literature review on organizational resilience

• DOI: 10.16538/J.CNKI.FEM.20210122.101
• Corpus ID: 236762831

A Literature Review of Organizational Resilience

• Lisa Ping , Jiazhe Zhu
• Published 20 March 2021
• Business, Psychology

10 Citations

Building organizational resilience in the era of uncertainty: strategies and best practices, seeking the resilience of service firms: a strategic learning process based on digital platform capability, development and validation of a resilience scale for construction project organization, from darkest to finest hour: recovery strategies and organizational resilience in china’s hotel industry during the covid-19 pandemic, research on the corporate innovation resilience of china based on fgm(1,1) and fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis model, organizational resilience and transformational leadership for managing complex school systems, school middle leaders' transformational leadership and organizational resilience: the moderating role of academic emphasis, predicting organization performance changes: a sequential data-based framework, how does organizational resilience promote firm growth the mediating role of strategic change and managerial myopia, the double‐edged sword effect of organizational resilience on esg performance, 25 references, resilience in business and management research: a review of influential publications and a research agenda, bouncing back: building resilience through social and environmental practices in the context of the 2008 global financial crisis, the long-term benefits of organizational resilience through sustainable business practices, evolving conceptualizations of organizational environmentalism: a path generation account, legitimizing, leveraging, and launching: developing dynamic capabilities in the mne, cog in the wheel: resource release and the scope of interdependencies in corporate adjustment activities, ceo greed, corporate social responsibility, and organizational resilience to systemic shocks, caught in the crossfire: dimensions of vulnerability and foreign multinationals' exit from war-afflicted countries, group resilience: the place and meaning of relational pauses, organizing for resilience, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

REVIEW article

Building organizational resilience through organizational learning: a systematic review.

• 1 Department of Technology and Safety, UiT the Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway
• 2 Department of Leadership and Organisation, Kristiania University College, Oslo, Norway

With organizational environments becoming increasingly complex and volatile, the concept of “organizational resilience” has become the “new normal”. Organizational resilience is a complex and multidimensional concept which builds on the myriad of capabilities that an organization develops during its lifecycle. As learning is an inherent and essential part of these developments, it has become a central theme in literature on organizational resilience. Although organizational resilience and organizational learning are inherently interrelated, little is known of the dynamics of effective learning that may enhance organizational resilience. This study explores how to achieve organizational learning that can serve to promote organizational resilience. Our aim is to contribute to a more comprehensive knowledge of the relation between organizational resilience and organizational learning. We present the results of a systematic literature review to assess how organizational learning may make organizations more resilient. As both organizational resilience and organizational learning are topics of practical importance, our study offers a specifically targeted investigation of this relation. We examine the relevant literature on organizational learning and resilience, identifying core themes and the connection between the two concepts. Further, we provide a detailed description of data collection and analysis. Data were analyzed thematically using the qualitative research software NVivo. Our review covered 41 empirical, 12 conceptual and 6 literature review articles, all indicating learning as mainly linked to adaptation capabilities. However, we find that learning is connected to all three stages of resilience that organizations need to develop resilience: anticipation, coping, and adaptation. Effective learning depends upon appropriate management of experiential learning, on a systemic approach to learning, on the organizational ability to unlearn, and on the existence of the context that facilitates organizational learning.

Introduction

With organizational environments becoming more and more complex and volatile, the concept of “organizational resilience” (OR) has become increasingly significant for practice and research. OR is here understood as the organization's “ability to anticipate potential threats, to cope effectively with adverse events, and to adapt to changing conditions” ( Duchek, 2020 , p. 220). Thus, anticipation, coping, and adaptation represent three stages of OR. Further, the literature indicates that OR is an essential organizational meta-capability for the success of modern organizations ( Parsons, 2010 ; Näswall et al., 2013 ; Britt et al., 2016 ; Suryaningtyas et al., 2019 ). OR has indeed become the “new normal” ( Linnenluecke, 2017 ) regarding organizational survival as well as recovery and successful re-emergence after disruptions. Understanding OR is therefore more important than ever ( Ruiz-Martin et al., 2018 ). However, OR is still an emerging field ( Ma et al., 2018 )—and a key question that remains unanswered is how to achieve it ( Boin and Lodge, 2016 ; Chen R. et al., 2021 ).

Research is explicit on the complexity and multidimensional nature of OR: it is associated with an organization's capabilities to learn, adapt, and self-organize ( Linnenluecke and Griffiths, 2010 ), where learning is an inherent and essential element ( Boin and van Eeten, 2013 ). This links OR to learning processes (see, e.g., Lengnick-Hall et al., 2011 ; Rodríguez-Sánchez and Vera Perea, 2015 ), where learning has become a common theme in resilience literature. Khan et al. (2019 , p. 18) argue, “[o]rganizational learning capability is positively related to building and sustaining organizational resilience capability.” While OR is defined at the organizational level, the inherent learning is organizational learning (OL), understood as an “[ongoing] social process of individuals participating in situated practices that reproduce and expand organizational knowledge structures and link multiple levels of OL” ( Popova-Nowak and Cseh, 2015 , p. 318). Furthermore, research has noted the similarities between OR and OL ( Sitkin, 1992 ; Linnenluecke and Griffiths, 2010 ), as both require routines, values, models, and capabilities essential for organizations facing uncertainty. OR has also been defined as an outcome of organizational learning ( Sitkin, 1992 ; Sutcliffe and Vogus, 2003 ), suggesting that organizational learning capability may be enhanced by OR ( Rodríguez-Sánchez et al., 2021 ). However, OR is also a process ( Boin et al., 2010 ) that facilitates OL and feeds organizational self-development over time ( Lombardi et al., 2021 ). This makes OL both an important precondition for OR which relies on past learning, and an outcome of it that fosters future learning ( Vogus and Sutcliffe, 2007 ). OR and OL may therefore reinforce each other.

Although OR and OL are inherently interrelated, our understanding of the dynamics of effective learning is limited ( Antonacopoulou and Sheaffer, 2014 ), and further study is needed of the relationship between organizational learning and resilience ( Mousa et al., 2017 , 2020 ; Rodríguez-Sánchez et al., 2021 ). Further research on learning connected to OR is needed to understand “the character of this learning and what specific resources give rise to it” ( Vogus and Sutcliffe, 2007 , p. 3421). Moreover, investigation is needed of what triggers learning and corresponding processes and exploring of the effective learning strategies that allow resilient organizations to avoid pathological learning cycles ( Vogus and Sutcliffe, 2007 ). Our aim with this study is therefore to contribute to more comprehensive knowledge on the relationship between OR and OL and to further explore the relationship between them by asking the research question: How to improve organizational learning to make organizations more resilient?

Theoretical Framework

OL assumes interaction of its multiple levels of analysis, including the individual, group, organizational, and inter-organizational levels ( Lundberg, 1995 ; Örtenblad, 2004 ; Popova-Nowak and Cseh, 2015 ). Being a social process, OL is embedded in everyday organizational practice when individuals acquire, produce, reproduce, and expand organizational knowledge ( Lave and Wenger, 1991 ; Gherardi et al., 1998 ; Gherardi and Nicolini, 2002 ; Gherardi, 2008 ; Chiva et al., 2014 ). This individual knowledge, either explicit or tacit ( Cook and Yanow, 1993 ), must become part of organizational repository that includes tools, routines, social networks and transactive memory systems ( Huber, 1991 , p. 89–90; Walsh and Ungson, 1991 ; Argote and Ingram, 2000 ; Argote, 2011 ). OL directly affects organizations facing turbulence ( Baker and Sinkula, 1999 ) and involves “the extraction of positive lessons from the negativity of life” ( Giustiniano et al., 2018 , p. 133) that are useful to the whole organization. OL will therefore directly affect how resilient organizational performance is ( Giustiniano et al., 2018 ).

Learning is emergent in nature ( Antonacopoulou and Sheaffer, 2014 ). As a continuous process, OL implies accomplishment of specific steps. However, what those steps are varies, though with certain overlaps, across the literature (see, e.g., Huber, 1991 ; Argyris and Schön, 1996 ; Crossan et al., 1999 ; Lawrence et al., 2005 ; Jones and Macpherson, 2006 ; Argote and Miron-Spektor, 2011 ; Argote et al., 2020 ). Further, OL may vary in complexity and outcomes. At the lower (single-loop) level, OL results in detection and correction of errors “without questioning or altering the underlying values of the system” ( Argyris and Schön, 1978 , p. 8). At the higher (double-loop) level of learning, “errors are corrected by changing the governing values and then the actions” ( Argyris, 2002 , p. 206). Triple-loop learning (deutero-learning) enables organizations to learn about their own learning processes ( Argyris and Schön, 1978 , 1996 ). OL may be exploratory—associated with “search, variation, risk taking, experimentation, play, flexibility, discovery and innovation” ( March, 1991 , p. 71), or exploitive—utilizing the “old certainties” ( March, 1991 , p. 71). The trade-off between the two is a key concern of studies of adaptive processes; organizations need to have an appropriate balance between these strategies ( Levinthal and March, 1993 ) to maintain “ambidexterity” ( Lavie et al., 2010 ). Importantly, OL is not necessarily always a conscious or intentional effort, neither does it imply behavioral change ( Hernes and Irgens, 2013 ) or always increase the learner's effectiveness (even potential effectiveness); finally, it does not always lead to true knowledge, as organizations “can incorrectly learn, and they can correctly learn that which is incorrect” ( Huber, 1991 , p. 89).

Organizations struggle to implement OL ( Lipshitz et al., 2002 ; Reich, 2007 ; Garvin et al., 2008 ; Taylor et al., 2010 ; Antonacopoulou and Sheaffer, 2014 ) due to a wide range of barriers (see, e.g., Schilling and Kluge, 2009 ). Productive OL is complex and relies on the interaction of various facets—cultural, psychological, policy, and contextual ( Lipshitz et al., 2002 ; see also Garvin, 1993 ). These interactions may produce differing configurations and will vary across organizations. Experience has a special role as a key prerequisite for OL, but experience is extremely diverse in nature ( Argote and Todorova, 2007 ; Argote, 2011 ; Argote and Miron-Spektor, 2011 ) and its relevance is only partial ( Weick and Sutcliffe, 2015 ). In order for experience to be a “good teacher” ( March, 2010 ) organizations must understand its nature and how different types of experience interplay ( Argote and Miron-Spektor, 2011 ). The relationship between the experience and learning processes and outcomes is moderated by context ( Argote, 2011 , p. 441). Effective OL relies on a suitable context ( Antonacopoulou and Chiva, 2007 , p. 289) that can be complex and multidimensional ( Argote and Miron-Spektor, 2011 ): inter alia , external organizational environments, organizational culture, strategy and structure, power relationship within the organization and inter-organizational processes and interactions. The contextual components through which learning occurs are active, whereas others that shape the active context are latent (see Argote and Miron-Spektor, 2011 for details).

Thus, OR is founded on learning processes (assessment, sense making, distilling lessons learned and integration of new understandings into existing practice) that are embedded in organizational routines ( Powley and Cameron, 2020 ) that penetrate all stages of OR ( Duchek, 2020 ). Achieving OR requires commitment and studying this commitment implies an enquiry into organizational learning, knowledge, and capability development ( Weick and Sutcliffe, 2015 , p. 108). Research has noted that different types of resilience associate with different learning strategies: adaptive resilience has been associated with single-loop learning ( Lombardi et al., 2021 , p. 2). In contrast, reactive resilience refers to the ability to view disruptions as sources of learning and growth at various organizational levels, where organizations must adopt new practices based on their experience, resulting in a double-loop learning. Resilience also entails a process of deutero-learning or “learning to learn” ( Andersen, 2016 ), thus requiring a completely new experimentation approach. OR is enhanced when organizations build routines that can facilitate OL. The major challenge for an organization that aims at enabling resilience is to establish the right learning routines (see, e.g., Kayes, 2015 ): that is to say, those that achieve effective/productive OL.

A systematic literature review (SLR) was chosen since it facilitates gathering of a wide range of relevant sources ( Crossan and Apaydin, 2010 ) and ensures clarity of inclusion and exclusion criteria ( Mackay and Zundel, 2017 )—important when, as with OR, intellectual coherence or a standard theoretical framework is lacking ( Liñán and Fayolle, 2015 ). Our review was outcomes-oriented, aiming to identify “central issues” ( Cooper, 1988 , p. 109); relevant literature was retrieved through an exhaustive review with selective citation, to consider all relevant publications for the research question. SLR involves two stages: a sampling and an analytical stage ( Figure 1 ).

Figure 1 . Methodological steps for literature review (source: the authors).

Conducting the Review

The sampling stage.

Our initial search criteria were broad to include as many relevant results as possible. To obtain an overview of the available literature, the following databases were used: Science Direct, Web of Knowledge (Search in the core collection) and Google Scholar (for the latest publications and gray literature). 1 As Google Scholar is a compilation of records from other databases ( Kugley et al., 2017 ) several articles had already been identified by Science Direct and Web of knowledge. All databases are frequently used by researchers of various disciplines ( Xiao and Watson, 2019 ). The literature search was performed by the first author, in the period March–May 2021, covering publications between 1900 and 2021. A diary was made to keep record of the results, with search dates, search strings and results.

Search strings were developed by applying the keywords “organizational resilience” and “organizational learning”. In Web of Knowledge, the Boolean operator (AND) was applied together with truncation symbol of the asterisk to include all forms of the words [TS = (resilien * AND organi * AND learning)]. The same keywords were applied in Science Direct; as both UK and US spelling variants are supported, there was no need for truncation symbol. Google Scholar offers limited search terms options, and the selection is not as transparent as Web of Knowledge and Science Direct. However, we performed a search in Google Scholar to broaden the number of publications and ensure the latest articles from all fields and disciplines. Only the three first pages were included. The initial search performed by the first author yielded 2,985 articles. Next, the same author went through the abstracts and keywords. In cases where abstracts were not sufficiently informative, the article was read through quickly. Duplicates were removed, which reduced the number of articles from 170 to 165.

The following criteria were used in the screening process resulting in 2,985 publications:

Inclusion Criteria

1. Empirical, conceptual, and theoretically oriented publications about organizational learning within organizational resilience

2. Publications written in English

3. Article type (applied only in Science Direct): Review articles, research articles, book chapters, conference abstracts and data articles

4. Subject areas (only in Science Direct): Social sciences, environmental science, business, management and accounting, engineering

Exclusion Criteria

1. Non-academic journals

2. Publications not issued in English or Norwegian

3. Article type (only in Science Direct): encyclopedias, book reviews, case reports, conference info, correspondence, discussions, editorials, errata; examinations, mini-reviews, news, practice guidelines, short communications, software publications, other

4. Subject areas (only in Science Direct): medicine and dentistry, psychology, agricultural and biological sciences, computer science, energy, neuro-science

Analytical Stage

The articles were randomly distributed to the three authors for a full reading, so that each article could be sorted as follows: (1) How organizational learning contributes to organizational resilience; (2) How OR contributes to organizational learning; (3) Uncertain. Articles placed in the latter category were discussed and given an additional full reading by the first author before a decision on category placement, or exclusion was made. As a result of this analytical screening process, 59 articles were included in the final review. After the phases of thematic analysis ( Braun and Clarke, 2006 ) the articles were coded in NVivo 20 (Release 1.5). A deductive coding scheme was developed, based partly on Boyatzis (1998) approach. Theory on organizational learning informed the following deductive coding categories: experience; practices; strategies; effective learning; mechanisms; knowledge; processes and context. The Duchek (2020) conceptualization of resilience informed the codes: anticipation; coping; adaptation. The coding process started deductively; we inductively created additional codes underway. The first round of coding was performed by the first author and then presented to the co-authors. The second round of coding was performed by the first and second authors, and themes were created when we found “something important in relation to the overall research question” ( Braun and Clarke, 2006 , p. 83). Data were aggregated into clustered codes ( Miles and Huberman, 1994 ). A memo of the coding process was kept in NVivo. Analysis of our findings is presented below.

Literature Review

The literature on organizational resilience has expanded massively in recent years, developing from being highly conceptual to containing increasingly more empirical contributions. Our 59-article review is presented in Table 1 : 41 empirical, 12 conceptual and 6 literature-review articles. The empirical articles use various types of data from different contexts; 19 use qualitative data, 13 apply quantitative data and six mixed methods; further, healthcare (13), universities (4), SMEs (5) and transport (4) are the dominant contexts. The articles were published in 45 different journals, in addition to two book volumes and two conference/symposium proceedings; and no single journal dominates. The highest number of contributions within one journal was three, for Reliability Engineering & System Safety . The journals are located within many different fields, with business (11) predominant, followed by safety (7), learning (4) and healthcare (5). Regarding geographical context for the empirical studies, all continents are represented, with Europe dominant (19), followed by Australasia (6) and the USA (5).

Table 1 . Overview of articles and stage of organizational resilience for their organizational learning focus (Source: the authors).

Our review shows that learning is connected to resilience through the capabilities that organizations must possess and develop. Scholten et al. (2019) pointed out that “learning is ongoing across all stages of a disruption” (p. 439); we found that the same can be said about learning in the resilience stages. Our review shows that learning can prepare organizations for future events. Eight articles explicitly address learning as part of the anticipation capability . Overall, we see that anticipation refers to proactive action ( Hardy, 2014 ; Duchek, 2020 ) where organizations detect “emerging problems” ( Anderson et al., 2020 , p. 2), “anticipate what could happen in an actual event” ( Hermelin et al., 2020 , p. 670) and then act on this. Adding experience to the organization's knowledge base is crucial, influencing how successful the organizational ability to anticipate further needs will be. Anticipation is dependent on the organizational ability to learn ( Hillmann et al., 2018 ), which “guides and supports” ( Ritz et al., 2015 , p. 1868) advancement to the next stage of the resilience process: coping. Moreover, learning developed during this stage will inevitably influence capabilities developed in the two other stages ( Anderson et al., 2020 ), and further improve organizational response. Nine articles explicitly address learning as part of capabilities to cope with uncertainty and sudden changes ( Al-Atwi et al., 2021 ). We noted a tendency to address the role of learning in coping as a chance for organizations to expand their cognitive and behavioral perspectives ( Tasic et al., 2020 ) and thus broaden the range of actions ( Duchek, 2020 ) to build resilience to offer “better future protection” ( Manfield and Newey, 2018 , p. 1161). However, our study shows that the literature on OR learning is overwhelmingly concerned with adaptation capabilities. Altogether 38 articles explicitly include learning as part of adaptation , which could be explained by the fact that “adaptation may be what truly defines resilience” ( Hardy, 2014 ). Learning is central to the adaptive capacity of an organization ( Orth and Schuldis, 2021 ) and adaptability is held to be closely related to organizational learning ( Bhaskara and Filimonau, 2021 ). Organizations must continuously absorb information and adapt to changes in the environment, in turn building on continuous learning ( Battisti et al., 2019 ). Similarly, Crick and Bentley (2020) state that the interaction between absorbing information and the environment that can lead to adaptation is driven by learning; while Dutra et al. (2015) argue that adaptation occurs through learning and transmission of knowledge. In the context of developing organizational resilience, adaptation means more than simply getting the organization back to normal—it also involves developing capabilities to change and learn ( Scholten et al., 2019 ; Duchek et al., 2020 ). As shown by Bragatto et al. (2021) , building resilience involves more than just adapting disaster management plans: it also entails understanding and managing people's behavioral norms and mental models to help them unlearn behaviors which might have led to failure in the first place.

Analysis of Findings

Our findings affirm and strengthen the link between Organizational Learning (OL) and Organizational Resilience (OR). Whereas, Pal et al. (2014) found that learning increased resilient performance, Nyman (2019) argued that learning is a “precondition for resilience”. Mousa et al. (2020) have showed the role that organizational learning plays in predicting OR, while others, like Bhaskara and Filimonau (2021) , highlight this relationship by arguing that limited organizational learning is a disadvantage for developing resilience: it is important to “aim at facilitating organizational learning” (p. 373). Our findings highlight the importance of identifying the determinants of OL in order to improve OR ( Bhaskara and Filimonau, 2021 ); further, that resilience can be learned and therefore deliberately built ( Manfield and Newey, 2018 ; Salanova, 2020 ). The identified main elements of OL for improving OR are appropriate management of experiential learning, a systemic approach to learning, the organizational ability to unlearn, and the existence of the context that facilitates organizational learning.

Learning From Experience

The importance of experiential learning has been heavily stressed in the OR literature ( Hecht et al., 2019 ; Bragatto et al., 2021 ; Habiyaremye, 2021 ). Chand and Loosemore (2016) point out that such experience can be acquired during real events, training exercises and drills. Several authors address the important role of training and exercises (e.g., Chand and Loosemore, 2016 ; Adini et al., 2017 ; Khan et al., 2017 ; Hecht et al., 2019 ; Hermelin et al., 2020 ; Tasic et al., 2020 ; Bhaskara and Filimonau, 2021 ), including the post-exercise debriefing session as learning-promoting activities that will enhance OR. Moreover, OR may be improved by experience and learning from accidents, with a focus on clear communication and common training to share experiences from “accidents, fatalities and good practices” ( Johnsen and Habrekke, 2009 , p. 8). Both positive and negative learning from own experiences is crucial for showing how to increase positive outcomes and avoid negative ones ( Anderson et al., 2020 ). Learning from failures is among the key capabilities of a resilient organization ( Herbane, 2019 ; Bhaskara and Filimonau, 2021 ); further, some (e.g., Madsen and Desai, 2010 , cited by Manfield and Newey, 2018 ) have argued that organizations can learn more from failure than success, particularly on the case of major failures. There are also important lessons to be learned from successes ( Hardy, 2014 ; Hermelin et al., 2020 ) and from reflecting on positive outcomes. Scholten et al. (2019 , p. 438) point out that organizations that do not “reflect on positive outcomes might inhibit organizations in seizing all the benefits of intentional experiential learning.”

However, past experiences may provide limited learning opportunities ( Bhaskara and Filimonau, 2021 ). Although experience can enable organizations to replay what has been previously learned, they may fail “to prepare […] for unforeseen and unpredicted events” ( Elliott and Macpherson, 2010 , p. 16). Established “best practices” may not be suitable for other crisis situations ( Elliott and Macpherson, 2010 , p. 16) and knowledge gained from one context cannot always be readily transferred to a different context: “coping with crisis cannot just be about deliberately acquiring a set of transmitted abilities, since to achieve competent practice depends on becoming better by doing” ( Elliott and Macpherson, 2010 , p. 6). The diverse nature of some events may also impede effective OL ( Bhaskara and Filimonau, 2021 ). Past experiences may be codified into standard practices with “step-by-step” guidelines and operating procedures. However, such “codified learning” is problematic, as “the actual practice evolves as those in charge or involved in circumstances make sense of the ambiguous information, confused circumstances and incomplete data with which they are faced” ( Elliott and Macpherson, 2010 , p. 10). Therefore, codified learning can “only ever be partially successful” ( Elliott and Macpherson, 2010 , p. 11).

Another finding is the importance of how experience is dealt with . To ensure a true learning experience, acquired knowledge should be applied to real situations ( Hillmann et al., 2018 ). Assuming that resilience is built through a combination of specific theoretical input and experiential learning, a combination will positively influence e.g., long-term learning and “thinking in complexity through imagining different futures” ( Hillmann et al., 2018 , p. 481). For example, extreme weather events have been found to “provide the best opportunities for experiential learning about how to improve hospital resilience to such events” and “embedding such experiences into hospital disaster management planning processes” ( Chand and Loosemore, 2016 , p. 885). Although crisis events have been subjected to extensive investigation, it is evident that organizations often fail to learn effectively, even when crises are regular events ( Bhaskara and Filimonau, 2021 ). One contributing factor for this failure may be the fragmented nature of our understanding, and the resulting piecemeal conceptualization of the learning process ( Elliott and Macpherson, 2010 ). For example, a disturbance may be familiar to the organization; but, due to bounded rationality, the need for new learning is not always identified, as organizations will often choose to fall back on old practices instead of developing new ones ( Manfield and Newey, 2018 ). This results in lowered reintegration and internationalization of learning and reduced organizational resilience that stops being a growth experience ( Manfield and Newey, 2018 ). Moreover, time lag and spatial distance may challenge the opportunity to learn from experience with a specific situation ( Anderson et al., 2020 ). Therefore, improved organizational learning must involve better understanding of the causes of accidents ( Johnsen and Habrekke, 2009 ), with a focus on triple-loop learning ( Bragatto et al., 2021 ). It is not sufficient merely to collect reports of problems: organizations need to ensure that the reports are studied, and corrective actions implemented ( Hardy, 2014 ). Another cause of unsuccessful OL is in confusing learning with identifying lessons ( Elliott and Macpherson, 2010 ): “organizations often generate new knowledge (lessons learned) but fail to translate this knowledge into new behaviors” ( Duchek, 2020 , p. 231). It is important to recognize that lessons have not been learned until they are successfully implemented ( Chand and Loosemore, 2016 ; Duchek, 2020 ).

Several authors highlight the value of organizations learning from the practices and experiences of other organizations ( Gressgard and Hansen, 2015 ; Johannesen et al., 2020 ; Bhaskara and Filimonau, 2021 ; Fasey et al., 2021 ; Friday et al., 2021 ; Habiyaremye, 2021 as central to OL ( Khan et al., 2017 ; Herbane, 2019 ). This may also spread further, to a whole network, as suppliers interact with each other, thereby also facilitating network resilience ( Chen K. D. et al., 2021 ). Effective learning involves critical reflection at several levels, with effective communication and information sharing among the involved actors throughout the system ( Johnsen and Habrekke, 2009 ; Dutra et al., 2015 ; Nicolletti et al., 2019 ). Such collaboration should “not only capture lessons learnt but also allow effective use and sharing of information across the multiple stakeholders involved in disaster planning” ( Chand and Loosemore, 2016 , p. 885). Our findings highlight the importance of a holistic approach to understanding this collective learning process among the many stakeholders involved in a disaster response ( Bragatto et al., 2021 ). Lack of appropriate collaboration with other relevant stakeholders inhibits OL by depriving organizations of valuable opportunities to learn from others ( Johnsen and Habrekke, 2009 ; Bhaskara and Filimonau, 2021 ). Moreover, learning from others may be inhibited by differing “resources, objectives and variations in learning experiences” between organizations ( Friday et al., 2021 , p. 262).

Importance of Continuity and Need for a System

Building resilience requires capturing and embodiment of learning into a capability ( Hillmann et al., 2018 ). This in turn implies learning from adversity and codifying this learning into resilience capabilities against specific threats, thereby offering better future protection ( Folke et al., 2004 , cited by Manfield and Newey, 2018 ). Findings also demonstrate the importance of having systems in place for organizational learning to happen , and remaining continuous. Such systems must incorporate a range of learning practices that will ensure better reflection of experienced crises and as an outcome a more effective learning ( Duchek et al., 2020 ). Organizations learn “in, from and for crisis” ( Elliott and Macpherson, 2010 , p. 3). To enhance OR, learning has to be ongoing ( Chand and Loosemore, 2016 ; Bragatto et al., 2021 ), running across “the continuum of situations” from everyday practice to action during critical events ( Hegde et al., 2020a , p. 75). Our findings emphasize that a resilient system continually learns, improves, and adjusts, even when stressed, and improves after a disturbance through adaptation (see also Hardy, 2014 ; Martinelli et al., 2018 ). In contrast to the results of other studies on learning from near misses , Azadegan et al. (2019) found that organizations “do learn significantly from such events” (p. 224). Further, when organizations experience near-misses, they consider long-term issues by “implementing procedural response strategies” ( Azadegan et al., 2019 , p. 221), such as formal protocols, policies, and procedures, in contrast to theoretical suggestions that often indicate consideration of flexible strategies. Such procedural strategies are in line with double-loop learning, whereas flexible strategies are more in line with single-loop learning ( Azadegan et al., 2019 ). Moreover, learning from accidents, or even more extreme events such as emergencies and catastrophes, needs to be integrated with learning from minor consequence events or even from the normal functioning of everyday activities ( Hollnagel, 2011 , cited by Patriarca et al., 2018 , p. 267). The literature reviewed highlights how resilient learning is “ambidextrous,” with a diversity of practices that organizations should explore and exploit ( Al-Atwi et al., 2021 ), balancing flexible and procedural strategies ( Azadegan et al., 2019 ).

Our findings also reveal emphasis on the knowledge base , and how knowledge is managed within the organization (see Elliott and Macpherson, 2010 ; Nicolletti et al., 2019 ; Anderson et al., 2020 ; Duchek, 2020 ; Duchek et al., 2020 ; Steen and Ferreira, 2020 ; Habiyaremye, 2021 ). Knowledge is generated through the stages of resilience—in other words, from the crisis event context that can create the need for change. Some authors hold that the organizational reaction to change is expressed by adaptation ( Naimoli and Saxena, 2018 ; Fridell et al., 2020 ) so organizations must develop their capacity for change, which is predicated on the capacity for continuous learning ( Morais-Storz and Nguyen, 2017 ). Adaptive learning is crucial to the ability to bounce back from adverse events that underlie crises ( Habiyaremye, 2021 ). Therefore, we hold that learning is a mechanism for change which is needed in developing organizational resilience in the face of new problems ( Anderson et al., 2020 ; Steen and Ferreira, 2020 ; Fasey et al., 2021 ). Knowledge, as the key antecedent of OR ( Duchek, 2020 ), is also fundamental for resilient system performance irrespective of the activity in focus ( Adini et al., 2017 ). It is, however, important to distinguish among sources of knowledge, as different sources are associated with different performance outcomes ( Battisti et al., 2019 ).

To develop resilience, knowledge must remain in the organization, as employees may come and go ( Dohaney et al., 2020 ). That being said, improved OL relies on the feedback process where individual lessons are shared collectively ( Chand and Loosemore, 2016 ). Gressgard and Hansen (2015) argue that, for learning to contribute to building resilience, diversity of opinions and perspectives is important . Further, that knowledge exchange between and across units in the organization increases the ability to learn from failure, as compared to knowledge exchange within units. This highlights the need to improve the feedback process ( Bragatto et al., 2021 ) and develop an appropriate system for knowledge-sharing from the individual to the organizational level ( Bhaskara and Filimonau, 2021 ), relying on various practices (see e.g., Khan et al., 2017 ; Martinelli et al., 2018 ; Hegde et al., 2020a ; Habiyaremye, 2021 ). This system should be based on trust and inclusion, to ensure efficient and appropriate communication ( Rangachari and Woods, 2020 ). Moreover, organizations should develop processes and structures to utilize knowledge and implement this knowledge into future responses ( Chand and Loosemore, 2016 ). In the absence of such systems, OR will remain “reactive (brittle) and restricted to the frontlines, with no way of advancing to team and organizational levels” ( Rangachari and Woods, 2020 , p. 6).

Dimensions of Learning Practices

Our findings also show that organizational learning is established through both formal and informal practices (see Gressgard and Hansen, 2015 ; Hecht et al., 2019 ; Hermelin et al., 2020 ; Orth and Schuldis, 2021 )—and that formal practices are particularly associated with learning from failure ( Hardy, 2014 ). Some studies find that formal practices ensure more thorough transfer of information, highlighting that disruption may undermine informal systems for knowledge exchange ( Orth and Schuldis, 2021 ). Yet, our findings underscore the important role of informal practices—indicating that earlier analyses have been overly focused on formal rules and policies, and that new insights might emerge through a fuller examination of how informal organizational rules, norms and practices work ( Bragatto et al., 2021 ). Finally, Chand and Loosemore (2016) note that informal organizational rules, norms, and practices may “undermine formal rules in determining... resilience” (p. 886).

With regard to the dimensions of learning, the literature reviewed for this study also focuses on investigating how lessons are learned and transferred among the various stakeholders ( Bragatto et al., 2021 ) by examining the specific learning mechanisms that lead to differing resilient performance effects over time ( Battisti et al., 2019 ). Taking as a starting point that learning is ongoing across all stages of a disruption [preparation (anticipation), response (coping) and recovery (adaptation)], Scholten et al. (2019) uncover six specific learning mechanisms and their nine antecedents for building supply-chain resilience. They place these mechanisms in two large categories associated with learning: intentional and unintentional. Intentional mechanisms are anticipative, situational, and vicarious learning. Anticipative learning takes place in anticipation of possible disruptions, aiming at knowledge transfer through formal training, education and collaboration; it results in the establishment of new routines or improvement of existing ones. Situational learning occurs during the coping stage, in the moment of disruption when organizations need to target the challenges that could have been anticipated but were not. Vicarious learning occurs during the adaption stage; it involves knowledge transfer based on the experiences and reflections of others. Unintentional learning mechanisms are processual, collaborative, and experiential learning. Processual learning occurs because of the proactive knowledge creation deduced from inherent organizational processes (e.g., changes in strategy, organizational growth, and operational refinement). Collaborative learning may occur during the response phase of disruption, when an immediate solution is needed, but procedures are lacking. Such instances may trigger collaboration and knowledge transfer across the actors involved. Experiential learning is associated with the recovery phase of disruption; it occurs through transfer of knowledge. Improved future performance relies heavily on rigorous and thorough learning from experience ( Ellis and Shpielberg, 2003 , cited by Scholten et al., 2019 )—as highlighted above. The trap of retrospective simplification of experience ( Christianson et al., 2009 , cited by Scholten et al., 2019 ) can be avoided by focusing on interpreting experience ( Levinthal and March, 1993 , cited by Scholten et al., 2019 ) instead of simplifying it. Finally, Scholten et al. (2019) highlight the largely overlooked value of unintentional learning.

The Role of Unlearning

OL is a cyclical process consisting of unlearning and learning , the “metamorphosis cycle” that is central to strategic resilience ( Starbuck, 1967 p. 113, cited by Morais-Storz and Nguyen, 2017 , p. 4). The deliberate process of unlearning can be approached as a stand-alone process ( Fiol and O'Connor, 2017 ; Grisold et al., 2020 ), but it is a constituent component of this cycle ( Tsang and Zahra, 2008 , cited by Morais-Storz and Nguyen, 2017 ). The importance of unlearning has received particular attention in the literature on OR ( Morais-Storz and Nguyen, 2017 ; Orth and Schuldis, 2021 ). Unlearning is associated with “a process of getting rid of certain things from an organization” ( Tsang and Zahra, 2008 , p. 1437), often triggered by crisis ( Fiol and O'Connor, 2017 ) that requires organizations to adopt new ways of thinking and abandon old mental models and processes ( Duchek, 2020 ). In a world of turbulence and uncertainty, organizations are expected to act proactively, before action is desperately needed, through their own continual transformation ( Morais-Storz and Nguyen, 2017 ). Organizations must be able to identify the early warning signs of when action is needed, as shown through a “web of symptoms” ( Baer et al., 2013 , p. 199; Morais-Storz and Nguyen, 2017 ). Ideally, new learning should be created before the need for change has become desperately obvious ( Morais-Storz and Nguyen, 2017 ).

Learning and unlearning are mutually supportive in creating knowledge and organizational learning ( Morais-Storz and Nguyen, 2017 ). The most important role of unlearning is to clear away obstacles created from misleading knowledge and obsolete routines, so as to pave the way for future learning, but unlearning can also aid the effective acquisition of new understandings ( Fiol and O'Connor, 2017 ; Grisold et al., 2020 ). For most organizations, learning is impossible without unlearning: it is in fact the precondition for new learning, enhancing the effectiveness of learning in a process of change. It has been proposed that the greater the capacity for unlearning capability, the stronger may the positive effect of OL on OR be ( Orth and Schuldis, 2021 ). The metamorphosis cycle is driven by these two processes, organizational unlearning capability exerting a positive moderating effect on the relationship between organizational learning and organizational resilience ( Orth and Schuldis, 2021 ).

Context for Learning

Our review findings underscore the importance of context, to share and “capture the relevant information and to create a social learning process” ( Prasad et al., 2015 , p. 454) where individuals are committed and motivated to learn, to achieve improved OL ( Gilson et al., 2020 ). The main function of this context, necessary within and between organizations, is to support OL ( Naimoli and Saxena, 2018 ). While organizations learn from their own activities as well as from other organizations activities, there is also a question of different contexts for learning different knowledge. Given the nature and demands of adversity, the context also needs to be active— “not necessarily fully controlled and sequential, but instead open to innovative ways of tackling open problems” ( Hermelin et al., 2020 , p. 670).

Reflecting on the complexity of context (see Argote and Miron-Spektor, 2011 ) our review has identified some contextual components that affect learning. Central here is the role of leadership. Attentive leadership and the wellbeing of employees is seen as “the core of learning and culture” ( Pal et al., 2014 , p. 418). “Listening, being respectful, allowing others to lead and creating spaces for learning from experience are important practices of leadership in complexity and for resilience” ( Belrhiti et al., 2018 ; Petrie and Swanson, 2018 , cited by Gilson et al., 2020 , p. 9). Associated with leadership are empowerment and role clarity that enable the extraction, distribution, and application of information “from failures made in various parts of the organizational system;” they are important to knowledge-exchange and are thus related to creating a context for learning from failure ( Gressgard and Hansen, 2015 , p. 173). Further, organizations need to be able to take in new information and reflect on experiences, in order to cope and adapt to situations of adversity ( Orth and Schuldis, 2021 ). Aspiring to learn and improve entails organizational desire to accept risk and failure, as both are inherent precursors of OL ( Fasey et al., 2021 ). Such exchange can be facilitated though enhanced work engagement and an open collaborative work climate ( Fasey et al., 2021 ). This in turn relies on leadership involvement and requires a more organic structure; where employees feel “responsible for the organization's development, they are more likely open to change” ( Duchek, 2020 , p. 237).

The findings indicate that organizational resistance to change has been noted as the main impediment to organizational transformation, and consequently to successful learning ( Hardy, 2014 ). Such resistance can be found in individuals and in organizations ( Donahue and Tuohy, 2006 , cited by Hardy, 2014 ). Within organizations, “ change fatigue” and lack of employee motivation may inhibit learning ( Manfield and Newey, 2018 , p. 1171). Motivation for learning is important ( Gilson et al., 2020 ), but so are other aspects like policy and administrative demands, often in combination with resource constraints ( Naimoli and Saxena, 2018 ) and the cost of studying reports and implementing actions ( Hardy, 2014 ). Learning from other organizations may be inhibited by “resources, objectives and variations in learning experiences” between organizations ( Friday et al., 2021 , p. 262).

Summary of the Analysis

In sum, our findings indicate that OL is essential to OR. However, the role of learning varies, depending on which stage of the resilience process is in focus. The frequent use of learning in relation to adaptation as opposed to anticipation and coping shows that learning is especially important in this resilience stage. However, as Table 1 shows, learning is also addressed in the two latter stages; and, as underlined by several authors, it is a central part of overall resilience. Resilience can be built by improving the effectiveness of learning. Our results indicate that experiential learning is central to how organizations gain and expand knowledge in order to improve their capabilities. Effective OL relies on a system to ensure its continuity, knowledge-transfer across organizational levels, with organizational processes that allow for formal as well as informal practices. Our review has also shown that unlearning is necessary to facilitate and adopt new and updated learning, thereby ensuring further growth toward OR. Finally, effective learning requires a supportive context.

Our review shows that OR is becoming an important goal for various types of organizations regarding crisis management, but most of all, improved performance in a world of high uncertainty. The dominance of qualitative data may be interpreted as a sign of this being a relatively young field of research. Further, it seems reasonable for empirical studies from high-risk industries like healthcare and transport dominate the field. Interestingly, however, also other fields, like tourism, food, retail, public administration and universities, also are represented as empirical fields. We interpret this as a sign of the growing interest in improving organizational performance under conditions of adversity in all branches and sectors because of the increased global threat picture. The representation of all continents as geographical contexts, and the high number of recent articles (46 out of 59 published the between 2017 and 2021) shows the growing interest in the connection between OR and OL as an emerging field of research worldwide.

Despite some variation in how explicit the studies examined here are in their use of terminology, our review clearly shows the fundamental role of OL in building OR. Some articles specify and highlight learning in connection to anticipation, coping or adaptation; others do not. Regardless, learning is still implicitly present and arguably crucial for improving performance and developing OR. Yet, the literature on resilience would stand to benefit from addressing learning more directl y, rather than as implicit, or in “broad terms only” ( Battisti et al., 2019 , p. 39). In this study, we have focused on the capabilities underlying the above mentioned stages of resilience—specifically on learning as a means for building them. Our findings show that adaptation is recognized as vital for resilience, but that goes for learning as well, as it facilitates the development of the other resilience stages and capabilities. Just as OL relies on multiple levels of interactions within and outside an organization so does OR. The frequent use of learning in relation to the adaptation stage, in comparison to the anticipation and coping stages, shows that learning is especially important in this stage of OR.

From our findings on how learning is addressed in the literature on resilience, we argue that the dynamic nature of learning in resilience is particularly evident in the conceptualizations of coping. Organizations learn “in, from and for crisis” ( Elliott and Macpherson, 2010 , p. 3) and cope by using past experience (both positive and negative) and knowledge to manage current situations. The interaction between coping and the two other stages of resilience can be said to be strongly driven by learning. In turn, this implies that the capabilities that belong to other stages will be strengthened simultaneously. We hold that organizations can build resilience by focusing on improving their ability to learn. We find it reasonable to suggest that it may be advantageous for organizations to focus on their learning processes in daily organizational life, not only during disturbances and crisis events, if they wish to strengthen resilience.

Our review indicates that learning deserves greater emphasis in relation to how organizations can develop resilience . It also highlights the importance of identifying the determinants of OL in order to build OR. By elaborating the various facets of OL in OR, the value of informal and unintentional learning processes, the need for a system, contextual factors, and the focus on unlearning, our findings and analysis contribute with deeper insights to this field of study also reflecting on the complexity of OL interactions stated in theory. OR is indeed enhanced by facilitating OL, but many aspects influence how effective that learning will be. In practice this implies that organizations may improve learning by first identifying where there is a need for changing their practices and routines.

This study has affirmed and further nuanced OL as intentional and unintentional processes highlighting of the overlooked value of unintentional learning in particular. Effective OL is a matter of transforming relevant knowledge into practice including the transformation of “unintentional learning into explicit learning” ( Scholten et al., 2019 , p. 439). However, unintentional learning might, in fact, require more from the organization in terms of flexibility and attentiveness, to be able to recognize the learning opportunities that can improve performance and create appropriate systems for knowledge transfer. These intentional and unintentional learning processes are closely linked to the discussion of formal and informal learning practices. Practices that focus heavily on formal rules and learning policies are criticized, and the value of analyzing informal organizational rules, norms and practices is highlighted. Recognition of the importance of unlearning is an aspect of the connection between OL and OR that was not included in our theoretical framework. This constitutes one of the most important contributions of our study. Unlearning in developing OR involves abandoning old mental constructs in favor of new, more relevant ones—which in turn implies that organizations must identify which of their current practices and routines obstruct growth, to pave the way for necessary changes. Our findings show that double-loop and triple-loop learning are especially crucial for developing OR. This deeper learning is necessary to avoid pitfalls that hinder effective learning. Further, improved OL depends on a better understanding of root causes of events, with consideration given to long-term issues as opposed to correcting errors. We also found that focusing on learning processes (triple-loop learning), by establishing processes and routines appropriate for learning specific, relevant lessons can foster the development of OR.

We argue that effective learning is facilitated through a learning system that captures the diverse nature of learning practices that are both flexible but also embedded in organizational routines relying on formal protocols, policies, and procedures. A main finding is that such a system is critical for developing OR because learning must be transformed into resilience capabilities. Moreover, a system for effective learning must facilitate communication and allow knowledge, experiences, opinions, and perspectives to be shared, both within and across organizations and stakeholders. We point out that collective inter-organizational learning is central to OR.

Limitations

One limitation of this article concerns the risk of failing to identify relevant contributions during the sampling stage and/or excluding some during the analytical screening process. Moreover, several important contributions have been published after May 2021. The amount of data in the 59 selected articles is huge and the scope of this article limited, so several interesting findings have had to be omitted. Thus, our selection of what to include constitutes another limitation. There is a further risk of missing something, or misinterpreting the findings, during the analytical cycles of the coding process. There exist various OR frameworks; we have chosen the one proposed by Duchek (2020) , but it might be that other frameworks would address OL differently. Learning is truly an inherent part of OR; and, as our focus has been on learning as part of resilience, we have not delved into the various frameworks for OR. We acknowledge the variations of terms and concepts employed to conceptualize resilience, such as monitoring and responding ( Adini et al., 2017 ; Anderson et al., 2020 ), but here we have emphasized what the terms and concept capture and express in terms of learning . We have not addressed the complexity of OL, which, however, should be clear from our data on aspects of unlearning and intended/unintended learning. Finally, we recognize the synergy between OR and OL ( Vogus and Sutcliffe, 2007 ; Lombardi et al., 2021 ; Rodríguez-Sánchez et al., 2021 ) the scope of this article has been limited to how OL influences OR; the reverse effect has remained unexplored.

To our knowledge this is the first review to focus solely on the relationship between organizational learning and resilience, a relationship that has been discussed and established by scholars from various fields. More work is needed on how organizations can improve their learning abilities, as learning is essential for organizations to evolve from one resilience stage to another. OR can indeed be learned, so effective learning can serve as a critical driver for building OR. The effectiveness of OL can be increased by a more comprehensive understanding of the link between experiences and improved performance, with more focus on the value of diversity. OR is dependent upon an appropriate system to ensure continuous, inclusive, purposeful OL, capable of facilitating intentional and unintentional learning, and supported by an active context that enables new knowledge to enter the picture. Effective OL toward OR also requires the ability to unlearn previous ways of doing things, to learn and engage in new and improved ways of response. Lastly, organizations do not exist in a vacuum. OL must involve collaboration between organizations, to ensure sharing and exchange of valuable knowledge and experience, to build OR.

This article has theoretical and practical implications. As regards theory, our study contributes with insights on why learning is so central to resilience, through all the stages of capability. Our findings shed light on how learning can be targeted more effectively and how it can facilitate resilience. Second, our work shows the role of unlearning in OR, a point that deserves more attention in further research. In terms of theory, this study offers further insights into aspects of learning from experience and how this should be managed to build resilient organizations. On a practical note, there is still a need for empirical verification of the effects of learning on OR. More understanding is also needed of how learning interacts over time with other multilevel processes that contribute to building OR. Our findings have made clear the importance of establishing a system where organizations can build on the experiences and knowledge of other organizations in building resilience.

Our review also reveals need for further research . Current understanding of the dynamics of effective learning is at a very early stage, so more investment in systematic research on learning in organizations and their link to resilience-building ( Naimoli and Saxena, 2018 ) is called for. Further, there is a need for better understanding the correlation, if any, between disastrous events, their driving hazards, and major consequences; how learning occurs in affected organizations, and how long this organizational learning lasts ( Bhaskara and Filimonau, 2021 , p. 366). A key gap involves the scant attention given to the processes of knowledge transfer ( Elliott and Macpherson, 2010 ). Also needed is a deeper understanding of how learning interacts over time with other multilevel processes that contribute to building OR ( Fasey et al., 2021 ). Since learning is central if organizations are to evolve from one resilience stage to another, this review reveals the need for more research on how organizations can improve their learning abilities in general. More research, preferably empirical, is needed on the role, and potential, of informal practices and unintentional learning processes to improve OL related to OR, and on the role and practices of unlearning. Our study has also revealed the need for more research on the link between OL and learning at the individual, group and interorganizational levels. Even if it may seem paradoxical to “organize” for informal and unintended processes, this links in with the need for continuity and a coherent learning system.

Author Contributions

LE and MS conceptualized the article and coded and analyzed the material. MS provided the analytical framework. LE performed the data sampling, organized the material, and performed the first round of coding. AG provided Table 1 and contributed with critical editing of the whole manuscript. All authors contributed in the screening process, analytical stage with writing and critical editing, and have approved the submitted text.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

1. ^ “Grey literature stands for manifold document types produced on all levels of government, academics, business and industry in print and electronic formats that are protected by intellectual property rights, of sufficient quality to be collected and preserved by library holdings or institutional repositories, but not controlled by commercial publishers, i.e., where publishing is not the primary activity of the producing body” ( Schöpfel, 2010 ).

Adini, B., Cohen, O., Eide, A. W., Nilsson, S., Aharonson-Daniel, L., and Herrera, I. A. (2017). Striving to be resilient: what concepts, approaches and practices should be incorporated in resilience management guidelines? Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 121, 39–49. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.01.020

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Al-Atwi, A. A., Amankwah-Amoah, J., and Khan, Z. (2021). Micro-foundations of organizational design and sustainability: the mediating role of learning ambidexterity. Int. Bus. Rev. 30, 11. doi: 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2019.101656

Andersen, E. (2016). Learning to learn. Harvard Buisness Review , 94. Available online at: https://hbsp.harvard.edu/product/R1603J-PDF-ENG (accessed December 12, 2021).

Anderson, J. E., Ross, A. J., Macrae, C., and Wiig, S. (2020). Defining adaptive capacity in healthcare: a new framework for researching resilient performance. Appl. Ergon. 87, 9. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2020.103111

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Annarelli, A., Battistella, C., and Nonino, F. (2020). A Framework to evaluate the effects of organizational resilience on service quality. Sustainability 12, 958. doi: 10.3390/su12030958

Antonacopoulou, E., and Chiva, R. (2007). The social complexity of organizational learning: the dynamics of learning and organizing. Manage. Learn. 38, 277–295. doi: 10.1177/1350507607079029

Antonacopoulou, E. P., and Sheaffer, Z. (2014). Learning in crisis:rethinking the relationship between organizational learning and crisis management. J. Manage. Inquiry 23, 5–21. doi: 10.1177/1056492612472730

Argote, L. (2011). Organizational learning research: past, present and future. Manage. Learn. 42, 439–446. doi: 10.1177/1350507611408217

Argote, L., and Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge transfer: a basis for competitive advantage in firms. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 82, 150–169. doi: 10.1006/obhd.2000.2893

Argote, L., Lee, S., and Park, J. (2020). Organizational learning processes and outcomes: major findings and future research directions. Manage. Sci. 67, 5399–5429. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2020.3693

Argote, L., and Miron-Spektor, E. (2011). Organizational learning: from experience to knowledge. Organization Sci. 22, 1123–1137. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1100.0621

Argote, L., and Todorova, G. (2007). “Organizational learning: review and future directions,” in International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology , editors G. P. Hodgkinson and J. K. Ford (New York, Ny: John Wiley & Sons Ltd), 193–234.

Google Scholar

Argyris, C. (2002). Double-loop learning, teaching, and research. Acad. Manage. Learn. Educ. 1, 206–218. doi: 10.5465/amle.2002.8509400

Argyris, C., and Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Argyris, C., and Schön, D. A. (1996). Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method and Practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Azadegan, A., Srinivasan, R., Blome, C., and Tajeddini, K. (2019). Learning from near-miss events: an organizational learning perspective on supply chain disruption response. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 216, 215–226. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.04.021

Baer, M., Dirks, K. T., and Nickerson, J. A. (2013). Microfoundations of strategic problem formulation. Strategic Manage. J. 34, 197–214. doi: 10.1002/smj.2004

Baker, W. E., and Sinkula, J. M. (1999). The synergistic effect of market orientation and learning orientation on organizational performance. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 27, 411. doi: 10.1177/0092070399274002

Battisti, M., Beynon, M., Pickernell, D., and Deakins, D. (2019). Surviving or thriving: the role of learning for the resilient performance of small firms. J. Bus. Res. 100, 38–50. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.03.006

Belrhiti, Z., Nebot Geralt, A., and Marchal, B. (2018). Complex leadership in healthcare: a scoping review. Int. J. Health Policy Manage. 7, 1073–1084. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2018.75

Bhaskara, G. I., and Filimonau, V. (2021). The COVID-19 pandemic and organisational learning for disaster planning and management: a perspective of tourism businesses from a destination prone to consecutive disasters. J. Hosp. Tourism Manage. 46, 364–375. doi: 10.1016/j.jhtm.2021.01.011

Boin, A., Comfort, L. K., and Demchak, C. C. (2010). “The rise of resilience,” in Designing Resilience: Preparing for Extreme Events , editors L. K. Comfort, A. Boin, and C. C. Demchak (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: University of Pittsburgh Press).

Boin, A., and Lodge, M. (2016). Designing Resilient Institutions for transboundary crisis management: a time for public administration. Public Adm. 94, 289–298. doi: 10.1111/padm.12264

Boin, A., and van Eeten, M. J. G. (2013). The resilient organization. Public Manage. Rev. 15, 429–445. doi: 10.1080/14719037.2013.769856

Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Bragatto, P., Vairo, T., Milazzo, M. F., and Fabiano, B. (2021). The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the safety management in Italian Seveso industries. J. Loss Prevent. Process Ind. 70, 104393. doi: 10.1016/j.jlp.2021.104393

Braun, V., and Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 3, 77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Britt, T. W., Shen, W., Sinclair, R. R., Grossman, M. R., and Klieger, D. M. (2016). How Much do we really know about employee resilience? Ind. Organ. Psychol. 9, 378–404. doi: 10.1017/iop.2015.107

Chand, A. M., and Loosemore, M. (2016). Hospital learning from extreme weather events: using causal loop diagrams. Build. Res. Inform. 44, 875–888. doi: 10.1080/09613218.2016.1097805

Chen, K. D., Li, Y. H., and Linderman, K. (2021). Supply network resilience learning: an exploratory data analytics study. Decision Sci. 20, 1–20. doi: 10.1111/deci.12513

Chen, R., Xie, Y., and Liu, Y. (2021). Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring organizational resilience: a multiple case study. Sustainability 13, 2517. doi: 10.3390/su13052517

Chiva, R., Ghauri, P., and Alegre, J. (2014). Organizational learning, innovation and internationalization: a complex system model. Br. J. Manage. 25, 687–705. doi: 10.1111/1467-8551.12026

Christianson, M. K., Farkas, M. T., Sutcliffe, K. M., and Weick, K. E. (2009). Learning through rare events: significant interruptions at the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Museum. Organization Sci. 20, 846–860. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1080.0389

Cook, S. D. N., and Yanow, D. (1993). Culture and organizational learning. J. Manage. Inquiry 2, 373–390. doi: 10.1177/105649269324010

Cooper, H. M. (1988). Organizing knowledge syntheses: a taxonomy of literature reviews. Knowledge Soc. 1, 104. doi: 10.1007/BF03177550

Crick, R., and Bentley, J. (2020). Becoming a resilient organisation: integrating people and practice in infrastructure services. Int. J. Sustain. Eng. 13, 423–440. doi: 10.1080/19397038.2020.1750738

Crossan, M. M., and Apaydin, M. (2010). A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: a systematic review of the literature. J. Manage. Stud. 47, 1154–1191. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00880.x

Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., and White, R. E. (1999). An organizational learning framework: from intuition to institution. Acad. Manage. Rev. 24, 522–537. doi: 10.2307/259140

Dohaney, J., de Roiste, M., Salmon, R. A., and Sutherland, K. (2020). Benefits, barriers, and incentives for improved resilience to disruption in university teaching. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 50, 9. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101691

Donahue, A., and Tuohy, R. (2006). Lessons we don't learn: a study of the lessons of disasters, why we repeat them, and how we can learn them. Homeland Security Affairs 2, 4. Available online at: https://www.hsaj.org/articles/167 (accessed December 10, 2021).

Duchek, S. (2020). Organizational resilience: a capability-based conceptualization. Bus. Res. 13, 215–246. doi: 10.1007/s40685-019-0085-7

Duchek, S., Raetze, S., and Scheuch, I. (2020). The role of diversity in organizational resilience: a theoretical framework. Bus. Res. 13, 387–423. doi: 10.1007/s40685-019-0084-8

Dutra, L. X. C., Bustamante, R. H., Sporne, I., van Putten, I., Dichmont, C. M., Ligtermoet, E., et al. (2015). Organizational drivers that strengthen adaptive capacity in the coastal zone of Australia. Ocean Coast. Manag. 109, 64–76. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.02.008

Ekstedt, M., and Odegard, S. (2015). Exploring gaps in cancer care using a systems safety perspective. Cogn. Technol. Work 17, 5–13. doi: 10.1007/s10111-014-0311-1

Elliott, D., and Macpherson, A. (2010). Policy and practice: recursive learning from crisis. Group Org. Manage. 35, 572–605. doi: 10.1177/1059601110383406

Ellis, S., and Shpielberg, N. (2003). Organizational learning mechanisms and managers' perceived uncertainty. Hum. Relat. 56, 1233–1254. doi: 10.1177/00187267035610004

Fannoun, S., and Kerins, J. (2019). Towards organisational learning enhancement: assessing software engineering practice. Learn. Org. 26, 44–59. doi: 10.1108/TLO-09-2018-0149

Fasey, K. J., Sarkar, M., Wagstaff, C. R. D., and Johnston, J. (2021). Defining and characterizing organizational resilience in elite sport. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 52, 12. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2020.101834

Fiol, M., and O'Connor, E. (2017). Unlearning established organizational routines – Part I. Learn. Org. 24, 13–29. doi: 10.1108/TLO-09-2016-0056

Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., et al. (2004). Regime shifts, resilience, and biodiversity in ecosystem management. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 35, 557–581. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.35.021103.105711

Friday, D., Savage, D. A., Melnyk, S. A., Harrison, N., Ryan, S., and Wechtler, H. (2021). A collaborative approach to maintaining optimal inventory and mitigating stockout risks during a pandemic: capabilities for enabling health-care supply chain resilience. J. Hum. Logistics Supply Chain Manage. 11, 24. doi: 10.1108/JHLSCM-07-2020-0061

Fridell, M., Edwin, S., von Schreeb, J., and Saulnier, D. D. (2020). Health system resilience: what are we talking about? A scoping review mapping characteristics and keywords. Int. J. Health Policy Manage. 9, 6–16. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2019.71

Garvin, D. A. (1993). Building a learning organization. Harv. Bus. Rev. 71, 78–91.

Garvin, D. A., Edmondson, A. C., and Gino, F. (2008). Is yours a learning organization? Harvard Bus. Rev. 86, 109–116, 134. Available online at: https://hbr.org/2008/03/is-yours-a-learning-organization (accessed December 5, 2021).

Gherardi, S. (2008). “Situated knowledge and situated action: What do practice-based studies promise?,” in The SAGE Handbook of New Approaches in Management and Organization , editors D. Barry and H. Hansen (Los Angeles, CA: Sage), 516–525.

Gherardi, S., and Nicolini, D. (2002). Learning in a constellation of interconnected practices: canon or dissonance? J. Manage. Stud. 39, 419–436. doi: 10.1111/1467-6486.t01-1-00298

Gherardi, S., Nicolini, D., and Odella, F. (1998). Toward a social understanding of how people learn in organizations:the notion of situated curriculum. Manage. Learn. 29, 273–297. doi: 10.1177/1350507698293002

Gilson, L., Ellokor, S., Lehmann, U., and Brady, L. (2020). Organizational change and everyday health system resilience: lessons from Cape Town, South Africa. Soc. Sci. Med. 266, 10. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113407

Giustiniano, L., Clegg, S. R., Cunha, M. P., and Rego, A. (2018). Elgar Introduction to Theories of Organizational Resilience . Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. doi: 10.4337/9781786437044

Gressgard, L. J., and Hansen, K. (2015). Knowledge exchange and learning from failures in distributed environments: the role of contractor relationship management and work characteristics. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 133, 167–175. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2014.09.010

Grisold, T., Klammer, A., and Kragulj, F. (2020). Two forms of organizational unlearning: insights from engaged scholarship research with change consultants. Manage. Learn. 51, 598–619. doi: 10.1177/1350507620916042

Habiyaremye, A. (2021). Co-operative learning and resilience to COVID-19 in a small-sized South African enterprise. Sustainability 13, 17. doi: 10.3390/su13041976

Hardy, T. L. (2014). “Resilience: a holistic safety approach,” in 2014 60th Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium (New York).

Hecht, A. A., Biehl, E., Barnett, D. J., and Neff, R. A. (2019). Urban food supply chain resilience for crises threatening food security: a qualitative study. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 119, 211–224. doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2018.09.001

Hegde, S., Hettinger, A. Z., Fairbanks, R. J., Wreathall, J., Krevat, S. A., and Bisantz, A. M. (2020a). Knowledge elicitation to understand resilience: a method and findings from a health care case study. J. Cogn. Eng. Decis. Mak. 14, 75–95. doi: 10.1177/1555343419877719

Hegde, S., Hettinger, A. Z., Fairbanks, R. J., Wreathall, J., Krevat, S. A., Jackson, C. D., et al. (2020b). Qualitative findings from a pilot stage implementation of a novel organizational learning tool toward operationalizing the Safety-II paradigm in health care. Appl. Ergon. 82, 8. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2019.102913

Herbane, B. (2019). Rethinking organizational resilience and strategic renewal in SMEs. Entrepreneurship Regional Dev. 31, 476–495. doi: 10.1080/08985626.2018.1541594

Hermelin, J., Bengtsson, K., Woltjer, R., Trnka, J., Thorstensson, M., Pettersson, J., et al. (2020). Operationalising resilience for disaster medicine practitioners: capability development through training, simulation and reflection. Cogn. Technol. Work 22, 667–683. doi: 10.1007/s10111-019-00587-y

Hernes, T., and Irgens, E. J. (2013). Keeping things mindfully on track: organizational learning under continuity. Manage. Learn. 44, 253–266. doi: 10.1177/1350507612445258

Hillmann, J., Duchek, S., Meyr, J., and Guenther, E. (2018). Educating future managers for developing resilient organizations: the role of scenario planning. J. Manage. Educ. 42, 461–495. doi: 10.1177/1052562918766350

Hillmann, J., and Guenther, E. (2021). Organizational resilience: a valuable construct for management research? Int. J. Manag. Rev. 23, 7–44. doi: 10.1111/ijmr.12239

Hollnagel, E. (2011). “Prologue: the scope of resilience engineering,” in Resilience Engineering in Practice: A Guidebook , editors E. Hollnagel, J. Pariès, D. Woods, and J. Wreathall (England: Surrey: Taylor & Francis Group), 30–41.

Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: the contributing processes and the literatures. Org. Sci. 2, 88–115. doi: 10.1287/orsc.2.1.88

Johannesen, D. T. S., Lindoe, P. H., and Wiig, S. (2020). Certification as support for resilience? Behind the curtains of a certification body: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv. Res. 20, 14. doi: 10.1186/s12913-020-05608-5

Johnsen, S. O., and Habrekke, S. (2009). Can Organisational Learning Improve Safety and Resilience During Changes? Boca Raton: Crc Press-Taylor & Francis Group.

Johnsen, S. O., and Stene, T. (2014). Improving Human Resilience in Space and Distributed Environments by CRIOP. Boca Raton: CRC, FL Press/Taylor & Francis Group.

Jones, O., and Macpherson, A. (2006). Inter-organizational learning and strategic renewal in SMEs: extending the 4I framework. Long Range Plann. 39, 155–175. doi: 10.1016/j.lrp.2005.02.012

Kayes, D. C. (2015). Organizational Resilience: How Learning Sustains Organizations in Crisis, Disaster, and Breakdown . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Khan, S. J., Deere, D., Leusch, F. D. L., Humpage, A., Jenkins, M., Cunliffe, D., et al. (2017). Lessons and guidance for the management of safe drinking water during extreme weather events. Environ. Sci. Water Res. Technol. 3, 262–277. doi: 10.1039/C6EW00165C

Khan, T. Z. A., Farooq, W., and Rasheed, H. (2019). Organizational resilience: a dynamic capability of complex systems. J. Manage. Res. 6, 1–26. doi: 10.29145//JMR/61/0601001

Klockner, K., and Meredith, P. (2020). Measuring resilience potentials: a pilot program using the resilience assessment grid. Safety 6, 17. doi: 10.3390/safety6040051

Kugley, S., Wade, A., Thomas, J., Mahood, Q., Jørgensen, A.-M. K., Hammerstrøm, K., et al. (2017). Searching for studies: a guide to information retrieval for Campbell systematic reviews. Campbell Syst. Rev. 13, 1–73. doi: 10.4073/cmg.2016.1

CrossRef Full Text

Lave, J., and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lavie, D., Stettner, U., and Tushman, M. L. (2010). Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. Acad. Manag. Ann. 4, 109–155. doi: 10.5465/19416521003691287

Lawrence, T. B., Mauws, M. K., Dyck, B., and Kleysen, R. F. (2005). The politics of organizational learning: integrating power into the 4I framework. Acad. Manage. Rev. 30, 180–191. doi: 10.5465/amr.2005.15281451

Lengnick-Hall, C. A., Beck, T. E., and Lengnick-Hall, M. L. (2011). Developing a capacity for organizational resilience through strategic human resource management. Hum. Resource Manage. Rev. 21, 243–255. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.07.001

Levinthal, D. A., and March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Manage. J. 14, 95–112. doi: 10.1002/smj.4250141009

Liñán, F., and Fayolle, A. (2015). A systematic literature review on entrepreneurial intentions: citation, thematic analyses, and research agenda. Int. Entrepreneurship Manage. J. 11, 907–933. doi: 10.1007/s11365-015-0356-5

Linnenluecke, M., and Griffiths, A. (2010). Beyond adaptation: resilience for business in light of climate change and weather extremes. Bus. Soc. 49, 477–511. doi: 10.1177/0007650310368814

Linnenluecke, M. K. (2017). Resilience in business and management research: a review of influential publications and a research agenda. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 19, 4–30. doi: 10.1111/ijmr.12076

Lipshitz, R., Popper, M., and Friedman, V. J. (2002). A multifacet model of organizational learning. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 38, 78–98. doi: 10.1177/0021886302381005

Lombardi, S., Pina e Cunha, M., and Giustiniano, L. (2021). Improvising resilience: the unfolding of resilient leadership in COVID-19 times. Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 95, 102904. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2021.102904

Lundberg, C. C. (1995). Learning in and by organization: three conceptual issues. Int. J. Org. Anal. 3, 10–23. doi: 10.1108/eb028821

Ma, Z. Z., Xiao, L., and Yin, J. L. (2018). Toward a dynamic model of organizational resilience. Nankai Bus. Rev. Int. 9, 246–263. doi: 10.1108/NBRI-07-2017-0041

Mackay, D., and Zundel, M. (2017). Recovering the divide: a review of strategy and tactics in business and management. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 19, 175–194. doi: 10.1111/ijmr.12091

Madsen, P. M., and Desai, V. (2010). Failing to learn? The effects of failure and success on organizational learning in the global orbital launch vehicle industry. Acad. Manage. J. 53, 451–476. doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.51467631

Manfield, R. C., and Newey, L. R. (2018). Resilience as an entrepreneurial capability: integrating insights from a cross-disciplinary comparison. Int. J. Entrepreneurial Behav. Res. 24, 1155–1180. doi: 10.1108/IJEBR-11-2016-0368

March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Org. Sci. 2, 71–87. doi: 10.1287/orsc.2.1.71

March, J. G. (2010). The Ambiguities of Experience. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Martinelli, E., Tagliazucchi, G., and Marchi, G. (2018). The resilient retail entrepreneur: dynamic capabilities for facing natural disasters. Int. J. Entrepreneurial Behav. Res. 24, 1222–1243. doi: 10.1108/IJEBR-11-2016-0386

Miles, M. B., and Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. 2nd Edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Morais-Storz, M., and Nguyen, N. (2017). The role of unlearning in metamorphosis and strategic resilience. Learn. Org. 24, 93–106. doi: 10.1108/TLO-12-2016-0091

Mousa, M., Abdelgaffar, H. A., Chaouali, W., and Aboramadan, M. (2020). Organizational learning, organizational resilience and the mediating role of multi-stakeholder networks A study of Egyptian academics. J. Workplace Learn. 32, 161–181. doi: 10.1108/JWL-05-2019-0057

Mousa, M., Sai, A., and Salhin, G. (2017). An exploration for the motives behind enhancing senior banker's level of organizational resilience: a holistic case study. J. Intercultural Manage. 9, 141–163. doi: 10.1515/joim-2017-0025

Naimoli, J. F., and Saxena, S. (2018). Realizing their potential to become learning organizations to foster health system resilience: opportunities and challenges for health ministries in low- and middle-income countries. Health Policy Plan. 33, 1083–1095. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czy100

Näswall, K., Kuntz, J., Hodliffe, M., and Malinen, S. (2013). Employee Resilience Scale (EmpRes): Resilient Organisations Research Report 2013/06 ISSN 1178-7279 . Available online at: http://hdl.handle.net/10092/9469 (accessed December 12, 2021).

Nicolletti, M., Lutti, N., Souza, R., and Pagotto, L. (2019). Social and organizational learning in the adaptation to the process of climate change: the case of a Brazilian thermoplastic resins and petrochemical company. J. Clean. Prod. 226, 748–758. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.058

Nyman, M. R. (2019). collective learning in organizations: opportunities and constraints. Case study of an avalanche blocking a railway line. Risk Hazards Crisis Public Policy 10, 332–359. doi: 10.1002/rhc3.12159

Örtenblad, A. (2004). The learning organization: towards an integrated model. Learn. Org. 11, 129–144. doi: 10.1108/09696470410521592

Orth, D., and Schuldis, P. M. (2021). Organizational learning and unlearning capabilities for resilience during COVID-19. Learn. Org . 28, 509–522. doi: 10.1108/TLO-07-2020-0130

Pal, R., Torstensson, H., and Mattila, H. (2014). Antecedents of organizational resilience in economic crises: an empirical study of Swedish textile and clothing SMEs. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 147, 410–428. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.02.031

Parsons, D. (2010). Organisational resilience. Aust. J. Emerg. Manage. 25, 18–20. doi: 10.3316/ielapa.084557405183732

Patriarca, R., Di Gravio, G., Costantino, F., Falegnami, A., and Bilotta, F. (2018). An analytic framework to assess organizational resilience. Saf. Health Work 9, 265–276. doi: 10.1016/j.shaw.2017.10.005

Petrie, D. A., and Swanson, R. C. (2018). The mental demands of leadership in complex adaptive systems. Healthcare Manage. Forum 31, 206–213. doi: 10.1177/0840470418778051

Popova-Nowak, I. V., and Cseh, M. (2015). The meaning of organizational learning:a meta-paradigm perspective. Hum. Resource Dev. Rev. 14, 299–331. doi: 10.1177/1534484315596856

Powley, E. H., and Cameron, K. S. (2020). “Resilience and organizational culture: a competing values perspective,” in Research Handbook on Organizational Resilience , editors E. H Powley, B. B. Caza, and A. Caza (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar), 261–274.

Prasad, S., Su, H. C., Altay, N., and Tata, J. (2015). Building disaster-resilient micro enterprises in the developing world. Disasters 39, 447–466. doi: 10.1111/disa.12117

Provan, D. J., Woods, D. D., Dekker, S. W. A., and Rae, A. J. (2020). Safety II professionals: how resilience engineering can transform safety practice. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 195, 106740. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2019.106740

Rangachari, P., and Woods, J. L. (2020). Preserving organizational resilience, patient safety, and staff retention during COVID-19 requires a holistic consideration of the psychological safety of healthcare workers. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 17, 4267. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17124267

Reich, B. H. (2007). Managing knowledge and learning in it projects: a conceptual framework and guidelines for practice. Proj. Manage. J. 38, 5–17. doi: 10.1177/875697280703800202

Ritz, F., Kleindienst, C., Brüngger, J., and Koch, J. (2015). Coping with unexpected safety-critical situations: a concept for resilient (simulator) team training for control room teams. Proc. Manufact. 3, 1865–1871. doi: 10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.228

Rodríguez-Sánchez, A., Guinot, J., Chiva, R., and López-Cabrales, Á. (2021). How to emerge stronger: antecedents and consequences of organizational resilience. J. Manage. Org. 27, 442–459. doi: 10.1017/jmo.2019.5

Rodríguez-Sánchez, A. M., and Vera Perea, M. (2015). The secret of organisation success: a revision on organisational and team resilience. Int. J. Emerg. Serv. 4, 27–36. doi: 10.1108/IJES-09-2014-0018

Ruiz-Martin, C., López-Paredes, A., and Wainer, G. (2018). What we know and do not know about organizational resilience. Int. J. Prod. Manage. Eng. 6, 11–28. doi: 10.4995/ijpme.2018.7898

Salanova, M. (2020). How to survive COVID-19? Notes from organisational resilience. Int. J. Soc. Psychol. 35, 670–676. doi: 10.1080/02134748.2020.1795397

Schilling, J., and Kluge, A. (2009). Barriers to organizational learning: an integration of theory and research. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 11:337–360. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2008.00242.x

Scholten, K., Scott, P. S., and Fynes, B. (2019). Building routines for non-routine events: supply chain resilience learning mechanisms and their antecedents. Supply Chain Manage. Int. J. 24, 430–442. doi: 10.1108/SCM-05-2018-0186

Schöpfel, J. (2010). “Towards a Prague definition of grey literature,” in Twelfth International Conference on Grey Literature: Transparency in Grey Literature. Grey Tech Approaches to High Tech Issues. Prague, 6–7 December 2010 , 11–26.

Sengul, H., Marsan, D., and Gun, T. (2019). Survey assessment of organizational resiliency potential of a group of Seveso organizations in Turkey. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part O J. Risk Reliab. 233, 470–486. doi: 10.1177/1748006X18802655

Sitkin, S. B. (1992). Learning through failure: the strategy of small losses. Res. Org. Behav. 14, 231–266.

Starbuck, W. H. (1967). Organizational metamorphosis. Acad. Manage. Proc. 1, 113–132. doi: 10.5465/ambpp.1967.4980662

Steen, R., and Ferreira, P. (2020). Resilient flood-risk management at the municipal level through the lens of the functional resonance analysis model. Reliabil. Eng. Syst. Saf. 204, 107150. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2020.107150

Suryaningtyas, D., Sudiro, A., Eka, T. A., and Dodi, I. W. (2019). Organizational resilience and organizational performance: examining the mediating roles of resilient leadership and organizational culture. Acad. Strat. Manage. J. 18, 1. Available online at: https://www.abacademies.org/journals/academy-of-strategic-management-journal-home.html (accessed December 12, 2021).

Sutcliffe, K. M., and Vogus, T. J. (2003). “Organizing for resilience,” in Positive Organizational Scholarship: Foundations of a New Discipline , editors K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, and R. E. Quinn (San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler), 94–110.

Tasic, J., Amir, S., Tan, J., and Khader, M. (2020). A multilevel framework to enhance organizational resilience. J. Risk Res. 23, 713–738. doi: 10.1080/13669877.2019.1617340

Taylor, G., Templeton, G., and Baker, L. (2010). Factors influencing the success of organizational learning implementation: a policy facet perspective. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 12, 353–364. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00268.x

Tsang, E. W. K., and Zahra, S. A. (2008). Organizational unlearning. Hum. Relat. 61, 1435–1462. doi: 10.1177/0018726708095710

Ungar, M. (2018). Systemic resilience: principles and processes for a science of change in contexts of adversity. Ecol. Soc. 23, 17. doi: 10.5751/ES-10385-230434

van Trijp, J., Boersma, K., and Groenewegen, P. (2018). Resilience from the real world towards specific organisational resilience in emergency response organisations. Int. J. Emerg. Manage. 14, 303–321. doi: 10.1504/IJEM.2018.097358

Vogus, T. J., and Sutcliffe, K. M. (2007). “Organizational resilience: towards a theory and research agenda,” in IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics , 3418–3422.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Walsh, J. P., and Ungson, G. R. (1991). Organizational memory. Acad. Manage. Rev. 16, 57–91. doi: 10.2307/258607

Weick, K. E., and Sutcliffe, K. M. (2015). Managing the Unexpected: Sustained Performance in a Complex World , 3rd Edn. New Jersey, NY: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Wright, C., Suh, C. S., and Leggett, C. (2009). If at first you don't succeed: globalized production and organizational learning at the Hyundai Motor Company. Asia Pacific Bus. Rev. 15, 163–180. doi: 10.1080/13602380701698418

Xiao, Y., and Watson, M. (2019). Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 39, 93–112. doi: 10.1177/0739456X17723971

Keywords: organizational resilience, organizational learning, organizational unlearning, organizational capabilities, experiential learning, crisis management

Citation: Evenseth LL, Sydnes M and Gausdal AH (2022) Building Organizational Resilience Through Organizational Learning: A Systematic Review. Front. Commun. 7:837386. doi: 10.3389/fcomm.2022.837386

Received: 16 December 2021; Accepted: 31 January 2022; Published: 25 February 2022.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2022 Evenseth, Sydnes and Gausdal. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Lise L. Evenseth, lise.l.evenseth@uit.no ; Maria Sydnes, maria.sydnes@uit.no

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Int J Health Policy Manag
• v.7(6); 2018 Jun

What Is Resilience and How Can It Be Nurtured? A Systematic Review of Empirical Literature on Organizational Resilience

Edwine barasa.

1 Health Economics Research Unit, KEMRI Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.

2 Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Lucy Gilson

3 School of Public Health and Family Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.

4 Department of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.

Background: Recent health system shocks such as the Ebola outbreak of 2014–2016 and the global financial crisis of 2008 have generated global health interest in the concept of resilience. The concept is however not new, and has been applied to other sectors for a longer period of time. We conducted a review of empirical literature from both the health and other sectors to synthesize evidence on organizational resilience.

Methods: We systematically searched for literature in PubMed, Econlit, EBSCOHOST databases, google, and Google Scholar and manually searched the reference lists of selected papers. We identified 34 papers that met our inclusion criteria. We analysed data from the selected papers by thematic review.

Results: Resilience was generally taken to mean a system’s ability to continue to meet its objectives in the face of challenges. The concepts of resilience that were used in the selected papers emphasized not just a system’s capacity to withstand shocks, but also to adapt and transform. The resilience of organizations was influenced by the following factors: Material resources, preparedness and planning, information management, collateral pathways and redundancy, governance processes, leadership practices, organizational culture, human capital, social networks and collaboration.

Conclusion: A common theme across the selected papers is the recognition of resilience as an emergent property of complex adaptive systems. Resilience is both a function of planning for and preparing for future crisis (planned resilience), and adapting to chronic stresses and acute shocks (adaptive resilience). Beyond resilience to acute shocks, the resilience of health systems to routine and chronic stress (everyday resilience) is also key. Health system software is as, if not more important, as its hardware in nurturing health system resilience.

Health systems globally have experienced major crisis and disruptive shocks over the past decade. This includes the 2008 global economic crisis 1 and the 2014-2016 Ebola outbreak. 2 These and previous shocks have catalysed the increasing attention to the concept of resilience in global health discourse. 2 - 4 Building the resilience of health systems, it has been argued, will reduce their vulnerability to crisis, by ensuring that they are better prepared and effectively respond, and that there is maintenance or minimal disruption of the delivery of core healthcare services. 2 , 3 , 5 , 6

However, despite its relatively recent entrance into the global health debates, the concept has been applied in other sectors for a longer period of time. The concept originated from the physical sciences, where it refers to a physical system’s capacity to return to its original form after a disturbance. 7 The concept was subsequently applied to the ecological sciences where it was used to refer to an ecosystem’s ability to absorb shocks while maintaining function. 8 , 9 This early conceptualization of resilience as a system’s ability to bounce back from a disturbance has been called engineering resilience as it was based on a “machine” view of systems, with simple cause and effect dynamics. However, subsequent applications of resilience, especially to social systems, recognized the complex adaptive nature of systems. This recognition prompted a view of resilience as involving the adaptation and transformation of systems though the emergence of new structures such as policies, processes and organizational culture that enable organizations to continue to perform their functions in the face of challenges. 10 , 11

Despite the growing interest in the concept of resilience, there is scarce evidence on how to generate or strengthen resilience in health systems or in other sectors. The resilience literature is predominantly conceptual, focusing on concepts and principles. 12 Yet understanding what makes systems resilient in the real world is critical to thinking about developing strategies for strengthening their resilience. We reviewed empirical literature with the aim of exploring how resilience was conceptualized, identifying the factors that influence organizational resilience and how they could be nurtured. Organizational resilience has been defined as ‘the maintenance of positive adjustment under challenging conditions such that the organization emerges from those conditions strengthened and more resourceful.’ 13 Because empirical literature on resilience is scarce, and because the health sector has a very short history of engaging with the concept, we deliberately broadened our review to include literature from both the health and other sectors. This is, to our knowledge, the first review of empirical literature on resilience undertaken to support health systems thinking, and it makes the following contributions. First, the evidence synthesized enriches debates on health system resilience by drawing on experiences from other sectors, so allowing for cross-pollination of ideas. Second, the evidence on factors that influence organizational resilience can inform the development of interventions for strengthening health system resilience, and developing frameworks for monitoring the impact of these interventions.

Literature Search

We searched literature in December 2016 in PubMed, Econlit, EBSCOHOST databases, google, and Google scholar. We used the following keywords to search for literature: ‘Resilience’ and ‘organization*’ or ‘organization’ or ‘institution’ or ‘system.’ We manually searched the reference lists of selected papers for relevant papers. We did not use any time restrictions in our search but included studies up to the time of the literature search (December 31, 2016). We used the following inclusion criteria to select papers to be included in the review: (1) papers published in the English language, (2) papers that reported empirical research on organizational resilience rather than theoretical/conceptual papers. Empirical research is based on observed and measured phenomena and derives knowledge from actual experience rather than from theory or belief, and (3) papers that reported studies that focused on organizational resilience, rather than the resilience of individuals. In this step, we first screened study abstracts and then obtained full-text formats for studies deemed relevant. Two authors independently reviewed all abstracts and full-text formats.

The first step in the literature search resulted in a total of 24 984 papers. Of the 24 984 articles, 24 708 articles were excluded after a review of abstracts because they were not empirical papers, and/or focused on individual rather than organizational resilience. Eight more articles were excluded for being duplicates. An assessment of the full-text formats of the remaining 268 papers resulted in a further 234 exclusions. A total of 34 studies were finally included in the review ( Table 1 ). Figure outlines the screening process of papers obtained through searches.

Screening Process of Papers Obtained Through Searches.

Characteristics of Selected Studies

Table 1 outlines the characteristics of the selected papers. Even though we did not use any time restriction, the oldest publication that met our selection criteria was published in 1998 (less than 20 years old). This highlights the fact that empirical work on organizational resilience in health and other sectors is fairly recent. Of the 34 papers, 22 were focused on high income country experiences, while only 12 were based on low and middle income country experiences. Of the selected papers, 12 were based on health sector experiences, while 22 were based on other sector experiences. Two of the studies from outside the health sector focused on socio-ecological systems, while the rest focused on overall organizational resilience. Based on the selected papers, it appears that empirical work on organizational resilience has largely focused on identifying the characteristics that make systems resilient. This was either achieved by testing the association between a quantitative measure of organizational resilience and quantitative measures of resilience attributes derived from an a priori resilience framework (4 papers), or examining the experience of resilient systems in the face of challenges to identify enablers of resilience. For example, on the one hand, Sawalha 22 applied an a priori framework to quantitatively assess the resilience of general insurance organisations in Jordan to multiple everyday challenges of competition, loss of customers, financial losses and political instability, while Hassall et al 23 examined the perspectives of practitioners from multiple industries (healthcare, services and consulting, oil, gas and refining, manufacturing, transport and logistics) in Australia on organizational resilience to unspecified acute shocks. On the other hand, Achour and Price 14 explored the healthcare resilience strategies of healthcare organizations in the United Kingdom to econoLembani mic challenges, while et al 28 examined the mechanisms that influence the resilience of the Ivory Coast health system to disruptions caused by a civil war.

Quality Appraisal

We used the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tool, which uses a check-list approach with screening questions, to assess the adequacy, trustworthiness and relevance of the evidence reported in the articles. 47 , 48 The quality appraisal results are outlined in Table 2 .

A large number of selected papers scored poorly on explicating (1) the approach used to select study participants, (2) the relationship between the researchers and participants, and (3) measures taken to ensure the study adhered to research ethics standards. However, our observation what that this was largely because of difference in style and practice of science writing in health and other sectors. While papers from the health sector were structured in the common tradition of health/medical science (introduction, methods, results, discussion, conclusion) with each section providing significant detail, papers from other sectors were more heterogeneous in structure, and focused more on discussing findings, and less on explicating methods. We therefore interpreted the differences in quality score as difference in style and writing practice rather than necessarily difference in quality. As a result, we opted to include all the selected papers, as excluding some on the basis of the quality score would likely preferentially exclude papers from other sectors and we judged all papers as offering valuable insights for the review.

Synthesis of Selected Papers

We conducted a thematic review of the selected papers. 49 This entailed the following steps: (1) familiarizing with the data by reading through the selected papers, (2) generating a coding framework, (3) reading through the selected papers and coding the contents based on the coding framework (4) charting the coded data, and analyzing by constructing themes from these emergent ideas and concepts in an interpretive stage where findings from the selected papers were integrated into coherent themes. Coding was done in NVIVO version 10 software.

Concept of Resilience

Across the selected papers, resilience was generally taken to mean a system’s ability to continue to perform and meet its objectives in the face of challenges. There is a general consensus around the notion that organizational resilience is achieved by a combination of absorbing the challenges faced, and changing by adapting and transforming so as to continue to thrive in the face of challenges. This is in contrast to the early notion of resilience as simply bouncing back from shock (resilience engineering). For instance, Herrfahrdt-Paehle and Pahl-Wostl, 24 who examine the tension between continuity and change and how they affect the resilience of socio-ecological systems to environmental changes in South Africa and Uzbekistan, adopt Folke’s 9 definition of resilience as a system’s capacity to absorb disturbances, while learning from them and reorganizing. While resilience engineering is grounded on a machine-like view of systems, with simple cause and effect relationships, organizational resilience that is conceptualized as the ability of an organization to absorb, adapt, and transform in the face of challenges is grounded on the view of systems as complex and adaptive. 50

Walker et al, 45 who explore the link between work engagement and the resilience of infrastructure organizations (air travel, banking, telecommunications, water/waste services, and roads) to earthquakes in New Zealand, distinguish between two dimensions of resilience; planned resilience , and adaptive resilience . Organizations exhibit planned resilience when they employ pre-existing plans to avoid or minimize the effect of a crisis. These include business continuity and risk management plans that outline pre-disaster activities required to keep organizations running during and after a period of disruptions such as natural (earth quakes, floods, disease outbreaks) and man-made disasters (terrorist attacks, fires). 45 Adaptive resilience emerges during the post-disaster (natural and/or man-made) period as new capacities are developed by organizations by responding to emergent situations. 34 Walker et al 45 emphasize that while planned resilience is important, adaptive resilience is more influential since it is more sustainable and effective in the context of uncertainty about what the future could bring.

Shocks and Challenges Faced by Systems and Organizations

A majority of the papers (9/12) that examined the resilience of health systems focused on acute, often catastrophic shocks to the system. Shocks are classified as acute if they are sudden in occurrence and transient in nature. These included disease outbreaks, 27 , 31 insecurity, 15 , 29 economic crisis, 1 , 19 unspecified natural and/manmade disasters, 14 , 46 and rapid policy reforms. 35 Only 2 papers focused on the resilience of health systems to chronic, everyday challenges. Challenges are described as chronic if they persistent and recurrent over long periods of time. Lembani et al 29 examined the resilience of the health system of South African provinces faced with chronic health system dysfunction and politicization. Felland et al 21 examined the resilience of local healthcare safety nets to chronic economic pressures and budget cuts in the United States of America. Among the papers that examined resilience outside the health sector, there appears to be a focus on both acute shocks, such as earthquakes, 26 , 45 environmental disasters, 37 and other natural disasters, 16 , 20 and multiple everyday challenges such as competition, financial difficulties, punitive laws, and climate change. 23 , 24 It appears that the notion of resilience to chronic, everyday challenges has been embraced more by other sectors, compared to the health sector.

Factors That Influence the Resilience of Organizations

Material resources.

The availability of resources is considered a key enabler of organizational resilience. 21 , 28 , 29 , 32 , 39 When material resources are used strategically, organizations can overcome disruption. Financial resources are also considered necessary to mobilize other needed resources during crisis. For example, Pal et al 39 observed that resource constraints, specifically material, financial, and technological, impaired the resilience of small and middle enterprises to economic crisis in Sweden. McManus et al 32 examined factors that influence the resilience of 10 case study organizations (private manufacturer, local authority, private contractor, public utility provider, private primary producer, education provider, private wholesale distributor, private utility provider, private retailer, private technology provider) to acute shocks (natural and manmade) in New Zealand and found that an organizations’ financial position was a key ingredient to its resilience.

Preparedness and Planning

Resilience to acute shocks, rather than everyday challenges, is enhanced by adequate planning. 17 , 26 - 28 , 32 For example, hospitals in the United Kingdom developed and tested business continuity and risk management plans to ensure the continued functioning of core services throughout natural (such as floods) and man-made (such as terrorist attacks) disasters. 14 McManus et al 32 found that the degree to which organizations planned for continued supply of essential goods and services in times of a crisis contributed to the resilience of 10 case study organizations (local authority, private primary producer, private manufacturer, private contractor, public utility provider, private technology provider, private wholesale distributor, private retailer, education provider, private utility provider) in New Zealand. One of the strategies used by organizations to prepare for crises or disasters is by going through scenario exercises (pseudo-crisis situations). Lapao et al 27 observes that health systems in Lusophone African countries, faced with the uncertain future of a disease outbreak, should, among others, prioritize the training of health professionals to seriously prepare them through scenario drills.

Information Management

Organizational resilience is widely identified as being dependent on how information is managed and used. 14 - 16 , 23 , 26 , 27 , 30 , 32 , 44 For example, Ager et al 15 found that the flow of information between the security services and state ministry of health strengthened health system resilience to the Boko Haram insurgency in Nigeria. Lapao et al 27 found that a clear flow of information was necessary to allow a quick and correct response to the Ebola disease outbreak in Lusophone African countries. Information was seen as a key ingredient to how timely and adequately organizations adapted to challenges. According to Stephenson et al, 44 knowledge management involves ensuring that strategies, organizational goals and achievements are effectively communicated across the organization. Further, organizations should proactively monitor what is happening in their environment. This could be achieved by activities such as evaluation of competitors, market research, and political and regulatory awareness. 44 A key utility of effective information management and use was in enhancing the situation awareness of organizations. Situation awareness refers to an organization’s perception and understanding of its environment. 33 Situation awareness is characterized by an increased understanding of the factors that trigger crisis, minimum operating requirements, availability of internal and external resources. Organizations can identify the early warning signals that precede a crisis by monitoring internal and external environments. Reflecting on the experience of the Ebola disease outbreak in Lusophone African countries, Lapao et al 27 recommend the need for effective information and epidemiological surveillance systems that monitor and report on the status of the system and provide real time early warning of impending health threats.

Collateral Pathways and Redundancy

Ensuring that organizations have multiple, alternative courses of action also bestows resilience. 15 , 21 , 28 , 29 , 32 , 38 , 44 , 46 According to Lembani et al 28 collateral pathways refer to the availability of alternative routes to achieve a desired goal. For instance, in Ivory Coast, the civil unrest following the disputed presidential election of 2010 disrupted healthcare service provision. The local health system achieved resilience by adopting a number of collateral pathways. For instance, non-physicians were allowed to prescribe medicines, and medicines were sourced externally through the United Nations (UN) system. 28 In the United States, one of the strategies employed to improve the resilience of the health safety net programme, in the face of federal budget cuts, was to increase focus on insured patients in order to generate revenues that help cross-subsidize uncompensated care. 21 Collateral pathways enhance resilience by providing for alternative courses of action; when a system experiences disruption or challenges on one pathway, an alternative pathway is utilized to achieve the same goal. This characteristic draws from the feature of systems as complex adaptive systems (CAS). 51 Related to the notion of collateral pathways is redundancy. Redundancy is the inclusion of extra components or resources that are not strictly necessary to functioning, in case of failure in other components or resources. Sheffi and Rice 41 examined the resilience of the transport sector to supply chain disruptions caused by acute manmade and natural shocks and found that organizations were more resilient when they kept additional resources in reserve (over and above the required levels) to be used in case of an emergency.

Governance Process

Governance practices are also shown to influence the resilience of organizations to both acute and everyday challenges, in both health and other sectors. 15 , 18 , 31 , 36 , 44 Governance is used here to mean the rules and processes that guide operations and affairs of organizations. 52 A number of governance practices are identified as critical for organizational resilience. The first is decentralization; resilient organizations adopted a form of governance characterized by distributed control, rather than top down hierarchy, under central control. 15 , 18 , 36 , 44 This allowed systems to be more responsive to changes in the environment by empowering local actors and provided the necessary flexibility that facilitated timely responses to everyday challenges and in times of crisis. 15 , 18 , 36 , 44 For example, when the healthcare system in Ivory Coast was disrupted by civil war, the fact that drug management and distribution had been decentralized from the federal to the state level made it much easier to transport drugs to and from the local drug store whenever transport routes were secure. 15 This allowed for reduced disruption of drug supply during the civil war. A shift from a centralized and top-down decision making system, to a decentralized system with bottom-up decision making that was characterized by local and regional initiatives was shown to contribute to the resilience of the California water management system to chronic economic, political, and environmental challenges in the United States of America. 18 Another governance practice that distinguished resilient from non-resilient organizations was non-linear planning. For example, the federal and state laws required the California program of water management in the United States to plan in a linear, stepwise fashion; defining problems, identifying possible interventions, and refining them into implementable actions. This approach was linear in the sense that it did not allow for feedback loops between different stages (eg, redefining problems based on deliberations on agreeable interventions) or the simultaneous considerations of problems and solutions. This approach was however found to compromise the resilience of the water management system to everyday environmental, economic, and political challenges, and was instead replaced by a non-linear approach that was evolving, open-ended, iterative, and characterized by feedback loops between stages, and learning by trial and error. 18 Non-linear planning is compatible with CAS which are typically characterized by non-linear dynamics. Resilient organizations also practiced deliberative democracy, rather than representative democracy. 18 , 23 , 29 , 31 , 44 Deliberative democracy differs from representative democracy in that deliberation, not mere voting, is the basis of decision making. Decision making by deliberative democratic principles empowered actors and built trust, motivation and commitment. 18 , 23 , 44 Related to deliberative democracy, organizations that embraced transparency in their processes and decisions, especially during turbulent times were found to be more resilient. 24 Another governance feature that influences the resilience of organizations to both acute and everyday challenges is the degree of coordination between different functions and parts of the organization. 18 , 31 , 33 McKenzie et al 31 examined the resilience of the Nigerian health system to a disease outbreak such as Ebola, and found that the fragmentation of the health sector, characterized by lack of coordination between the delivery of services, management of human resources, and health financing, was the most significant threat to resilience because it resulted in duplication of efforts, wastage and impaired coordination during crisis. McManus et al 33 found that organizations (10 case study organizations drawn from varied sectors) whose functions and parts operated in an uncoordinated and “silo” fashion where less resilient to manmade and natural disasters, compared to organizations that had coordinated systems. Integrating delivery systems enhances coordination, effectiveness and efficiency as well as eliminating constraints, managerial uncertainty and wastage of resources. 31 , 33

Leadership Practices

The importance of leadership practices to the resilience of organizations is a recurrent theme across the selected papers in both the health and other sectors, and for both acute, and everyday challenges. 17 , 21 - 23 , 26 , 29 , 32 , 36 , 39 , 43 , 45 For example, Seville et al 42 examined the resilience of road infrastructure organizations to earthquakes in New Zealand and found that while some organizations had comprehensive risk management and business continuity plans, resilience depended not only on how well these plans were applied, but also on the leadership capacity of the organizations. In South Africa, health facilities that had dedicated leaders were found to be more resilient to everyday challenges (eg, chronic staff shortages, and resource scarcity) compared to health facilities whose leaders were not dedicated. 29 One of the important roles of leaders was creating a clear and shared vision. 18 , 26 , 33 A shared vision provided a point of focus and stimulated agency among staff during challenges and crises. McManus et al 32 found that leadership practices characterized by visibility, and availability contributed to the resilience of organizations to acute natural and manmade shocks in New Zealand. Leadership in resilient organizations was characterized by inclusive decision making. 18 , 29 , 33 , 39 Leaders ensured that relevant stakeholders were included and contributed to decision making. This nurtured the resilience of organizations to both everyday challenges, and acute shocks by building trust, empowering, motivating and creating commitment among staff and other stakeholders. For example, Pal et al 39 examined the resilience of textile firms in Sweden to economic crisis and found that firms that had transparent and inclusive leaders were more resilient compared to those that had less transparent, non-inclusive leaders. A distinction was also made between leadership practices that were not aligned to the complex adaptive nature of systems, and those that were aligned. Booher and Innes 18 found that the resilience of water management organizations to everyday environmental, economic and political challenges was improved when managers exercised complex leadership: rather than being controlling and directive, the leaders were mediators and facilitators of the actions of organization actors, and influenced conditions to guide interactions.

Organizational Culture

Two cultural practices are identified as key to organizational resilience. First is the organizations attitude towards everyday and acute challenges. 22 , 45 The ability of leaders and other staff to view challenges from an opportunistic perspective is important for resilience. 22 , 33 , 45 Resilient organizations consider challenges as learning opportunities, and used these experiences to develop capabilities that improve their resilience. 33 , 40 , 45 For example, Oluwasoye and Ugonna 37 found that the resilience of multinational oil corporations to environmental disasters (eg, gas flaring and oil spills) in Nigeria was weakened by a tendency towards denial of problems and potential risks. They observe that improving the organisational resilience of these organizations will entail, among others, the willingness for organization’s leaders to own the problems and seek to learn from the experiences. 37 Sawalha 22 found that an organizational culture characterised by lack of organisational learning from past experiences weakened the resilience of insurance companies to everyday challenges (competition, loss of customers, financial losses, political instability) in Jordan. Second, resilient organizations support creativity and innovation. 30 , 44 Mafabi et al 30 examined the resilience of 51 public corporations in Uganda to unspecified acute shocks and observed that when organizations have a creative climate, staff are motivated to generate new ideas, which strengthen organisational resilience. Staff in organizations with a poor creative climate were guarded and closed, and reluctant to offer innovative and creative ideas because they would be disregarded. A creative climate is thought to be imperative for providing a conducive environment for organizational adaptation and transformation in the face of challenges. 30 , 44 Resilient organizations nurtured creativity by providing time and resources for experimentation, rewarded innovation, tolerance for failure, and an atmosphere in which employees felt safe to share new ideas. 30 , 44

Human Capital

All the selected papers recognize the important role that human resources play in the resilience of organizations to everyday challenges and acute shocks. Having an adequate number of human resources and the requisite skills was highlighted as a critical contributor to resilience. However, beyond numbers and skills, ensuring that staff are adequately motivated and fully committed to organizational goals was highlighted as more important. 15 , 21 , 23 , 28 , 45 For instance, Ager et al 15 found that the resilience of the healthcare system in Yobe state, Nigeria, in the face of Boko Haram terrorism insurgency was enhanced by staff commitment and motivation, that was characterized by acceptance of challenging working shift arrangements and taking of additional responsibilities through informal task shifting. In Ivory Coast, the continuity of service delivery of the HIV program was made possible by the commitment and motivation of health workers, who continued to come to work despite delays in salaries, and security concerns. 28 One ways of ensuring that staff are motivated and committed is prioritizing staff wellbeing. 39 , 45 Walker et al 45 found that the resilience of infrastructure organizations (air travel, banking, telecommunications, roading and water/waste services) to earthquakes in New Zealand was enhanced in those organizations where the wellbeing of staff was prioritized. This was achieved by creating a positive social environment where staff were free to express emotions and share information, providing staff with resources that were adequate to match their work demand, actively listening, monitoring, and addressing changing staff stresses, and flexibility around staff-needs. 45 Employee engagement was reduced when managers lacked emotional intelligence. Macey and Schneider 53 define work engagement as a fulfilling, positive, work-related state of mind that is characterized by dedication and vigor. In organizations that had a high level of employee engagement, staff dedication and commitment made them to focus on the needs of the organization despite the existence of a crisis. 45

Social Networks and Collaboration

How well organizations establish and leverage their networks determines the extent to which they are resilient to everyday challenges and acute shocks. 15 - 18 , 21 , 26 , 27 , 33 , 35 , 43 For example, during the civil war in Ivory Coast, the resilience of the HIV service delivery program was enhanced by the relationship between healthcare facilities that allowed them to share drugs with those running out of stock. 28 The resilience of the California water management system to everyday environmental, economic, and political challenges was enhanced by the networked nature of its agencies and a culture of collaboration among them. 18 Social networks offer avenues for increased mobilization and transfer of knowledge, dissemination of innovations, thus increasing the overall resilience of systems. 54 Collaboration among organizations in a networked environment also expands resources that can be drawn on, ability to learn, and its capacity to respond. 16 , 45 Andrew et al 16 examined the resilience of public (government agencies), private (small businesses and corporations) and non-governmental organizations (temples and community groups) to floods in Thailand and found that organizations that strategically collaborate with others are able to mobilize additional resources that are crucial for emergency response. The study found that organizations in urban and sub-urban areas were less resilient compared to those in rural areas because urban settings were more fragmented and hence had less social support and cohesion compared to rural ones, making them more vulnerable to disruptions. 16

Drawing from our review, we make several observations that are relevant to nurturing the resilience of health systems. First, a recurrent theme across resilient literature is the recognition of systems and organizations as CAS. A CAS framework is predominantly used to understand and examine organizational resilience. This resonates with conceptual literature that views resilience as an emergent property of systems. CAS are composed of multiple interconnected components whose interaction is dynamic and non-linear. 55 , 56 CAS are characterized by self - organization and emergence. 55 , 57 Self-organization occurs when system components mutually adjust their configurations in response to environmental signals. 58 Self-organization of the system leads to emergence , the appearance of unpredictable outcomes such as new structures, and patterns of behaviour. 59 Complex interactions between system components provide multiple paths for action and enable organizations to adapt to multiple environmental changes. 57 The attributes of resilient organizations that we identified in this literature review, including the use of collateral pathways, governance practices that promote flexibility, nurturing of social networks and collaborations neatly map onto the view of resilience as an emergent property of CAS. Further, complex leadership practices that foster productive emergence rather than prescriptive control recognize the CAS nature of systems. Leaders who recognize complexity seek to forge connections and networks among system agents because they appreciate the value of social networks to organizational resilience. 60 , 61 They seek to create organizational environments that incentivize the emergence of positive adaptations, rather than prescribe solutions. 60 , 61 They see the system whole rather than as isolated components. 60 , 61 Given that health systems are CAS, these attributes of CAS should be recognized and nurtured to promote the resilience of health systems.

Second, empirical literature recognizes that resilience is both a function of planning for and preparing for future crisis (planned resilience), and adapting to change and disruptions (adaptive resilience). It is however recognized that planning alone is not sufficient, and that organizations must focus on developing a capacity to adapt to changing environments. While planning might help mitigate the effect of acute shocks to the health system, whether or not the health system is able to maintain core functions of delivering quality healthcare services in an efficient and equitable way also depends on how well it adjusts to the post crisis phase. Investing in structures and processes that promote the adaptive capacity of health systems is therefore important. Further, resilience to everyday challenges cannot be achieved by risk management and organizational continuity plans because such plans are often aimed at isolated events that are transient and have clear boundaries. Everyday challenges are unpredictable, multiple, and have fuzzy boundaries in the sense that they are interconnected in complex ways. To overcome these challenges, health systems will need to adapt in creative and innovative ways, and transform to new and improved forms of operations.

Third, while the empirical literature from other sectors has embraced not only the notion of resilience to acute shocks, but also resilience to chronic or everyday challenges, it appears that the health sector is largely focused on acute shocks. This is perhaps understandable given that the resilience debate in the health sector has been inspired by the occurrence of acute shocks, most notably the 2014-2016 Ebola outbreak. However, general experience of health systems, especially in low- and middle-income countries, highlights the fact that health systems also face chronic everyday challenges such as dysfunctional policies, chronic underfunding, limited human resource capacity, and high levels of disease burden. 62 In the same way that organizations outside the health sector recognize and strategize on how to nurture resilience to chronic, everyday challenges, health systems also need to focus on nurturing what Gilson et al 62 call “everyday resilience.” This is crucial not only because everyday resilience has an inherent value, but also because it has an instrumental value in promoting the resilience of organizations to acute shocks. 33 This can be explained by the finding from our review that everyday resilience, and resilience to acute shocks share attributes.

A fourth lesson to draw from this literature review is that organizational software is at least, if not more, important than organisational hardware, in nurturing health system resilience. While the hardware of material resources are key ingredients for health system resilience, soft aspects of the system such as adequate planning, governance practices, leadership practices, organizational culture, staff motivation and commitment are much more important in and of themselves, and also in ensuring that the hardware is adequately mobilized for resilience. For instance, our review found that social networks and collaboration (system software) were crucial in mobilizing material resources (system hardware) that was necessary for resilience.

To our knowledge, this is the first review of empirical studies that focuses on organizational resilience, and includes literature from the health sector. Understanding the attributes of resilient systems and strategies that can be employed to nurture resilience will be useful in informing global health efforts to strengthen health systems. Further studies should focus on testing the attributes identified by this review in the health sector, as well as identifying other factors that characterize resilient health systems. For the concept to offer insights that are useful in improving health systems performance, it is imperative that sufficient evidence about how organizations and systems experience, and deal with, both chronic stresses and acute shocks is generated. The concepts and principles that have dominated much of resilience literature will need to be tested in the real world of health systems. In such work, frameworks should be developed that focus not only on resilience to sudden shocks, but also resilience to everyday challenges. Moreover, methods that appreciate the CAS nature of systems, such as system dynamic modeling, should be applied and explored.

Acknowledgements

Edwine Barasa, Rahab Mbau, and Lucy Gilson are members of the Consortium for Resilient and Responsive Health Systems (RESYST). This document is an output from a project funded by the UK Aid from the UK Department for International Development (DFID) for the benefit of developing countries. However, the views expressed and information contained in it are not necessarily those of or endorsed by DFID, which can accept no responsibility for such views or information or for any reliance placed on them. Edwine W. Barasa is supported by a Wellcome Trust Training Fellowship (#107527). The funders had no role in the writing of this paper or in the decision to submit for publication. This work is published with the permission of the Director of KEMRI.

Ethical issues

Not applicable.

Competing interests

Authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

EB and LG conceptualized the review; EB and RM conducted the literature search and selection. EB and RM conducted the data extraction. EB conducted the analysis, and synthesis. EB developed the first draft of the paper. All authors contributed to subsequent and final drafts.

Authors’ affiliations

1 Health Economics Research Unit, KEMRI Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Nairobi, Kenya. 2 Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 3 School of Public Health and Family Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa. 4 Department of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.

Citation: Barasa E, Mbau R, Gilson L. What is resilience and how can it be nurtured? A systematic review of empirical literature on organizational resilience. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2018;7(6):491–503. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2018.06

Organizational Resilience through the Philosophical Lens of Aristotelian and Heraclitean Philosophy

• Published: 04 September 2024

Cite this article

• Vasileios Georgiadis   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4151-7888 1 &
• Lazaros Sarigiannidis   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8890-292X 1  

This inquiry aims to highlight the philosophical perspective of Aristotle’s “business” priority of the organization over the individual in combination with Heraclitus’ flux theory and the unity of opposites to alternatively approach organizational resilience. While current literature on organizational resilience argues that disorganization and gradual decaying are probable but not certain, they can be predicted and managed. In contrast, the combined analysis of Aristotelian and Heraclitean philosophical theories points out that organizational disorganization and the fluctuation of resilience are a certainty and not a probability, constituting an automation embedded in a circular, repeatable pattern for organizations and businesses. In this project, organizational and entrepreneurial scientific realism meets with the philosophical synthesis of Heraclitus’ and Aristotle’s thought on organizational resilience. The intended outcome of this “encounter” is to contribute an applicable perceptual “intellectual tool” that will foster a deeper understanding of resilience, organizationally and individually.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

A Practical Perspective on Resilience in Organizations: The Interplay Between Structure and Action

Disciplines of organizational resilience: contributions, critiques, and future research avenues

Business model innovation and organizational resilience: towards an integrated conceptual framework

Achtenberg, Deborah. 2002. Cognition of value in Aristotle’s ethics: Promise of enrichment, threat of destruction . New York, NY: State University of New York.

Book   Google Scholar  

Adele, Beth, Andrea D. Ellinger, Rochell R. McWhorter, and Toby M. Egan. 2022. Exploring learning outcomes for managers who coach. European Journal of Training and Development 47(5/6): 635–652. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-12-2021-0198

Article   Google Scholar  

Akpinar, Hatice, and Didem Ozer-Caylan. 2022. Managing complexity in maritime business: Understanding the smart changes of globalization. Competitiveness Review 32(4): 582–599. https://doi.org/10.1108/CR-10-2020-0128

Aksom, Herman. 2022. Institutional inertia and practice variation. Journal of organizational change management 35(3): 463–487. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-07-2021-0205

Al-Omoush, Khaled, and Saleh. 2021. The role of top management support and organizational capabilities in achieving e-business entrepreneurship. Kybernetes 50(5): 1163–1179. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-12-2019-0851

Albertazzi, Liliana. 2006. Brentano and Aristotle. In Immanent realism. Synthese Library , vol. 333 Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4202-7_02

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Aldianto, Leo, Anggadwita, Grisna, Permatasari, Anggraeni, Mirzanti, Isti Raafaldini, and Ian O. Williamson. 2021. Toward a business resilience framework for startups. Sustainability 13(6): e3132. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063132

Ariely, Dan. 2009. Predictably irrational: The hidden forces that shape our decisions . New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Google Scholar  

Aristotle. 2002. Nicomachean ethics . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Aristotle. 2013. Aristotle’s politics . Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Barlette, Yves, and Paméla Baillette. 2022. Big data analytics in turbulent contexts: Towards organizational change for enhanced agility. Production Planning and Control 33(2–3): 105–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2020.1810755

Barton, Michelle A., and William A. Kahn. 2019. Group resilience: The place and meaning of relational pauses. Organization Studies 40(9): 1409–1429. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840618782294

Berti, Marco, Walter Jarvis, Nikolova, Natalia, and Alexandra Pitsis. 2021. Embodied phronetic pedagogy: Cultivating ethical and moral capabilities in postgraduate business students. Academy of Management Learning and Education 20(1): 6–29. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2019.0034

Beuren, Ilse Maria, dos, Vanderlei Santos, and Viviane Theiss. 2022. Organizational resilience, job satisfaction and business performance, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 71(6): 2262–2279. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-03-2021-0158

Blumenthal, Henry J. 1977. Neoplatonic interpretations of Aristotle on phantasia. The Review of Metaphysics 31(2): 242–257. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20127049

Bosley, Richard. 1995. Aristotle’s use of the theory of the mean: How adaptable and flexible is the theory? Apeiron 28(4): 35–66. https://doi.org/10.1515/APEIRON.1995.28.4.35

Carmeli, Abraham, Ari Dothan, and Dev Kumar Boojihawon. 2019. Resilience of sustainability-oriented and financially‐driven organizations. Business Strategy and the Environment 29(1): 154–169. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2355

Carr, Adrian. 2006. What it means to be critical in relation to international business: A case of the appropriate conceptual lens. Critical Perspectives on International Business 2(2): 79–90. https://doi.org/10.1108/17422040610661271

Carrier, Leonard S. 2006. Aristotelian materialism. Philosophia 34: 253–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-006-9033-9

Cavanagh, Gerald F., and Oliver F. Williams. 2022. Retrieving Aristotle’s phronesis in advance: A focus on character and practical wisdom in the selection of business leaders. Business and Professional Ethics Journal 41(1): 33–58. https://doi.org/10.5840/bpej20211228112

Cen, Yuwen, Changfeng Wang, and Yaqi Huang. 2024. Role of organizational characteristics on counterproductive knowledge behavior: a meta-analysis. Journal of Knowledge Management Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-01-2023-0031

Chen, Guangxin, Qing Nie, and Hui Zhao. 2023. The influence factors of organizational resilience from a CSR perspective and their impact on business growth. Sustainability 15(22): 15712. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152215712

Clarkson, Petruska. 1992. Transactional analysis psychotherapy: An integrated approach . East Sussex: Routledge.

Cohoe, Caleb Murray. 2022. Knowing in Aristotle part 1: Epistēmē, nous, and non-rational cognitive states. Philosophy Compass 17(10): e12801. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12801

Constantinescu, Mihaela, Cristina Voinea, Uszkai, Radu, and Constantin Vică. 2021. Understanding responsibility in responsible AI. Dianoetic virtues and the hard problem of context. Ethics and Information Technology 23(4): 803–814. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-021-09616-9

Crane, Brett. 2022. Eudaimonia in crisis: How ethical purpose finding transforms crisis. Humanistic Management Journal 7: 391–416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41463-022-00130-8

Csedő, Zoltán, József Magyari, and Máté Zavarkó. 2022. Dynamic corporate governance, innovation, and sustainability: Post-COVID period. Sustainability 14(6): e3189. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063189

Curd, Patricia. 2020. Presocratic natural philosophy. In The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Greek and Roman Science , ed. Liba Taub. 15–38. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Daniels, Ruby A., Leslie A. Miller, Michael Mian, Zia, and Stephanie Black. 2022. One size does NOT fit all: Understanding differences in perceived organizational support during the COVID-19 pandemic. Business and Society Review 127(51): 193–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/basr.12256

Darkow, Philipp M. 2018. Beyond ‘bouncing back’: Towards an integral, capability-based understanding of organizational resilience. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 27(2): 145–156. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.12246

Davies, Phil, Parry Fritzsche, Albrecht, Glenn, and Zena Wood. 2023. Data, resilience, and identity in the digital age. Strategic Change 32(6): 169–174. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsc.2560

de Waal,, André, Burrell, Jennifer, Drake, Sarah, Sampa, Chilufya, and Tobias Mulimbica. 2022. How to stay high-performing: developing organizational grit. Measuring Business Excellence 27(1): 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1108/MBE-08-2021-0104

Dengke, Yu, and Hongling Yan. 2021. Relationship between knowledge base and innovation-driven growth: Moderated by organizational character. Frontiers in Psychology 12: e663317. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.663317

Derrida, Jacques. 1963. Cogito et histoire de la folie. Revue De Métaphysique et de Morale 68(4): 460–494. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40900776

Dieste, Marcos, Philipp C. Sauer, and Guido Orzes. 2022. Organizational tensions in industry 4.0 implementation: A paradox theory approach. International Journal of Production Economics 251: e108532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2022.108532

Dion, Michel. 2021. Worldviews, ethics and organizational life . Cham, CH: Springer Nature Switzerland.

Douglas, Stephanie. 2021. Building organizational resilience through human capital management strategy. Development and Learning in Organizations 35(5): 19–21. https://doi.org/10.1108/DLO-08-2020-0180

Duncker, Karl. 1939. Ethical relativity? (an enquiry into the psychology of ethics). Mind 48(189): 39–57. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2250598

Dutta, Monalisa, and Somnath Chatterjee. 2021. A study on strategies for building a future ready workforce: An Enabler for organizations to adapt to the New Normal and navigate through the pandemic. In Innovative management Practices-An Interdisciplinary Approach with special reference to the New Normal, eds. Gholam Syedain Khan and Arup Kumar Baksi , 84–92. Kolkata: Allied Publishers Limited.

Eabrasu, Marian, and Erwan Lamy. 2023. Do managerial practices need philosophy? Philosophy of Management 22: 309–320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-023-00241-8

Ebrahimi, Maryam. 2021. Adopting a grounded theory approach for managing corporate culture change. International Journal of Strategic Change Management 7(3): 235–256. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSCM.2021.117908

Evans, Kasey. 2012. Colonial virtue: The mobility of temperance in renaissance England . Toronto: University of Toronto.

Evenseth, Lise L., Maria Sydnes, and Anne H. Gausdal. 2022. Building organizational resilience through organizational learning: A systematic review. Frontiers in Communication 7: e837386. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2022.837386

Fares, Julian, Sami Sadaka, and El Hokayem, Jihad. 2022. Exploring entrepreneurship resilience capabilities during Armageddon: A qualitative study. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research 28(7): 1868–1898. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-03-2022-0293

Finkelberg, Aryeh. 1998. On cosmogony and ecpyrosis in Heraclitus. American Journal of Philology 119(2): 195–222. https://doi.org/10.1353/ajp.1998.0025

Ford, Jeffrey. Ford, Laurie, and Beth. Polin. 2021. Leadership in the implementation of change: Functions, sources, and requisite variety. Journal of Change Management 21(1): 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2021.1861697

Fusch, Gene E., Lawrence R. Ness, Janet M. Booker, and Patricia Fusch. 2020. People and process: Successful change management initiatives. Journal of Social Change 12(1): 166–184. https://doi.org/10.5590/JOSC.2020.12.1.13

Fynsk, Christopher I. 1978. A decelebration of philosophy [Review of Le Groupe De Recherches sur l’ enseignement Philosophique]. Diacritics 8(2): 80–90. https://doi.org/10.2307/465133

Gali, Nazha, Robert E. Hughes, Mathew, Morgan, and Catherine. L. Wang. 2023. Entrepreneurial entropy: A resource exhaustion theory of firm failure from entrepreneurial orientation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 48(1): 141–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258723115195

Garrido, Sol. 2024. Leading collaborative change amid a crisis: a framework to liberate a team’s leadership skills and promote sales performance. Journal of Work-Applied Management Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWAM-06-2023-0053

Gaston-Breton, Charlotte, Lemoine, Jérémy E., Benjamin G. Voyer, and Minas N. Kastanakis. 2021. Pleasure, meaning or spirituality: Cross-cultural differences in orientations to happiness across 12 countries. Journal of Business Research 134: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.05.013

Ge, Tianqin. 2015. Can physical parts of substances be substances? The dual models of analysis in Aristotle’s notion of substance. Frontiers of Philosophy in China 10(3): 474–491. https://doi.org/10.3868/s030-004-015-0035-9

Goglio-Primard,, Karine, Simon, Laurent, Cohendet, Patrick, Aharonson, Barak, and Etienne Wenger-Trayner. 2023. Managing with communities for innovation, agility, and resilience. European Management Journal 41(4): 534–539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2023.07.005

Griffin, Daniel J., Ajay V. Somaraju, Christopher Dishop, and Richard P. DeShon. 2022. Evaluating interdependence in workgroups: A network-based method. Organizational Research Methods 26(3): 459–498. https://doi.org/10.1177/10944281211068179

Gutiérrez-Iñiguez, Ángel, Collado-Agudo, Jesús, and Rialp-Criado. 2023. Josep. The role of managers in corporate change management: A bibliometric review. Sustainability 15(14): 10811. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151410811

Han, Liangli, Zhou, Houyu, and Chunjie Wang. 2022. Employees’ belief in a just world and sustainable organizational citizenship behaviors: The moderating effect of interpersonal intelligence. Sustainability 14(5): e2943. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052943

Hartman, Edwin M. 2020. Arriving where we started. Aristotle and business ethics . Cham, CH: Springer Nature Switzerland.

Heidegger, M. 1979. The will to power as art . New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Heraclitus. 1912. Fragments. In Early Greek philosophy , ed. John Burnet. London: A and C Black.

Heraclitus. 1959. Fragments. In Heraclitus, ed. Philip Ellis Wheelwright , Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Heraclitus. 2001. Art and thought of Heraclitus: A new arrangement and translation of the fragments with literary and philosophical commentary , ed. Charles H. Kahn. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Heraclitus. 2007. Fragments . Toronto: University of Toronto.

Heraclitus. 2010. In the cosmic fragments, ed. Geoffrey Stephen Kirk . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Higgs, Malcolm, and Deborah Rowland. 2024. Is change all in the mind? A study of leader mindfulness, leader behaviors in implementing change. Journal of General Management 49(2): 146–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/030630702211071

Hillmann, Julia, and Edeltraud Guenther. 2021. Organizational resilience: A valuable construct for management research? International Journal of Management Reviews 23(1): 7–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12239

Hoffman, David C. 2006. Structural logos in Heraclitus and the sophists. Advances in the History of Rhetoric 9(1): 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/15362426.2006.10557259

Huang, Wenchuan, Shouming, Chen, and Luu Thi Nguyen. 2020. Corporate social responsibility and organizational resilience to COVID-19 crisis: An empirical study of Chinese firms. Sustainability 12(21): Article e8970. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12218970

Hübel, Charlotte. 2022. Entrepreneurship-driven organizational transformation for sustainability: A sensemaking lens. Journal of organizational change management 35(1): 240–256. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-03-2021-0067

Hwang, Hokyu, and Jeannette Colyvas. 2021. Constructed actors and constitutive institutions for a contemporary world. Academy of Management Review 46(1): 214–219. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2020.0418

Ing, David. 2023. Appreciating systems changes via multiparadigm inquiry: Architectural design, ecological anthropology, classical Chinese medicine and systems rhythms. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 40(5): 787–797. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2973

Jennings, Remy E., Joel Lanaj, Klodiana, Koopman, and Gerry McNamara. 2022. Reflecting on one’s best possible self as a leader: Implications for professional employees at work. Personnel Psychology 75(1): 69–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12447

Johnston, D. 2006. A brief history of philosophy: From Socrates to Derrida . London and New York, NY: Continuum.

Kantabutra, Sooksan, and Nuttasorn Ketprapakorn. 2021. Toward an organizational theory of resilience: An interim struggle. Sustainability 13(23): e13137. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313137

Kirk, Geoffrey Stephen. 2014. 7. Natural change in Heraclitus. In The pre-socratics: A Collection of critical essays , ed. P. D. Alexander, and Mourelatos. 189–196. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Kofman, Sarah. 1987. Nietzsche and the obscurity of Heraclitus. Diacritics 17(3): 39–55. https://doi.org/10.2307/464834

Kolbergytė, Aušra, and Aistė Dromantaitė. 2022. A theoretical analysis of managerial growth in the context of organizational change. Sustainability 14(8): e4523. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084523

Koopmans, Lieuwe. 2020. A fruitless attempt to cultivate physis. Transactional Analysis Journal 50(1): 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/03621537.2019.1690247

Krishnan, Commander S., Lakshmanasamudram Navaneetha, Ganesh, Sriramamurthi, and Chandrasekharan Rajendran. 2022. Entrepreneurial interventions for crisis management: Lessons from the Covid-19 pandemic’s impact on entrepreneurial ventures. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 72: e102830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.102830

Kupreeva, Inna. 2003. Qualities and bodies: Alexander against the stoics. In Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy: Volume XXV , ed. David Sedley. 297–344. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Last, Cadell. 2020. Global brain singularity: Universal history, future evolution and humanity’s dialectical horizon . Cham, CH: Springer Nature Switzerland.

Liang, Fu, and Linlin Cao. 2022. Linking employee resilience with organizational resilience: The roles of coping mechanism and managerial resilience. Psychology Research and Behavior Management 14: 1063–1075. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S318632

Liu, Yingqi, Zhou Chen, Ruijun, Shuang Fei, Zhang, and Juan Wang. 2021. Analysis of the influencing factors of organizational resilience in the ISM framework: An exploratory study based on multiple cases. Sustainability 13(23): e13492. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313492

Long, Anthony A. 2013. Heraclitus on measure and the explicit emergence of rationality. In Doctrine and Doxography: Studies on Heraclitus and Pythagoras , ed. David Sider, and Dirk Obbink. 201–223. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH.

Luís, Silvia, and Inês Silva. 2022. Humanizing sustainability in organizations: A place for workers’ perceptions and behaviors in sustainability indexes? Sustainability: Science Practice and Policy 18(1): 371–383. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313492

Lynn, Andrew. 2022. Ethics, economics, and the specter of naturalism: The enduring relevance of the harmony doctrine school of economics. Journal of Business Ethics 178(3): 661–673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04819-y

Ma, Bei, and Jing Zhang. 2022. Tie strength, organizational resilience and enterprise crisis management: An empirical study in pandemic time. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 81: e103240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.103240

MacKay, Brad, Chia Robert, and Anup Karath Nair. 2021. Strategy-in-practices: A process philosophical approach to understanding strategy emergence and organizational outcomes. Human Relations 74(9): 1337–1369. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726720929397

Manfield, Rusell Charles, and Lance Richard Newey. 2018. Resilience as an entrepreneurial capability: Integrating insights from a cross-disciplinary comparison. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research 24(7): 1155–1180. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-11-2016-0368

Martinez, Fabien. 2022. Organizational change in response to environmental complexity: Insights from the business model innovation literature. Business Strategy and the Environment 31(5): 2299–2314. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3022

Mei, Todd. 2022. Incorporating virtues: A speech act approach to understanding how virtues can work in business. Philosophy of Management 21(1): 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-021-00171-3

Meldrum, Helen Mary. 2021. Reflecting or ruminating: Listening to the regrets of life science leaders. International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior 24(2): 77–92. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOTB-06-2019-0069

Mihalache, Mashiho, and Oli R. Mihalache. 2022. How workplace support for the COVID-19 pandemic and personality traits affect changes in employees’ affective commitment to the organization and job‐related well‐being. Human Resource Management 61(3): 295–314. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22082

Mir, Raza, and Michelle Greenwood. 2021. Philosophy and management studies: A research overview . Oxon, OXD: Routledge.

Morrell, Kevin, and Frederik Dahlmann. 2022. Aristotle in the Anthropocene: The comparative benefits of aristotelian virtue ethics over utilitarianism and deontology. The Anthropocene Review 10(3): 615–635. https://doi.org/10.1177/20530196221105093

Muzio, Daniel. 2022. Re-conceptualizing management theory: How do we move away from western‐centred knowledge? Journal of Management Studies 59(4): 1032–1035. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12753

Nayak, Ajit, and Robert Chia. 2011. Thinking becoming and emergence: Process philosophy and organization studies. In Philosophy and Organization Theory (Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 32), eds. Haridimos Tsoukas and Robert Chia , 281–309. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Nguyen, Brenda, and Mary Crossan. 2022. Character-infused ethical decision making. Journal of Business Ethics 178(1): 171–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04790-8

Nietzsche, Friedrich. 2021. Human, all too human . London: Arcturus Publishing Ltd.

Peltonen, Tuomo. 2022. Practical and theoretical wisdom in management scholarship: Re-assesing the use and appropriations of Aristotle’s philosophy. Philosophy of Management 21(2): 163–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-021-00179-9

Peñarroya-Farell, Montserrat, and Francesc Miralles. 2022. Business model adaptation to the COVID-19 crisis: Strategic response of the Spanish cultural and creative firms. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology Market and Complexity 8(1): 39. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8010039

Platts, Jim, and Howard Harris. 2011. The place of philosophy in management. Philosophy of Management 10: 19–39. https://doi.org/10.5840/pom20111023

Poster, Carol. 2006. The task of the bow: Heraclitus’ rhetorical critique of epic language. Philosophy and Rhetoric 39(1): 1–21. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20697131

Presbitero, Alfred, Teng-Calleja, Mendiola, and Elaine Farndale. 2021. Employee perceptions of HRM system strength: Examining outcome and boundary conditions among HR and non-HR employees. Personnel Review 51(9): 2142–2161. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-12-2020-0878

Provance, Travis W., Suresh Ramisetty, Michael Joseph Babu, Urick, and Kelly A. Wieczorkowski. 2022. Building and evolving a culture of excellence: A conceptual exploration. Measuring Business Excellence 26(2): 197–209. https://doi.org/10.1108/MBE-05-2021-0067

Punter, D. 1982. Blake, Hegel and Dialectic . Amsterdam: Rodopi (Brill).

Reed, Mike, and Gibson Burrell. 2019. Theory and organization studies: The need for contestation. Organization Studies 40(1): 39–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840617745923

Reeve, Charles David, and Chanel. 1982. Ekpurōsis and the priority of fire in Heraclitus. Phronesis 27(3): 299–305. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4182158

Rocha, Raysa, Geaquinto, Kragulj, Florian, and Paulo Pinheiro. 2022. Practical wisdom, the (not so) secret ingredient for responsible knowledge management. VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems 52(3): 426–447. https://doi.org/10.1108/VJIKMS-09-2021-0211

Sajko, Miha, Christophe Boone, Tine Buyl, and C. E. O. Greed. 2021. Corporate social responsibility, and organizational resilience to systemic shocks. Journal of Management 47(4): 957–992. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320902528

Shields, Christopher. 2002. Order in multiplicity: Homonymy in the philosophy of Aristotle . New York, NY: Oxford University Press Inc.

Shields, Christopher. 2007. Aristotle. Oxon and New York, NY: Routledge.

Smith, Clayton. 2020. The role of organizational change management in successful strategic enrollment management implementation. Strategic Enrollment Management Quarterly 8(2): 31–40. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/educationpub/48

Sofyan, Yunita, Dirk De Clercq, and Yafan Shang. 2022. Does intraorganizational competition prompt or hinder performance? The risks for proactive employees who hide knowledge. Personnel Review 52(3): 777–798. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-04-2021-0294

Sreenivasan, Aswathy, Ma Suresh, and Tuesta Panduro, Juan Alfredo. 2022. Modelling the resilience of start-ups during COVID-19 pandemic. Benchmarking: An International Journal 30(6): 2085–2109. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-09-2021-0530

Steyn, Francois, and Kosheek Sewchurran. 2021. Towards a grainier understanding of how to encourage morally responsible leadership through the development of phronesis: A typology of managerial phronesis. Journal of Business Ethics 170(4): 673–695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04328-z

Su, Wenjia, and Sebastian Junge. 2023. Unlocking the recipe for organizational resilience: A review and future research directions. European Management Journal 41(6): 1086–1105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2023.03.002

Thaler, Richard H. 2015. Misbehaving: The making of behavioural economics . New York, NY and London: W.W. Norton and Company.

Tortorella, Luz, Paulo A. Guilherme, Cauchick-Miguel, Jo Li, Wen, Staines, and Duncan McFarlane. 2022. What does operational excellence mean in the fourth industrial revolution era? International Journal of Production Research 60(9): 2901–2917. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2021.1905903

Town, Stephen. 2020. Virtuous spirits and vicious demons: Ghost stories of organizational change. Culture and Organization 27(4): 318–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/14759551.2021.1921776

Vakilzadeh, Kijan, and Alexander Haase. 2021. The building blocks of organizational resilience: A review of the empirical literature. Continuity and Resilience Review 3(1): 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1108/CRR-04-2020-0002

Valentinov, Vladislav, and Miguel Pérez-Valls. 2021. A conception of moral wayfinding for business managers: The obligation for a sustainable corporation. Journal of Cleaner Production 284: e124771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124771

Vamvacas, Constantine J. 2009. Heraclitus of Ephesus (ca. 540–480 BC). The Founders of Western Thought–The Presocratics: A diachronic parallelism between Presocratic Thought and Philosophy and the Natural Sciences . Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

van den Berg, Jennifer, Alex Alblas, Le Blanc, Pascal, and George Romme. 2022. How structural empowerment boosts organizational resilience: A case study in the Dutch home care industry. Organization Studies 43(9): 1425–1451. https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406211030659

Vassallo, Christian. 2023. Measuring the end: Heraclitus and diogenes of Babylon on the great year and Ekpyrosis . Apeiron 56(4): 643–671. https://doi.org/10.1515/apeiron-2022-0094

Vert, Matthieu, Alexei Sharpanskykh, and Richard Curran. 2021. Adaptive resilience of complex safety-critical sociotechnical systems: Toward a unified conceptual framework and its formalization. Sustainability 13(24): e13915. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132413915

Wang, Lubang, Lin, Shuping, Zhang, Mingliang, Ding, Jia, and Liqin Zhang. 2024. Technological innovation through complex networks: A study of 100 listed companies on China’s growth enterprise market. Journal of the Knowledge Economy , Published: 07 February 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-024-01798-z

Waples, Ethan P., and Whitney Botsford Morgan. 2022. Leveraging mega-threats to reduce prejudice: A model for multi-level changes. Management Decision 61(6): 1013–1037. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-07-2021-0871

Young, Charles M. 1988. Aristotle on temperance. The Philosophical Review 97(4): 521–542. https://doi.org/10.2307/2185414

Yuan, Ruizhi, Jun Luo, Martin J. Liu, and Jiang Yu. 2022. Understanding organizational resilience in a platform-based sharing business: The role of absorptive capacity. Journal of Business Research 141: 85–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.11.012

Zhang, Qingqiang, and Xinbo Sun. 2022. How incentive synergy and organizational structures shape innovation ambidexterity. Journal of Knowledge Management 27(1): 156–177. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-11-2021-0847

Zhao, Eric, Yanfei, and Mary Anne Glynn. 2022. Optimal distinctiveness: On being the same and different. Organization Theory 3(1): 26317877221079340. https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877221079340

Zwank, Julia, Marjo-Riitta Diehl, and Marion Fortin. 2022. Three paths to feeling just: How managers grapple with justice conundrums during organizational change. Journal of Business Ethics 186: 217–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05179-x

Download references

No funds, grants, or other support was received for conducting this study.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Management Science & Technology, Democritus University of Thrace, Agios Loukas, Kavala, 65404, Greece

Vasileios Georgiadis & Lazaros Sarigiannidis

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lazaros Sarigiannidis .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Georgiadis, V., Sarigiannidis, L. Organizational Resilience through the Philosophical Lens of Aristotelian and Heraclitean Philosophy. Philosophy of Management (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-024-00319-x

Download citation

Received : 22 April 2024

Accepted : 17 August 2024

Published : 04 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-024-00319-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Organizational resilience
• Multidisciplinarity
• Organizational development and change
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, indicators to assess organizational resilience – a review of empirical literature.

International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment

ISSN : 1759-5908

Article publication date: 31 May 2019

Issue publication date: 9 September 2019

This paper aims to explore the empirical literature on organizational resilience. The goal consists of identifying and understanding the indicators used to evaluate organizational resilience and instigating the development of indicators to assess resilience in other areas, such as project management and critical infrastructure.

Design/methodology/approach

A review of recent empirical studies is conducted to collect information on the indicators used to assess organizational resilience.

A range of interrelated indicators aiming to measure organizational resilience in two dimensions is shown in this literature review: awareness and adaptive capacity. Awareness is the ability of an organization to assess its environment and interpret the changes in its surroundings, both now and in the future, to be proactive and better manage possible disruptive events. On the other hand, adaptive capacity is the organization’s capacity to transform its structure, processes, culture, etc. for recovering once faced with a disruptive event. Awareness forms the main base of the organization’s adaptive capacity.

Originality/value

Organizational resilience contributes to the safe development of the built environment. This concept helps organizations to cope with disruptions. However, little research has been conducted on the indicators to assess organizational resilience, in different fields. Moreover, these indicators’ credibility is based on empirical studies.

• Organizational resilience
• Empirical studies
• Adaptive capacity

Rahi, K. (2018), "Indicators to assess organizational resilience – a review of empirical literature", International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment , Vol. 10 No. 2/3, pp. 85-98. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJDRBE-11-2018-0046

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2019, Emerald Publishing Limited

Related articles

All feedback is valuable.

Please share your general feedback

Report an issue or find answers to frequently asked questions

Contact Customer Support