Search results

Bounce-back effect of stock market returns has been found empirically using different approaches. However, few paper explains the underlying mechanism. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

This paper fills this gap and provides an explanation for bounce-back effect in stock market.

This paper contributes to the literature in threefold. The authors contribute a formal economic model to rationalize the bounce-back effect of stock market returns. It is based on a model of stock return with volatility feedback under the assumption of Markov-Switching market volatility.

The authors use the general Markov-Switching bounce-back model, developed by Bec et al. (2015), to provide empirical evidence for the existence of bounce-back effect in stock market. The empirical result shows “W” shape of bounce-back effect, which is exactly the same as predicted by the economic theoretical model. Finally, the authors propose an alternative approach to estimate the magnitude of volatility feedback and the marginal effect on the expected return of an anticipated high variance regime.

This paper aims to model organizational resilience structure. Based on the central insights of the scientific literature, organizational resilience is modelled as the result of an organizational capacity to bounce-back and bounce-forward.

The paper is based on a quantitative empirical study to support the structural perspective of organizational resilience and investigate the relationships among the dimensions to test the above hypothesis by applying confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and structural equation modelling (SEM) methods.

The results confirmed three models that could be adopted to assess organizational resilience. The first model endorsed endogenous positive interrelationship among all three dimensions. The second model indicated that bounce-back dimensions, i.e. network and leadership and culture, have endogenous effects. Only the leadership and culture dimension is positively associated with a bounce-forward, i.e. change-ready and learning dimension. And the third model demonstrated that the network dimension is linked to leadership and culture, which is linked to the change ready and learning dimension.

This study attempts to provide empirical evidence identifying the links between the bounce-back and bounce-forward stages of organizational resilience. These results contribute to the development of organizational resilience theory, confirming the conceptual statements that resilience is the ability to return to the routine and to adapt to the changing environment by overcoming dynamic events, stressing the idea of the importance of enhanced learning capacity, which allows for growth by constantly learning from oneself by gaining unique experiences.

To confront the increasingly devastating impacts of disasters and the challenges that climate change is posing to disaster risk management (DRM) there is an imperative to further develop DRM. The resilience approach is emerging as one way to do this, and in the last decade has been strongly introduced into the policy arena, although it is not new for DRM practitioners and researchers. Nevertheless, resilience is a highly contested issue, and there is no agreed definition of it, which has resulted in confusion for stakeholders when applying it to practice. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to investigate how resilience is framed by researchers and DRM practitioners.

The analytical framework used was Hajer's “social-interactive discourse theory”, combined with analysis of government documents, in-depth interviews with practitioners and observation of field and practices within the context of the Natural Disaster Resilience Program in Queensland, Australia.

One of the key findings is that the idea of “bouncing back” is central to the resilience discourse but different interpretations of this idea results in real-world implications. Three different ways (storylines) in which practitioners construct the meaning of disaster resilience emerge from this study. Importantly the divergences between these storylines reveal possibilities for reframing to occur and these could lead to different policy options and practices.

The results presented in this paper offer empirical evidence on how resilience is understood on the ground, contributing to extending resilience theory and informing DRM and resilience practice.

The purpose of this paper is to define the main dimensions/aspects of resilient organizations and propose a benchmarking model to assess an organization's resilience in the context of uncertainty.

The systematic literature review method was applied to collect and synthesize relevant scientific literature from 2001 to 2022 to construct and validate a methodological approach.

This paper proposes a conceptualization of organizational resilience as the capacity of an organization to first remain stable; then prepare, absorb and recover after a crisis; adapt to the new environment; and, finally, use the developed experience to enhance the capacity for transformation, playing an essential role for coping with uncertainty.

Resilience is recognized as organizations’ ability to adapt to the new conditions, influenced by the crises. Moreover, it supports the recognition of the learning phase that allows for growth by constantly learning from emerging situations and gaining unique experiences. These observations allow us to suggest the twofold approach. The first distinguishes the resilience as organizations’ ability to adapt to the changing environment, that is, bounce back, while the second highlights the importance of learning capacity, that is, bounce forward.

The authors suggest to adopt the conceptual framework of the bounce forward phenomenon using the Resilient Organizations’ Resilience Benchmark Tool to assess organizational resilience. This would determine the overall resilience by identifying the links between bouncing back (preparing, absorbing, recovering and adapting) and bouncing forward (enhancing learning capacity).

Having reviewed the methodologies in the extant literature to evaluate organizational resilience and explored the similarities and differences between them, the authors concluded that the Resilient Organizations Resilience Benchmark Tool (2017) is the most appropriate three-dimensional tool because of its universality and comprehensive scope. These three dimensions consist of: leadership and culture; networks; and change readiness. This methodology assesses organizations' perspectives regarding resilience based on their ability to respond to and manage crises and their ability to bounce forward successfully.

The purpose of this paper is threefold. Firstly, a new concept, teacher buoyancy, is introduced. Based on the significance to study how teachers bounce back from minor and frequent setbacks (vs. major adversities emphasized in resilience) in their daily work and the research on buoyancy by Martin and Marsh, a dual-component framework to conceptualize this new concept is introduced. Secondly, the development of a new instrument, the Teacher Buoyancy Scale (TBS), to measure it is presented. Thirdly, results of a study using the TBS are reported, which provide insights into how teacher buoyancy can be fostered.

The study employed a quantitative design. A total of 258 teachers taking a part-time initial teacher education (ITE) program completed the TBS. Their responses were analyzed by exploratory factor analysis (EFA). In addition to descriptive statistics and reliability coefficients, Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to examine the relationship among the factors.

The data analysis indicated five factors, namely, Coping with difficulties, Bouncing back cognitively and emotionally, Working hard and appraising difficulties positively, Caring for one's well-being and Striving for professional growth. These factors can be readily interpreted by the dual-component framework. Correlations among the factors further revealed that enabling factors can be subdivided into more proximal personal strengths relating to direct coping, and more distal personal assets pertaining to personal well-being. It is the latter that correlates most highly with perceived teacher buoyancy.

The most original contribution of this paper is the proposal of the new concept of teacher buoyancy which is teachers' capacity to deal with the everyday challenges that most teachers face in their teaching. The delineation between buoyancy and resilience sharpens the focus of the problem domain that is most relevant to teachers. The development of the TBS provides a useful and reliable instrument to examine teacher buoyancy in future studies.

Many societies in the world live with different types of risks and the threat of disasters has always presented a major challenge to devise ways to achieve sustainable development by reducing patterns of vulnerability. Disaster reduction is therefore crucial and must have a place in national policies in order to create favourable conditions for effective and efficient hazard mitigation at various levels. This can help in increasing the resilience among communities at risk by enabling them to withstand shocks, cope with emergencies as they bounce back from the impact and adapt in new ways to cope with future threats.

The aim of this paper is to explore the concept of resilience in general and what this means before, during, and after disaster impact. Case studies are cited to indicate how resilience operates or fails to occur and why. The study defines how resilience can be developed to create sustainable systems and structures that focus on robustness, redundancy, resourcefulness and rapidity.

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.

Parents ‘matter’ to schools for their child’s education and parents ‘matter’ in relation to their child’s wellbeing. Indeed, in his synthesis of over 800 studies, Hattie (2008) equated the benefits of parental engagement with schools as being equivalent to adding two or three further years to their education. The aim of this chapter, therefore, is to look at parents in relation to wellbeing through positive education and, as part of this, the concept of positive psychology parenting too. Drawing on scientific research, the benefits of positive psychology to parents and families, alongside some of the ‘why’ and ‘how’ parents can better engage with schools, will be presented. A Positive Psychology in Practice case study of Bounce Back, a freely available, online introduction to positive psychology designed to give parents and carers an introduction to several different concepts, approaches, and hands-on techniques, based on the principles of positive psychology, will also be provided. This case study will also present Bounce Back as an intervention, giving parents and carers practical advice on how best to use this online resource, as well as information on how to implement some of the wider ideas from positive education at home to help them better understand, and intervene in, their own and their family’s wellbeing.

The purpose of this paper is to examine competing assumptions about the nature of resilience and selects those most appropriate for an entrepreneurial context. Assumptions are integrated into a theoretical framework highlighting how different threats require different resilience responses. Overall organizational resilience results from a portfolio of resilience capabilities.

Akin to theoretical sampling, the authors identify various theoretical insights about resilience across three disciplines of psychology, ecology and engineering. The authors use these insights to distill competing assumptions about what resilience is and evaluate those most appropriate for entrepreneurial contexts. Existing resilience literature in organization science is critiqued in terms of underlying assumptions and an alternative theoretical framework proposed based on more robust assumptions.

Other disciplines point to resilience being a process that differs for different threats and as either bouncing back, absorbing shocks or bouncing forward. When imported into entrepreneurship these characteristics lead to a conceptualization of resilience as being enacted through a capability portfolio. A routine-based capability response is preferred when threats are familiar, simple, not severe and frequent, following minimal disorganization and where resource slack is available. In contrast, heuristics-based capabilities are preferred when threats are unfamiliar, complex, severe and infrequent, following serious disorganization and where resource slack is unavailable. An absorption threshold point identifies when organizations need to switch from routine-based to heuristics-based resilience capabilities.

Building resilience across a range of adverse situations requires firms to develop a portfolio of resilience capabilities. Firms must learn to match the capability required for the specific threat profile faced. This includes a mix of routinized responses for returning to stability but also more flexible, heuristics-based responses for strategic reconfiguration.

The paper undertakes a first of its kind cross-disciplinary conceptual analysis at the level of identifying competing assumptions about the nature of resilience. These assumptions are found to be somewhat unconscious among organization researchers, limiting the conceptual development of resilience in entrepreneurship. The authors contribute a theoretical framework based on explicit and robust assumptions, enabling the field to advance conceptually.