Organizational Resilience: Adaptive and Responsive Strategies
Updated: Nov 8
Rachel Njuguna Ph.D.
Definition of Resilience
Organizational resilience involves the ability of an organization to withstand, adapt, and thrive in the face of adversity and change. There are multiple definitions of organizational resilience, which I will review here. For instance, Limphaibool et al. (2022) define organizational resilience “as the firm’s ability to recover from the negative consequences of change”.
Vogus and Sutcliffe (2007) describe organizational resilience as the features of firms that can handle challenging circumstances by being agile and recovering rapidly compared to other businesses. On the other hand, from a learning perspective, organizational resilience refers to “the ability to respond to challenges and adversity to grow and change from these experiences” (Kavoor-Misra, 2022 p. 2). Organizational resilience has been linked to adaptability (Folke et al., 2010; Walker et al., 2004), and other scholars expressed that adaptability differs from resilience (Limphaibool et al., 2022).
Others define resilience in the context of disaster risk reduction as “the ability of a system, community or society exposed to hazards to resist, absorb, accommodate and recover from the effects of a hazard in a timely and efficient manner, including through the preservation and restoration of its essential basic structures and functions” (www.100resilientcities.org/resilience) and UNISDR (2009 p.24). Another definition of organization resilience, in a literature review by Barasa et al. (2018), states that 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 used in the selected papers emphasized a system’s capacity to withstand shocks and adapt and transform. They added that 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” (10.15171/ijhpm.2018.06)
In definitions of resilience, the threat to which the system should be resilient is often not specified; the focus here should be on general system characteristics. However, operational definitions are needed when emergency Preparedness policies quantify, monitor, or address resilience (Biggs et al., 2012; De Bruijn, 2005; Shaw, 2012; Wardekker et al., 2010). In those cases, the system and the relevant disturbance should be specified – “resilience of what to what?” (Carpenter et al., 2001). In addition to enabling measuring resilience, those definitions also enable targeting measures to the specific threat and its consequences.
For example, if disruptions in power supply limit the resilience of cities such as Nairobi, the choice of measures to address this is specific for the kind of threat: for flooding hazards, raising power substations could increase resilience, whereas for wind hazards, putting cables underground or removing trees next to power lines could be helpful. Suppose definitions are not specific regarding the system and disturbance. In that case, the focus is usually on generic capabilities that enable societies to cope with damages in some elements or that facilitate recovery. According to the authors, in the example of power supply, this could increase network redundancy. When resilience is used to analyze human-environment systems, two other questions are essential: “Resilience to what ends?” that is, what is the purpose or desired outcome of resilience, and “Resilience for whom?” (Davoudi, 2012). Increasing resilience is expected to lead to a desirable outcome, but what is desirable in a social context is normative.
Similarly, decisions on who should be resilient can involve value judgments about priorities and trade-offs (Berkes & Ross, 2016). For instance, increasing urban flood resilience by measures that affect rural residents needs to be negotiated in a political process. Additionally, these measures must consider the individuals’ psychological safety and wellness. I believe that by focusing on these adaptive and responsive strategies, organizations can cultivate a resilient culture that not only withstands challenges but also leverages them as opportunities for growth and innovation.
Building Resilience
Developing adaptive and responsive strategies is crucial for building resilience. A literature review suggests that effective resilience must include strategies involving continuous learning and adaptation. Because resilience is built and tested over time, organizations must consider integrating ongoing learning into their capabilities, fostering knowledge acquisition, distribution, interpretation, and organizational memory. Organizational learning theories, such as single and double learning, suggest that learning is essential for resilience. These theories suggest that an existing framework must be adjusted occasionally to improve processes if disruptions occur (Douglas & Haley, 2024).
According to Emerald Insight, an integrated learning approach leads to dynamic capabilities essential for renewal and adaptation. This enables organizations to respond effectively to possible disruptions and provide innovations consistently. One only needs to recall the COVID-19 world crisis and its impact on organizations that failed or shut down due to adapt or lack of resiliency. The businesses folded without notice, and some needed to be more accountable to the public or individuals with stakes in them.
Discussions among organization leaders such as McKinsey and Company (2023) suggest that organizations that practice resilience are better positioned to absorb shocks, make dynamic decisions, and maintain efficiency. These organizations that practice resilience “tend to have more vital leadership, attract top talent, and excel in integrating new technologies and building partnerships. This not only helps them to bounce back from challenges but also to bounce forward with a competitive advantage.
References:
Barasa, E., Mbabu, R., & Gilson, L. (2018). What is resilience, and how can it be nurtured? A systematic review of the empirical literature on organizational resilience. International Journal of Health Policy 7, 491-503.
Dianne, B., Mohshin, H., & Terry L. (2023). Resilience, dynamism, and sustainable development: Adaptive organizational capability through learning in recurrent crises. Developments in Corporate Governance and Responsibility Corporate Resilience, 2023, p. 3-32 https://doi.org/10.1108/s2043-052320230000021001
Douglas, S. & Haley, G. (2024), "Connecting organizational learning strategies to organizational resilience", Development and Learning in Organizations, 38, 12-15. https://doi.org/10.1108/DLO-01-2023-0018
Emerald Insight: Connecting organizational learning strategies to organizational resilience - https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/DLO-01-2023-0018/full/html
Vogus, T. J. & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2007). Organizational resilience: Towards a theory and research agenda. 2007 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernertics, Montreal, 7-10 October 2007, 3418-3422. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSMC.2007.4414160.
McKinsey & Company 2023: Foster organizational resilience for a stronger 2023:
Shepherd, D. A., & Williams, T. A. (2023). Small Business Economics, (2023). Springer Different response paths to organizational resilience - Small Business Economics: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11187-022-00689-4. Publication date: 13 September 2023 (on-line)
Comments