immigrant and native-led SMEs. Results support the theoretical reasoning that regularly scanning for threats and seeking information beyond the local community equips immigrant-led SMEs with a broader structural network which translates into new organizational capabilities. Furthermore, results contribute to the process-based view of resilience demonstrating that regularly planning for adversity builds a firm's resilience potential, though the effect is contingent on the nationality of the leaders.

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.

In the aviation sector adversity faced by female pilots stemming from stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination are well documented. Such adversity in the workplace can cause occupational stress, which may be greater for female pilots, and this influences individual resiliency, impacting job performance and wellbeing. Resilience may be a mitigating factor for coping with occupational stress and individual resilience can be factored into an organisation’s resilience as a whole. When organisations face challenges, there is a need for resilience in order to survive and adapt during disruption and adversity. Resilience with respect to employee and workplace contexts includes both personal resources among the employees as well as workplace resources that are connected to the workplace and organisational environment. As resilience continues to emerge as part of a human capital management strategy, the need to understand the role of the workplace is magnified. For aviation, understanding resilience can potentially inform organisational interventions to address the known occupational stressors and workplace adversity to increase employee performance and well-being. The role of workplace adversity and perceptions of workplace resource availability including supportive environments are discussed in relation to how they influence employee resilience specifically in the aviation industry. The aim of this chapter is to define resilience specific to employee and workplace contexts, introduce personal and workplace resources to influence employee resilience, and discuss the role of occupational stressors specifically for women in male-dominated career fields such as aviation.

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.