Search results

The commentary proposes an analysis of a case study conducted on a self-managed shelter for homeless migrants based in Italy. The shelter was created in 2015 by a group of young activists within an abandoned barracks located in the city centre of Bologna. The shelter was run by the activists in collaboration with the homeless migrants, who were invited to take active part in the shelter’s management. The chapter analyses this experience through the concept of ‘resilience’, seeking to disentangle the complex relationship between fragility and participation. In so doing, the analysis reflects on how participation can develop as a form of resilience and discusses the characteristics distinguishing participation originating from vulnerability. Analysing the practices of participation of fragile people and communities through the lens of resilience sheds light on the combination of dynamics of adjustment and of change in their forms of engagement. From this perspective, the role of the context emerges as crucial in shaping (young) people’s possibilities to react to adversity. Based on this analysis, the chapter draws comparison with the case studies conducted with the refugees and homeless youth in Manchester (Chapters 8 and 9) and reflects on issues of legitimacy and recognition across different contexts when engaging with those living at the margins of society.

An important issue for medium-sized enterprises (MEs) in strategic management research is the ability to be resilient, recover and bounce back, after a disturbing and extenuating external event, such as the recent financial and economic crisis. Researchers have made efforts to understand the antecedents to resilience. Some studies propose capabilities and resources that strengthen experimentation while other researchers emphasize factors that support reliability. This study seeks to reconcile these views relying on upper echelons theory as the top management of MEs’ shape organizational attitudes and behaviors. The authors propose two antecedents in MEs related to management capabilities, ambidexterity and consistency, and the characteristics of family ownership that allow building of experimentation and reliability. We test our hypotheses on a dataset of 3,006 MEs and show how manager ambidexterity and family ownership play important roles in ME resilience.

This chapter explores the phenomenon of organizational resilience. A comprehensive model was advanced and tested while utilizing a quantitative study conducted in the education system in Israel with 98 schools, involving 1,132 educators. Statistical analysis based on structural equation modeling revealed significant relationships between three antecedents (social capital, team empowerment, goal interdependence) and organizational resilience. In addition, a positive significant relationship was found between organizational resilience and organizational functioning in crisis. Organizational resilience was found to be a mediator between three of the antecedents (social capital, team empowerment, goal interdependence) and organizational functioning in crisis. Furthermore, organizational functioning in crisis was found to mediate the relationship between organizational resilience and organizational innovation. Implications for policymakers, managers, and change leaders in organizations are discussed.

We are living in turbulent and uncertain times and organizations need to struggle with these circumstances in order to achieve their goals. More than ever, resilience capacity is an added value that organizations need to build to respond to obstacles in these challenging times. Resilience is a capacity of individuals, teams, organizations, communities, even society, that make them to overcome setbacks (such crises, changes, or turbulences) in a way that they not only survive but emerge even stronger. Previous research on resilience at different range of settings and groups show that resilience is a capacity that can be trained or build up. Therefore, the goal of this chapter is to review the main lines of action available to organizations that want to foster resilience at work. The chapter will review theoretical research on workplace resilience, and empirical research that links Human Resources Management and workplace resilience. Aspects covered include the role that corporate social responsibility toward employees, career development or work–family balance have in developing resilience. The chapter closes with a discussion of some practical guidelines for HR managers and practitioners.

The higher education industry is experiencing fiscal, organizational, and competitive stress in today's competitive environment (Bowen, 2018; McCaferty, 2018). As educators and higher education leaders, we believe that our role in society is essential ecause our collective work inherently concerns student learning, research and service to our university and the broader society. Yet, with today's competitive higher education market, universities and colleges ask more and more of faculty, staff and administrators to ‘get the work done’, creating mental, physical, emotional and spiritual stress. This chapter shares insights, practices and research designed to help university and college workers become resilient in the face of this set of extreme challenges In particular, the focus of this chapter is resilience and its four dimensions including physical, emotional, spiritual and mental resilience. It is argued that by investing in our own resilience as leaders, we foster the resilience of our colleagues, peers, teams, and institutions such that we can thrive in today's higher education environment despite its ongoing challenges.

In this chapter, I investigated how challenges (life events) are negotiated within families according to gender roles and their effect on marriage quality, life satisfaction, and psychological resilience in a nonclinical sample of heterosexual couples (N=159), age 23–78 (M=45.4, SD=11.2), with children (n=127) or childfree (n=32). Specifically, I accounted for the individual’s ability to share “hurt feelings” and foster intimacy within the couple, thus strengthening resilience and improving life satisfaction and hypothesized that the impact of negative life events on both relationship quality and life satisfaction could depend on the resilience levels of each partner and their ratio according to gender roles. Results confirmed the hypothesis and showed significant gender differences in the impact of negative life events on relationship quality, life satisfaction, ability to share hurt feelings, fear of intimacy, and resilience levels. Moreover, the ratio of the partner’s individual resilience affected the dependent variables differently by gender, its level interacted with the age of the couple’s first child (range: 2–54, mean: 21.4, SD: 10.4) and strongly depended on the occupation of the parents.

Sustainability and resilience challenges persist globally due to the lack of coordinated action among firms and community stakeholders. This is even more challenging for multinational corporations (MNCs) interacting across multiple, and often diverse, institutional environments. To be effective, MNCs’ sustainability efforts must respond to interdependent functions and systems in communities and rely on adaptive governance frameworks targeting long-term initiatives. The authors highlight the importance of public–private interconnections to promote resilience and enable the achievement of the sustainable development goals (SDGs). The authors introduce a methodology to analyze community resilience and present an in-depth, single case study of New Orleans. Findings provide important insights for the international business (IB) literature, but also critical implications for policymakers and practitioners.

Given the uncertain and often disruptive business environment, understanding how employees, teams, and organizations can recover from stress, build long-lasting resilience, and exploit failures as learning opportunities is key for employees’ well-being and organizational success. The book has been organized in three sections, each representing a major domain of inquiry: recovery, resilience, and learning. The chapters within each section elaborate on these domains, and each provides novel ideas and insights. The goal of this chapter is to summarize and integrate some themes and insights offered by the chapters in this book. Based on this summary and integration, the author will illuminate some exciting paths opened up by these chapters, which might be worth exploring further by other scholars in the future. Specifically, future research could benefit from (1) stronger integration of research on recovery, resilience, and learning from failure, (2) better understanding of the role of setbacks, failure, and adversity for recovery, resilience, and learning, and (3) investigations of the role of context for recovery, resilience, and learning from failure.

This chapter reflects on how global value chain resilience can be achieved in the aftermath of recent crises. Drawing on the view that globalization is not linear, and that contextualization is an important part of the international business discipline, the author argues that global value chain resilience needs to also be viewed from the perspective of emerging market supplier firms. Building resilience from international production restructure to create more flexibility may enhance multinational lead firms’ resilience in the aftermath of recent crises. But they may not be viable options for emerging market supplier firms that are location- and activity-bound. Building resilience from supplier firms’ perspective may have more to do with increasing operational efficiency in their value chain. Contextualizing resilience from the perspective of emerging market firms should contribute to ongoing discussions and debate on future global value chain resilience.